• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

March

  »
S M T W T F S
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

Where legislation goes to die

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
#1
07-26-2010, 07:33 AM
Senior Member
Joined in Jul 2010
151 posts
angie123
0 AP
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/..._Die_8354.html


The Constitution allows each house of Congress set their Rules, and the Senate requires 60 votes to bring anything to a vote. “But just like laws Congress passes can be found unconstitutional,” said Marziani, “so can particular Senate Rules. Today’s filibuster does not promote debate – it merely blocks debate. That was not intended by the framers.”

In fact, Common Cause plans to file a lawsuit challenging the 60-vote requirement – on behalf of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) as a plaintiff. But no guarantee that succeeds.

When asked about filibuster reform, Reid said “I’ll drink to that” and held up a water bottle – but only said he’s “looking into” specific changes. Meanwhile, other Democrats in the Senate are pursuing concrete alternatives. Missouri’s Claire McCaskill wants to end “secret holds” – where Senators can anonymously say they intend to filibuster a bill. Michael Bennett of Colorado’s a proposal that would require Senators who filibuster to actually stay on the Senate floor and do so – or a lack of quorum kills the filibuster.

But changes to the Senate Rules can only pass by a two-thirds supermajority – unless they are introduced at the start of a new Congress. New Mexico Senator Tom Udall addressed the panel, and said he would propose a filibuster reform measure in January.

Of course, my obvious question was – why didn’t the Senate take up filibuster reform in January 2009? The Republicans had already planned to be total obstructionists, and in fact Democrats had complained about it in 2008 – when they were already shattering filibuster records.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
angie123
View Public Profile
Send a private message to angie123
Find all posts by angie123
#2
07-26-2010, 10:44 AM
Member
From NYC
Joined in Apr 2010
97 posts
VicTheWick
0 AP
Quote:
Of course, my obvious question was – why didn’t the Senate take up filibuster reform in January 2009? The Republicans had already planned to be total obstructionists, and in fact Democrats had complained about it in 2008 – when they were already shattering filibuster records.

My guess is Democrats wanted to show country how bad Republicans are before debating on filibuster reform. GOP filibustered or tried to filibuster most of legislation except war spending bill. Senate needs to debate with both parties and GOP is a party of NO without debate.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
VicTheWick
View Public Profile
Send a private message to VicTheWick
Find all posts by VicTheWick
#3
07-26-2010, 10:58 AM
Senior Member
From Minnesota
Joined in Nov 2009
6,007 posts
Demise's Avatar
Demise
0 AP
i would love them (supreme court and sen. harkin) forever and ever if they would end this whole filibuster bullshit, it would be the most beautiful cunt punt in history of man (however i have this feeling that it will bite us on the ass one day)
Last edited by Demise; 07-26-2010 at 12:15 PM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Demise
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Demise
Find all posts by Demise


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.