Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

Supposn

Gold Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,747
373
130
Filibuster Vs. tyranny of the mob.

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

I am not opposed to this purpose but similar to most worthy concepts, it should not stand alone as an absolutely without limitation. 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 day by 1%.

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 rulers 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
 
It now requires 2/3 vote of the senate to halt a filibuster.


that used to be the case but was changed (1975) to three-fifths - 60 votes to stop a filibuster.

Reid did not have the votes to accomplish any more than he did - to bad.
 
That used to be the case but was changed (1975) to three-fifths - 60 votes to stop a filibuster.
Reid did not have the votes to accomplish any more than he did - to bad.

Breezewood, I don’t believe that.

I know that President Obama did not publicly request that the U.S. Congress return to the prior rules governing U.S. Senate filibusters; (i.e. senators must continue speaking in order to”hold the senate floor”).
I know that the U.S. Senate was never forced to publicly vote on any additional restriction of filibusters.

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

Respectfully, Supposn
 
The filibuster results in tyranny by the minority. The founders made it very clear they strongly supported the principle of simple majority ruling except in rare and special cases.
 

Forum List

Back
Top