HuskyCaucasian Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Support For Filbuster Elimination Growing Among Senate Dems Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the number two Democratic leader is getting behind a plan to end the filibuster as we know it, according to a new report from Greg Sargent. Sargent reports that Durbin is "throwing his weight behind" a plan to fundamentally alter filibuster rules proposed by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). The plan, unveiled yesterday, would create a series of votes that would mean filibusters could eventually be broken by a simple majority vote. Durbin's endorsement of the plan shows support for the change could be growing among Senate Democrats, though, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already said the changes Harkin and Shaheen have proposed would be impossible to implement. The growing dissatisfaction with the filibuster among Senate Democrats mirrors a similar feeling among the general public, according to a poll released yesterday showing a majority of Americans want the filibuster eliminated from Senate rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 It just makes no sense that the filibuster is the way it is... I mean, the Senate is already an unequal body and it was designed that way on purpose, so there don't need to be any additional checks. There really is no reason a majority vote in the Senate shouldn't be good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 In another great chapter in filibuster history, yesterday cloture for the jobs bill was secured with a vote of 62-30. Today they voted on the jobs bill. It passed 70-28. Six republican senators (2 were absent) acted to make sure the bill could not be voted on by their colleagues, but when it was brought up to vote, they found it to be such a good bill they would in fact vote for it. Cute, huh? It'd be like if we are deciding on dinner, and people mentioned chilis, and then someone said "well lets take a vote" I would be like "NO we can NOT vote on this!" but then when we do vote, i vote yes for chilis. It used to be the opposite, you'd vote to end debate because everyone had their say, but you'd vote against the bill because you didn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) It just makes no sense that the filibuster is the way it is... I mean, the Senate is already an unequal body and it was designed that way on purpose, so there don't need to be any additional checks. There really is no reason a majority vote in the Senate shouldn't be good enough. How is the Senate unequal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 really, tex? Does someone need to point it out to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 24, 2010 -> 07:35 PM) How is the Senate unequal? unequal representation. California= 37 million residents, 2 senators. Wyoming= 522 thousand residents, 2 senators. i think that was the point he was making. thus the difference between the house and senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 ^^ Made that way so large states couldn't overpower small states so that check is already there. The modern filibuster is just glorified partisan hackery, the minority party doesn't need any additional protections. 60 senators is a lot. A LOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts