Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It will eventually come back to haunt them, I assure you. Even many conservative Americans won't settle for far-right instead of center-right.

We're already starting to see some of it, what with all the recent gaffes concerning rape and abortion.

[mainiac]

Except the Republican's haven't been bickering lately. They've been marching in lockstep. It's actually pretty impressive. Driving out many of the moderates has certainly helped them.

If they've been marching in such lockstep then why have they struggled to get legislation out of committees, let alone get it voted on in the house and sent to the Senate?  They look like lockstep because they are all uniformly ideological but that doesn't mean they are remotely good at working together.  I'd say that far from being lockstep, they're actually the most poorly organized house majority in decades.  Besides the repeal of Obamacare, can you name a single major legislative proposal that originated in the House and not the Senate or White House in the past two years?

[Leafsnail]

They don't have the numbers to propose their own measures but they do have the party unity required to block almost every democratic measure.

[mainiac]

They don't have the numbers to propose their own measures

[GlyphGryph]

Or more specifically - they are lockstep on one issue, and one issue alone. Seeing Obama doesn't get re-elected and fails to accomplish anything.

Everything beyond that... well... you're certainly right there. They may not be able to agree on what they want, but they don't seem to have any disagreement on what they need to do (or, at the very least, the disagreement doesn't seem to be changing their votes)

That sounds a lot like you've got a variety of Republicans with differing ideals and the high party discipline to do what the party says when they demand it.

[Leafsnail]

The numbers required to block measures in the Senate is lower than the number required to actually get them passed, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes. Even one rogue Senator can instigate a filibusterer, which can only be overridden if three-fifths of Senators in attendance vote to cloture it. This usually requires 60 Senators, as it is unlikely for any of them to ever willingly not attend during legislative sessions. Filibusters have no time limit and can completely kill a proposal they are not clotured.

[Nadaka]

The problem with the filibuster is that they decided it was damn inconvenient to have to stand around all day and talk. So they changed the rules to allow a procedural filibuster without the effort.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

One might claim that such a thing is bad because it allows filibusterers to be conducted without difficulty and stalls legislation through stubbornness, but the real reason it is bad is because it means there are no more incidents of epic floor-holding anymore.

Strom Thurmond was a racist bastard, but you have to admit that talking for 24 hours straight on the floor to oppose the Civil Rights Act was an impressive feat.

[sluissa]

I blame Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That movie, which seems to have been played in all middle/high school civics/government classrooms for the past 50 years, makes the filibuster seem heroic.

[GlyphGryph]

Of course, that movie is also about a very different sort of filibuster, as has been mentioned.

[Descan]

I thought filibuster was a loophole in the system that got exploited.

I didn't think it was something that was considered GOOD and PROPER and was ENCOURAGED. x-x

[PTTG??]

I think the democrats should throw the election. Consider; the next four years are going to see more stagnant economy, increasing gas prices, and the us leaving the middle east in humiliating defeat. In the very near future, the automatic cuts are going to go into effect which will collapse support for the president amongst the military.

All this put together, the only upside to being president for the next four years is that the secret service makes really good coffee.

Oh, there's concerns that Romney is going to mandate oil drilling at gay marriages or invade abortion clinics with death squads or something, but frankly he doesn't have the power. As soon as they're on the defensive, the democrats will block all republican actions indefinitely, as is ancient custom.

Then, when the four years are up, Obama can be the first black president to serve non-consecutive terms, or maybe Oprah will run.

[lemon10]

No, the filibuster was put there on purpose so that it would be fairly easy to block controversial legislation if you didn't have large enough support for it.

That said, the type of filibuster they have now where they don't even bother to actually filibuster is complete BS.

[GlyphGryph]

The filibuster was originally a delaying tactic. It could buy you time and apply pressure - nothing more. It gave individual legislators the opportunity to prevent rushing terrible bills through the legal system. It gave them a chance to build public support, to draw things out into the open, to make people actually stop and think, hopefully, or at the very least to give someone a chance to change minds.

But it had a built in limit - a person's willpower. They could slow something, thy could make it more difficult, but they could not stop it.

This "new" filibuster is nothing like that. It's a solid, impossible to overcome clampdown.