Being blocked by 54 filibusters aimed mostly against conservative judicial appointments by George W. Bush, in 2005 Republican majority leaders made a pitch to abolish the filibuster.www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/05/10/filibuster_ban_gets_white_house_nudge/
Should a strong Democratic majority -- 58, assuming the still contested Minnesota and Georgia seats don't turn blue -- attempt to do the same?
Like Rodney Dangerfield, this Congress doesn't get much respect. Americans rate it slightly above sludge, but below George Bush, the least admired president in the history of polling.
Who gets the blame for the so-called "Do Nothing Congress?"
Well, as the chart from Secretary of the Senate, shows from January 4, 2007 through November 25, 2008, 138 cloture motions have been filed. That's 34 more than the record-setting chart at the right shows.
Majority rule has essentially been repealed by the F-word Congress. Without the super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters, the accomplishments of the 110th Congress were limited (GI-Bill, Children's Health Care and minimum wage as riders as notable exceptions to Progressives; continued stimulus packages to all Americans a victory in the conservative column). The 'Do Nothingness' was reinforced by over 131 veto threats by President Bush (who never issued a veto when Republican majority Congresses ran up record deficits on Capitol Hill).
So the question for the new 111th Congress coming in January, should it move to remove the filibuster? Or is the procedure a needed part of the Cup and Saucer dance that is currently like a slow Washington waltz?
Here is a look at how that 111th Congress breaks down, statistically.
www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/pdfs/NM-guide-statistics.pdf
7 comments:
The filibuster is like a teacher you have to have for an entire year. You can't get rid of him (or her) so you have to work around him. Maybe if the pols in the senate work towards concensuses and get some things done. If the majority party realizes that their bill will just be filibustered, i would hope that they would work with the minority party to get a piece of legislature that will help the most number of people. That is the type of change our legislature needs, in my opinion. Yes this means the dems won't get their wacky liberal plans through completely how they want it. It also means my beloved republicans will have to give the same consessions to the dems when they get back the majority. Thats my piece. Peace. Matt
Clearly throughout history the filibuster has served as a check on various actions trying to be pushed by our government, and I believe without this check we are completely taking away a key power in the Senate created by our Founding Fathers. The filibuster needs to be upheld because it is a key way of means for the minority to prevent the majority from doing whatever it wants. The filibuster gives the minority a part in the discussion and puts a check on the majority. The filibuster needs to be kept because even though the idea of the majority learning to work with the minority not just ruling over them is positive, it will not be upheld most of the time. As Paul Woodruff, a political writer, explains, "Mob rule is plainly a kind of tyranny; it frightens and excludes and puts the minority under the absolute power of the majority." The filibuster is a key power in the Senate and without it there is not and equal seperation of power.
A filibuster -- while maybe needed -- is not a power of the Senate. It is a power of the political party that is in the minority of the Senate. Seperation of powers should not include an institution working against itself as the 109th and 110th Congress have seemed apt to do.
The framers probably invisioned a deliberate, cup and saucer, lawmaking body. But I doubt they had the blocking and blame game that has been played on Capitol Hill for the last several years.
It's true that the frequency of filibusters has escalated to a level where it directly interferes with Congress' ability to make decisions and get stuff done, but I think the filibuster is an important check on the majority party that should be there when the minority deems it absolutely vital. From the extensive use of filibusters that we've seen lately it seems to me like the Democratic party is just catfighting and unwilling to yield to its position as the minority party. Congress was created with built-in party divide with the intention that the majority party hold the majority of the say, and I think Congress simply needs to resume the mindset that the minority party ought to know when to concede. The filibuster shouldn't be abolished; it should just be used much more sparingly and less stupidly.
Rhireeagigh RhireeagighJB
Nike Brian Urlacher Jersey
Demaryius Thomas Jersey
Aldon Smith Jersey
get GbLDgnEc [URL=http://www.cheapdesigner--handbags.weebly.com/]replica handbags[/URL] and get big save gYwkLAKc [URL=http://www.cheapdesigner--handbags.weebly.com/ ] http://www.cheapdesigner--handbags.weebly.com/ [/URL]
Wonԁerful рost however Ι was wοndeгing іf
you could write a litte more on this ѕubject?
ӏ'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Kudos!
my webpage - HomeSite ()
Post a Comment