Harry Reid’s filibuster rage

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more at http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/harry_reid%E2%80%99s_filibuster_rage/singleton/

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think that Harry's going to be all over the filibuster if and when the GOP takes the Senate back.

But yes, it'll probably be lessened in the future.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are too pathetic to use it. It's time to go nuclear, not much to lose.

[Franzl]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Republicans reneged on their agreement?
Next thing you know we'll learn that Lindsay Graham lives in a closet.

[Vosem]

Well, we don't want 50 votes + VP to be able to pass radical changes. But a 60% supermajority requirement is also insane. I've long called for lessening the cloture requirement to 55 (in the 1970s, it was lessened to 60 from its previous total of 67 -- imagine how crazy that would be today).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, we don't want 50 votes + VP to be able to pass radical changes. But a 60% supermajority requirement is also insane. I've long called for lessening the cloture requirement to 55 (in the 1970s, it was lessened to 60 from its previous total of 67 -- imagine how crazy that would be today).

The three class system and long terms are supposed to make the Senate less influenced by the political whims of the day, and to some extent that is the case. I would like to see an increase in the size of the Senate to 150 by having each state elect a Senator each election so as to smooth out the changes, but I don't see the need for additional supermajority requirements beyond those in the constitution.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

I don't think a backlash would occur. In fact, if someone is so willing to hold the floor for days on end, they may be seen as a hero. Of course, it depends on whats being filibustered.

[memphis]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

Not technically a filibuster, but last year Bernie Sanders gave an 8 and a half hour speech protesting the extention of the Bush tax cuts.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't think a backlash would occur. In fact, if someone is so willing to hold the floor for days on end, they may be seen as a hero. Of course, it depends on whats being filibustered.

Once, yes.  But Reid has had to file 84 cloture petitions; after a few true filibusters, on issues of little importance, the public would get angry; quite angry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

Not really. You can have a group of 41 senators who represent more people than the other 59.   But the point of the US Senate isn't majoritarian democracy. It's constituent representation, which requires allowing some influence to the minority.

[Franzl]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

Not really. You can have a group of 41 senators who represent more people than the other 59.   But the point of the US Senate isn't majoritarian democracy. It's constituent representation, which requires allowing some influence to the minority.

I don't particularly care what the point of the U.S. Senate is. Doesn't make it any better.

[morgieb]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

Yes, it is.

And wouldn't that favour Republicans rather than Democrats.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

Yes, it is.

And wouldn't that favour Republicans rather than Democrats.

Note I was not speaking of a political party.