Premium Blogad
RSS / XML
Subscribe to our feeds!
Always know what we're chatting about.
Credentialed State Blog for the
Democratic National Convention
Subscribe to our feeds!
Always know what we're chatting about.
Credentialed State Blog for the
Democratic National Convention
Some new writing
In progress.
Plus don't forget to click the Blue@Night graphic
to see some human animals. If the earth were a zoo and we were in captivity, the zookeepers will quarantine or exterminate us.
Sign this petition: Change filibuster number to 55
I signed. You should, too.
Don't change the rules
The rules should not be changed to suit the majority when they will one day regret that change as the minority.
Rules are changed all the time
including the number of votes required for filibuster. It used to be 67, now it's 60. Why shouldn't it be 55?
I personally would rather see the whole dumb business go away. Democrats don't have the spine or cohesion to filibuster, which means it's a purely Republican tool anyway.
Filibuster
The filibuster, although not written into the Constitution, is an important check to majority power. That
is an indictment of Democrats, not the filibuster, IMO.
I believe that 60 is the minimum it should be because 55 makes it too easy for a small majority to control the proceedings without any input from the minority. The prospect of either party given unlimited reign is pretty scary to me.
I see
You prefer the gridlock approach to government!
:)
Not universally
To be honest, a little gridlock from 2000 to 2006 wouldn't have been so bad, now would it? ☺
And it might have been possible
if we had the filibuster number at 55. Or maybe not. Dems were so scared of being seen as soft on terrorists that they gave a way their moral integrity. That was the beginning of my long walk toward re-registering as an unaffiliated voter.
55 would make a filibuster harder
If cloture had required only 55 votes, a filibuster would be harder to maintain than when it requires 60. I just think that a 5 seat advantage is not enough to allow one party the ability to set the course of the Senate. Of course, I think 17th Amendment was a really bad idea, so my views on the Senate are probably not the norm.
If we had more than two parties, I would agree with you, but since we are (and will likely continue to be) a two party system, a strong threshold for cloture is a good protection for the minority party in my eyes.
55? Let us not forget what it might mean
If/when the republicans become in control of the Senate, we might regret having 55 being the number. "What comes around, goes around".
___________________________________________________
“Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly
and for the same reason.” Mark Twain
Richard Burr says...
There's no time like the present for great new candidates to run for public office: