Comments on: Loretta Sanchez: Don’t touch the filibuster

By: tmaddison

tmaddison — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:02:49 +0000

Please point out what the filibuster has to do with the Founders.

I agree with you – they did design a good system, that’s why it didn’t include the filibuster.

And, your comment that “for now” you agree with Sanchez is exactly what the problem is.

We agree with things that make no sense from an objective viewpoint IF they agree with our political aims at the moment – without any consideration for whether they make sense in the big picture of things.

Your “for now” is exactly that. You’ll be saying the exact opposite when Republicans use the filibuster against the Democrats, at which point the filibuster will be a travesty and something that needs to be changed right away…

If only people like yourself could recognize when something is wrong even if it does happen to benefit your party this minute – the US would be a better place.

By: InYerFace

InYerFace — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:55:19 +0000

The filibuster (FB) should stand. As I recall it was not that long ago that Sen Reid, a little horrid cocky man (who is most likely clinically insane or maybe he just likes pretending like he is) tinkered with the FB. I forget the details, but I’ll Google them shortly and refresh my memory. For now I agree with Sanchez, and agreeing with anyone left-of-centre is rare for me. Really rare. The Founders were smarter by an order of magnitude than any pol alive with few exceptions, and generally that’s why I agree with Sanchez. If our present pols tinker with the FB any more it will be to the detriment of the citizenry and that’s who I care about – NOT our routinely vapid pols.

By: tmaddison

tmaddison — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:57:37 +0000

Loretta Sanchez is a prime example of what’s wrong with our Congress – the unwillingness to actually “get something done”, particularly if there’s any risk at all that it might negatively affect their party (regardless of how it works for the American People.)

What they’re calling the “standing filibuster” here – which was, for decades, just called “the filibuster” – makes sense. If someone feels so strongly about something they’re willing to invest real time into their opposition, they should have a way to do that.

HOWEVER, the idea that someone can just say “I’m thinking I’d like to filibuster” and block legislation without actually DOING anything is absolutely wrong.

Our system is designed (written into the Constitution) that in most cases 50%+1 is all that is needed to pass legislation.

Certainly a President can veto, and it then takes 60 to override – but that’s THE WAY IT WORKS.

This Wimpy Filibuster rule is simply that – a rule. It can be changed by Congress with a simple majority rule.

Any time a Democrat says “we can’t pass legislation that we feel is important because the Republicans will filibuster it”, remind them that the ONLY reason they can’t pass that legislation is because – during the many times they’ve had majorities in the last few decades – they have deliberately NOT changed the filibuster rule.

That is THE ONLY REASON THEY “can’t govern” – not because “those nasty Republicans block everything…”

Because having this rule in place gives THEM the ability to block anything when they’re in that position, and also gives them “cover” for everything else.

“We couldn’t pass that because we couldn’t get 60 votes” works really well with the Great Uniformed who do not understand what that really means is “we couldn’t pass that because we consider it more important to cover our rears than to actually govern this country….”