Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

[Supposn]

Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob. </SPAN>

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.</SPAN>

I am not opposed to this purpose but similar to most worthy concepts, it should not stand alone as an unlimited absolute. The right to halt the government from acting should not be extended for eternity. It should not bed evoked by senators that are ashamed to publicly declare it is being enacted in their own names. It should require those senators to publicly hold the “floor” and physically speak and continuously make their case. An anonymous senator should not be able to block the passage of a law or anyone’s appointment. </SPAN>

It now requires 2/3 vote of the senate to halt a filibuster. It has been suggested that after 7 days, that that 67% qualification should be reduced each week by 2%.</SPAN>

The Democratic Party refrained from debating the federal budget and taxes on to the floors of both houses prior to the 2010 elections. Democrats’ behavior was cowardly and politically foolish. I changed my registration from Democrat to the Green Party but I really do not share their priorities.</SPAN>

For a half century I voted for Democrats in every general election and failed to vote in very few primary elections. Voting for the Green Party’s candidate was the only opportunity to express my complete opposition to Republicans and dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party.</SPAN>

The U.S. Senate cannot change their rules until January, 2015; Harry Reid blew it. If I’m then still alive in 2015, I will then consider re-registering and voting for Democrats.</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[Little-Acorn]

It now requires 2/3 vote of the senate to halt a filibuster.
Sixty percent, actually.


It has been suggested that after 7 days, that that 67% qualification should be reduced each week by 2%.
I think it should be left as it is (60%)... and that the person(s) filibustering, should be required to actually stand up and talk the whole time (a "noisy filibuster), as it was until I believe 1975. And that a filibuster bring ALL Senate activity to a halt, until cloture is invoked.

[aboutime]

Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.

I am not opposed to this purpose but similar to most worthy concepts, it should not stand alone as an unlimited absolute. The right to halt the government from acting should not be extended for eternity. It should not bed evoked by senators that are ashamed to publicly declare it is being enacted in their own names. It should require those senators to publicly hold the “floor” and physically speak and continuously make their case. An anonymous senator should not be able to block the passage of a law or anyone’s appointment.

It now requires 2/3 vote of the senate to halt a filibuster. It has been suggested that after 7 days, that that 67% qualification should be reduced each week by 2%.

The Democratic Party refrained from debating the federal budget and taxes on to the floors of both houses prior to the 2010 elections. Democrats’ behavior was cowardly and politically foolish. I changed my registration from Democrat to the Green Party but I really do not share their priorities.

For a half century I voted for Democrats in every general election and failed to vote in very few primary elections. Voting for the Green Party’s candidate was the only opportunity to express my complete opposition to Republicans and dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party.

The U.S. Senate cannot change their rules until January, 2015; Harry Reid blew it. If I’m then still alive in 2015, I will then consider re-registering and voting for Democrats.

Respectfully, Supposn



You are wrong on that 2/3 quote.

Look up the words "NUCLEAR OPTION".

[fj1200]

Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

The purpose of retaining U.S. Senators’ right to filibuster is to defend the rights of minority parties against mob tyranny.

I am not opposed to this purpose but similar to most worthy concepts, it should not stand alone as an unlimited absolute. The right to halt the government from acting should not be extended for eternity.

Sure it should, but seeing as how the Senate no longer serves its constitutional purpose, where the States provide a check on the people, I guess we should just chuck the whole thing huh? Why not just make it unicameral?

[Supposn]

............I think it should be left as it is (60%)... and that the person(s) filibustering, should be required to actually stand up and talk the whole time (a "noisy filibuster), as it was until I believe 1975. And that a filibuster bring ALL Senate activity to a halt, until cloture is invoked.




............and that the person(s) filibustering, should be required to actually stand up and talk the whole time (a "noisy filibuster), as it was until I believe 1975. And that a filibuster bring ALL Senate activity to a halt, until cloture is invoked.

We are in complete agreement upon this point. I hold Harry Reid and the Democratic Party responsible for not attempting to pass this remedy. Until 2015 I will continue to refrain from voting for Democrats</SPAN>

Respectfully, Supposn</SPAN>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Until 2015 I will continue to refrain from voting for Democrats

Respectfully, Supposn


Why that date???

[fj1200]

Why that date???

The start of the next new Congress likely.