Harry Reid says he's going to go nuclear and remove the 60 votes majority. How many times has he said that - 50, 60 - who cares at this point. He's NOT gonna do it. Is he just keeping his spine in a closet somewhere - only to take it out and screw the American people with it? I'd say that's far more likely than going nuclear.
Politicians are freaking liars - THAT'S the thing that pisses me off the most. They have an important job to do - serve the American people - and they repeatedly screw that up.
I understand the point of the filibuster but I wouldn't mind some modifications (perhaps an amendment would be needed for this) to it. Maybe lower the bar to 55 and actually make them filibuster (a la Jimmy Stewart and Rand Paul).
Why not have a simple majority? After all when you are the majority in a Democratic Republic, you rule. This is a simple procedural rule that is made up - there's nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, although I do agree that you should have to stand there on the floor and do it. No more sneaky "silent" filibuster - that's just bullshit.
I guess that the Senate was supposed to be the "cooling" part of the legislative process and the filibuster was a part of that, but 60 is just way too high and it obviously leads to inertia and gridlock. I just happened to throw 55 out there as a form of compromise. I could have just as easily said 54 or 56.
5 comments:
Harry Reid says he's going to go nuclear and remove the 60 votes majority. How many times has he said that - 50, 60 - who cares at this point. He's NOT gonna do it. Is he just keeping his spine in a closet somewhere - only to take it out and screw the American people with it? I'd say that's far more likely than going nuclear.
Politicians are freaking liars - THAT'S the thing that pisses me off the most. They have an important job to do - serve the American people - and they repeatedly screw that up.
I understand the point of the filibuster but I wouldn't mind some modifications (perhaps an amendment would be needed for this) to it. Maybe lower the bar to 55 and actually make them filibuster (a la Jimmy Stewart and Rand Paul).
Why not have a simple majority? After all when you are the majority in a Democratic Republic, you rule. This is a simple procedural rule that is made up - there's nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, although I do agree that you should have to stand there on the floor and do it. No more sneaky "silent" filibuster - that's just bullshit.
I guess that the Senate was supposed to be the "cooling" part of the legislative process and the filibuster was a part of that, but 60 is just way too high and it obviously leads to inertia and gridlock. I just happened to throw 55 out there as a form of compromise. I could have just as easily said 54 or 56.
The filibuster isn't in the Constitution. I do wish it had been able to stop Obamacare, however.
Post a Comment