Now that the flibuster rule will prove very inconvenient for the Democrats if tomorrow’s election doesn’t go their way, Barney Frank – Elmer Fudd’s hard-left twin – offers his solution:
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
Quick! change the rules before they fall out of our favor.
Like playing a game with a child.
This is a good sign: it means the dumbass democrats are running scared. Now if only the dumbass republicans would follow suit.
I don’t think there is one positive comment out of the 250+ I just read on that link. Astounding.
V
The filibuster is stupid. It’s stupid when the Dems are in Charge, it’s stupid when the Republicans are in charge. It’s gotten really stupid now that it’s used every time the minority party knows it will loose a vote.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The filibuster is stupid. It’s stupid when the Dems are in Charge, it’s stupid when the Republicans are in charge. It’s gotten really stupid now that it’s used every time the minority party knows it will loose a vote.[/quote]
I find it hilarious.
Now that a lot of the original checks on power are gone why not use technicalities like this?
In the end it serves the exact same purpose.
It OUGHT to be hard to pass new legislation, as there are already, so to speak, tens of thousands of metric tons of legislation.
Simply having 50 votes in the Senate plus the Vice President, or 51 without the Vice President, shouldn’t be all that is needed to impose change that the public does not want.
E.g., for months every study has found the majority of Americans opposed to the Democrat health care bills. Why make what would probably be permanent change to the country without having at least 60 Senate votes?
That’s hardly onerous.
Actually I think it would be better if it were back to needing 67 votes, at least for any legislation adding burden to the American people.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It OUGHT to be hard to pass new legislation, as there are already, so to speak, tens of thousands of metric tons of legislation.
Simply having 50 votes in the Senate plus the Vice President, or 51 without the Vice President, shouldn’t be all that is needed to impose change that the public does not want.
E.g., for months every study has found the majority of Americans opposed to the Democrat health care bills. Why make what would probably be permanent change to the country without having at least 60 Senate votes?
That’s hardly onerous.
Actually I think it would be better if it were back to needing 67 votes, at least for any legislation adding burden to the American people.[/quote]
I have no idea where I g0t this from but there is the idea of making it very hard to pass new laws, a 70% majority or so and comparatively easy to abolish old laws.
That way it would be easy to block new laws and get rid of stupid old ones.
I agree completely with that idea. I’d extend it to also leaving it easy to pass new laws whose ONLY effect was to reduce regulation or taxes (not necessarily abolishing an old law, but changing it to be less onerous.)
Why anybody gives this blithering idiot the time of day is amazing to me…He should shoot himself in the mouth.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The filibuster is stupid. It’s stupid when the Dems are in Charge, it’s stupid when the Republicans are in charge. It’s gotten really stupid now that it’s used every time the minority party knows it will loose a vote.[/quote]
I find it hilarious.
Now that a lot of the original checks on power are gone why not use technicalities like this?
In the end it serves the exact same purpose.
[/quote]
What was your understanding of the “original checks on power”?
I always figured it was the three, separate, but equal branches of government. We still have those, right?
What are you referring to? And what does causing gridlock have to do with limiting the power of government?
I’m all about a small and efficient government. Putting a wrench into the engine because the car is driving the wrong way still leaves you with a broken car when it’s your turn to drive: nothing happens, nothing gets fixed.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The filibuster is stupid. It’s stupid when the Dems are in Charge, it’s stupid when the Republicans are in charge. It’s gotten really stupid now that it’s used every time the minority party knows it will loose a vote.[/quote]
I find it hilarious.
Now that a lot of the original checks on power are gone why not use technicalities like this?
In the end it serves the exact same purpose.
[/quote]
What was your understanding of the “original checks on power”?
I always figured it was the three, separate, but equal branches of government. We still have those, right?
What are you referring to? And what does causing gridlock have to do with limiting the power of government?
I’m all about a small and efficient government. Putting a wrench into the engine because the car is driving the wrong way still leaves you with a broken car when it’s your turn to drive: nothing happens, nothing gets fixed.[/quote]
The wrench is there on purpose.
The US government was never supposed to be efficient.
Therefore there are lots of checks and balances and lots of ways to sabotage laws like state and jury nullification, secession, the separation of powers, power of the purse, few powers for the federal government and so on.
The whole idea was to make law making hard so that there would be a government that governs best by governing least to paraphrase Jefferson a bit.
There should have been only a few laws and people should have thought about them long and hard with a big majority to base them on before they got passed.
Not ram them through in the middle of the night with a slight majority of represantatives even if a majority of the people is against it.
Filibuster makes law passing harder, so yay filibuster and God save us from “efficient” governments.
They tend to inspire goosestepping and that is worse than folk dancing.
Cereally.
I always feel so embarrassed to see MA next to Barney Frank’s name…let’s hope we can redeem this bluest of blue states tonight, and send Brown to even out the whole tyrannical state of the Senate.
[quote]pat wrote:
Why anybody gives this blithering idiot the time of day is amazing to me…He should shoot himself in the mouth.[/quote]
I agree. How does ANYONE vote for him? He’s personally repugnant. And then he had a homosexual prostitute working out of his home! In the old days, when most Americans had values, he would have been run out of town. He’d be doing his gay shit behind a dumpster and working in a convenience store, not a Congressman.