Senate tied in knots by filibusters

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 23, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    mcclatchy

    [​IMG]

    funny, i haven't heard the MSM use the term "obstructionist" since the GOP was in power. i'm sure it's just a coincidence.
     
  2. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #2
    You know things are bad when even Trent Lott can't defend these practices.
     
  3. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #3
    The rules of the senate are there for a reason. I do not think the democrats were wrong to fillibuster judicial candidates and I do not think the republicans are wrong to fillibuster legislation they do not agree with. Just because a party has a majority does not mean that they will be able to do whatever they want when it comes to legislation. To me a 51-49 majority requires a whole lot of compromise and working together in order to get anything done. The majority party (especially with just a 2 seat upper hand) is not going to be able to shove legislation down the other party's throat.

    The term obstructionist refers to someone who uses the laws of the senate to stand up for what they believe. Every senator should be an obstructionist. If they do no agree with certain legislation they should do what they can to stop it from passing into law.
     
  4. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #4
    Very well put. The dynamics of Congress have to change, and I hope that the next president, be they Democrat or Republican, will be able to bring real compromise to the Congress that will enable legislation that the majority of the country (not just a sliver or far-right or far-left people) can appreciate.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    I wouldn't even use the term if it hadn't been used as a slur by those formerly in charge. They are in their right to do so, but it is not at the behest of most of their constituents on some of these things, and they shouldn't have so loudly complained when the shoe was on the other foot. Let them dig their own graves though, the whole lot of them.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    Gee willikers, why wouldn't you use obstructionist tactics? Civil rights? Voting rights? Prescription drugs? Labor rights? Ending the war? What horrible ideas!

    And whose party's fault is that, I wonder??
     
  7. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #7
    I agree. I remember listening to the republicans complain because the democrats were threatening to use a fillibuster against judicial nominations and they were actually planning to change the rules so the senate minority didn't have that power any more. They were extremely shortsighted. But just because they were wrong a few years back doesn't mean that it is bad to fillibuster something that you do not believe in.

    I want my senators to believe in something and have the backbone to stand up and defend what they believe in. When you do that, you will be right sometimes and wrong other times. But at least the public will know where you stand and if they don't like what you believe in they can elect someone else. Too many senators only believe in one thing... them being a senator.

    As for the senate spiraling into the ground... it is not because of the right to fillibuster or the obstructionist ways of some senators. It is because of the unwillingness of both parties to compromise and engage in actual discussion. The majority does not have the right to simply force its beliefs on the minority (unless the majority is large enough) and bipartisonship is essential for productivity.
     

Share This Page