Harry Reid Changing Filibuster Rules?

Doesn't he realize this could backfire on the Dems if the Republicans take back the Senate? Or maybe he believes that the GOP will never be able to do this again?

or maybe he thinks it's the right thing to do......for both sides

Great point, archer.

It IS the right thing to do...FOR BOTH SIDES...

The days of the minority-party bringing the entire legislative process to a halt through "games" is over...

LadyJazzer wrote: It IS the right thing to do...FOR BOTH SIDES...

The days of the minority-party bringing the entire legislative process to a halt through "games" is over...

I disagree. The majority is not always 'right', and needs to be checked occasionally by the minority.

I said the same when the republicans were the majority. It's a necessary balance.

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It IS the right thing to do...FOR BOTH SIDES...

The days of the minority-party bringing the entire legislative process to a halt through "games" is over...

I disagree. The majority is not always 'right', and needs to be checked occasionally by the minority.

I said the same when the republicans were the majority. It's a necessary balance.

The key word is "occasionally". When it is done as a matter of course for political purposes, then it is being abused and should be curbed. What Reid is proposing is not to stop all filibusters, just those that are preventing legislation from even being introduced and debated which is what is currently happening. Further, the signature filibusters should be eliminated, meaning that if a senator desires to filibuster legislation , that senator would actually have to stand up and voice their filibuster.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: It IS the right thing to do...FOR BOTH SIDES...

The days of the minority-party bringing the entire legislative process to a halt through "games" is over...

I disagree. The majority is not always 'right', and needs to be checked occasionally by the minority.

I said the same when the republicans were the majority. It's a necessary balance.

The key word is "occasionally". When it is done as a matter of course for political purposes, then it is being abused and should be curbed. What Reid is proposing is not to stop all filibusters, just those that are preventing legislation from even being introduced and debated which is what is currently happening. Further, the signature filibusters should be eliminated, meaning that if a senator desires to filibuster legislation , that senator would actually have to stand up and voice their filibuster.

Isn't Reid the one stopping bills from House from getting a vote in the senate?

I think fillibusters should be old style... They have to talk.

I would say nothing really changed after the election. We are still divided and both sides are still trying to find methods to push themselves further apart.

Who honestly believes that that Executive and Legislative Branches that are this divided on the simple things could possibly find common ground on something as contentious and complex as the Nation's debt?

We are heading for the cliff and the brakes have failed. Oh, and at a time when the Nation needs his leadership most...our President is doing an Asian victory lap.

We are toast folks. :faint:

lionshead2010 wrote: We are toast folks. :faint:

If they drive the country off the cliff, we always have the parachute in trunk....

The 2nd amendment.

And while both sides have abused the filibuster rules, I like the idea of getting 60 votes before a bill can passed. More than a simple majority should be needed before major additions to the tax system or laws passed. Luckily with a divided Congress, this won't happen.