Mon Mar 2, 2015, 02:58 AM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
House GOP Leader Endorses 'Nuclear Option' In Senate (VIDEO)House GOP Leader Endorses 'Nuclear Option' In Senate (VIDEO) I am not surprised, though some may welcome it, this is actually very dangerous to our Democracy. The founding fathers feared the tyranny of majority, where 50% + one voter could run roughshod over minorities. The filibuster rules when they worked as conceived, were a check on a runaway majority. If Republicans do this then a majority can pass whatever they want, and only a president willing to wield the veto pen can hold them at bay. If we extend these rules past 2016, which I expect, and they hold the Senate, then the minority party will have no power except to complain. Should we lose the White House then there will be no check on the majority at all.
|
5 replies, 990 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Agnosticsherbet | Mar 2015 | OP |
world wide wally | Mar 2015 | #1 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Mar 2015 | #2 | |
bemildred | Mar 2015 | #3 | |
Chathamization | Mar 2015 | #4 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Mar 2015 | #5 |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 03:45 AM
world wide wally (20,936 posts)
1. Gee Harry…. Who would ever have guessed?
Response to world wide wally (Reply #1)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 03:49 AM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
2. I think Harry made the right decision, and Republicans will likely make the wrong decision.
With the Republicans defending 20 seats to the Democrats 10 in 2016, hopefully we will retake the Senate and it can serve as a barrier between the White House and the Republican Congress.
|
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 06:51 AM
bemildred (90,061 posts)
3. I hope they do. That should finish them off in US politics for good.
And remove one of the many fig leafs the Congress has installed for its waste, inaction, and folly.
|
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Original post)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 09:38 AM
Chathamization (1,638 posts)
4. Good. We'd be much better off without the filibuster. And my understanding is that the "virtual
filibuster" (where a politician doesn't even have to talk) is something that's only ~40 years old.
|
Response to Chathamization (Reply #4)
Mon Mar 2, 2015, 12:17 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
5. The filibuster rules have changed overtime.
I am of the opinion that reducing both the Senate and the House to passage by simple majority for most bills is a good thing.
|