filibuster (sp?)

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 16, 2005, 4:15 pm

someone please explain the whole filibuster thing. all i know is it says in the constitution that congress has the right to discuss the nominee's but beyond that it seems rediculaous to me that this can be allowed to happen. i'm not that up on the topic however and could use some schooling on it.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » February 17, 2005, 4:09 am

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... filibuster

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 17, 2005, 4:15 am

i know what it means. but specifically, what the hell are they doing to delay bush's MIB nimonee's? there are enough of a majority of the republicans to get these guys approved. so i'm confused, where do the dem's get off being able to hold up the process?

Rivera Bladestrike · February 17, 2005, 4:32 am

They're basically delaying the voting as long as possible until they give up. THe republicans don't have enough of the majority to break the filibuster, but they do have enough to get the guys they want in. Its the only defense the democrats have to keep some of these guys out. Basically, the defense is annoying the republicans into submission, where they'll get another candidate that won't result in a buster.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 17, 2005, 4:37 am

but what IS a filibuster? i understand it to be a delay tactic. but are they voting on whether to vote on it? or are they just yapping a little bit each session about it but never getting to the point? i'm gonna do some research and find out how the whole process of approving the MIB works.

Rivera Bladestrike · February 17, 2005, 7:49 am

its more the latter. They never get to a vote because the democrats hold the floor and don't let a vote take place. If you want to see it in action, watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with Jimmy Stewart, good movie too.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » February 17, 2005, 12:51 pm

yeah someone takes the floor and just talks and talks and talks about anything... they could read you the bible or a bunch of recepies, or sing you songs. its pretty awesome

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » February 17, 2005, 1:05 pm

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:its more the latter. They never get to a vote because the democrats hold the floor and don't let a vote take place. If you want to see it in action, watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with Jimmy Stewart, good movie too.

Great movie. One of my all-time favorites. I may have to pull that one off my DVD rack tonight...

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 17, 2005, 1:14 pm

that just seems assanine

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 17, 2005, 1:20 pm

Interesting fact:

The record for the longest filibuster goes to South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who held the Senate floor continuously for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 17, 2005, 7:42 pm

My favorite filibuster is a Senator who actually read the New York City phone book for a large number of hours.

Nobody: It requires 51 votes to pass a bill but it requires 60 votes to make someone shut up. Thus if the minority party has more than 40 votes, they can never be made to shut up and can speak indefinitely, thus delaying the vote.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 17, 2005, 8:30 pm

that is Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition!

Post by **pyrella** » February 17, 2005, 9:16 pm

great info here

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... loture.htm

Some other links at the bottom of that page - quote of the important info:

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 17, 2005, 9:41 pm

That is a perfect definition.

Embarrased to say that both sides use it. . .it is really ludicrous.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 17, 2005, 9:45 pm

On principal I would want to agree. Unfortunately it is the only thing stopping the ruination of our Social Security.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 17, 2005, 9:47 pm

I think everyone is all ears for suggestions on how to fix social security. I have heard no counter proposals from anyone. It has to get fixed, if people have ideas, they should speak them and not just ignore problems (yes, it is a big problem)

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 17, 2005, 9:54 pm

What I find funny is that people threaten filibusters before working on fixes.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 17, 2005, 10:56 pm

i go to Philadelphia and see lots of
philabustas

fuck this damn chemical spill on the highway, stuck here 4 fucking hours now.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 18, 2005, 7:00 pm

Avestan wrote:I think everyone is all ears for suggestions on how to fix social security. I have heard no counter proposals from anyone. It has to get fixed, if people have ideas, they should speak them and not just ignore problems (yes, it is a big problem)

Well, this would break it even more and put us more into debt...Sheeoot, plopping that 3 trillion into the current system would help a lot more than what this will do...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 18, 2005, 7:07 pm

The funny thing is the pussy foot republicans don't actually "make" the democrats stand up and perform the act. The threat alone seems accepted by the opposition.

I say line them up and let them talk to they drop, and then while they're in the hospital or whatever, we can get on with majority vote to remove the oligarchs from our federal courts.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 18, 2005, 8:17 pm

i guess i'm not convinced that this whole nomination thing is not a manufactured issue.

If you believe what Democrats say (and i dont necessarily), 204 out of 214 of Bush's judicial nominees have been appointed.

That is a higher ratio than the Republican controlled Senate allowed Clinton to seat on the bench.

I know that a lot of these are Federal Circuit Court seats which are very powerful, but I'm not really sure whether or not that effects teh comparison.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 18, 2005, 8:30 pm

I'm not really motivated to convince anyone of my views.

I see the facts and stories, and from those I know what I want my representatives to do. I'm tired of them acting like the minority party.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 19, 2005, 3:33 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Avestan wrote:I think everyone is all ears for suggestions on how to fix social security. I have heard no counter proposals from anyone. It has to get fixed, if people have ideas, they should speak them and not just ignore problems (yes, it is a big problem)
Well, this would break it even more and put us more into debt...Sheeoot, plopping that 3 trillion into the current system would help a lot more than what this will do...

yeah, cuz waiting and doing nothing will make it go away!

Do you not understand that the problem only gets worse the longer we wait? How hard is that to grasp?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 19, 2005, 10:51 pm

Avestan wrote:
Lohrno wrote:
Avestan wrote:I think everyone is all ears for suggestions on how to fix social security. I have heard no counter proposals from anyone. It has to get fixed, if people have ideas, they should speak them and not just ignore problems (yes, it is a big problem)
Well, this would break it even more and put us more into debt...Sheeoot, plopping that 3 trillion into the current system would help a lot more than what this will do...
yeah, cuz waiting and doing nothing will make it go away!

Do you not understand that the problem only gets worse the longer we wait? How hard is that to grasp?

What you talking aobut now, global warming?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 19, 2005, 11:10 pm

Avestan wrote: yeah, cuz waiting and doing nothing will make it go away!

Do you not understand that the problem only gets worse the longer we wait? How hard is that to grasp?

Well, let's just put it this way: I don't necessarily like the situation as it is now, but for sure I don't like what it will be. I'm hoping for option 3, and I think the private accounts thing will likely fuck it over way worse. I'm opposed to throwing money away for something that will make things worse.

Ideally they should be sitting down and thinking of something else to do entirely, but doing what they're doing now is bad. 3 trillion for switching it over, and it's vulnerable to various other things like market changes, poor account management, etc. Not only that but even given that it's an "option" the people who are not opting for the old system will take money away from those who are using it.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » February 21, 2005, 10:04 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Avestan wrote: yeah, cuz waiting and doing nothing will make it go away!

Do you not understand that the problem only gets worse the longer we wait? How hard is that to grasp?
Well, let's just put it this way: I don't necessarily like the situation as it is now, but for sure I don't like what it will be. I'm hoping for option 3, and I think the private accounts thing will likely fuck it over way worse. I'm opposed to throwing money away for something that will make things worse.

Ideally they should be sitting down and thinking of something else to do entirely, but doing what they're doing now is bad. 3 trillion for switching it over, and it's vulnerable to various other things like market changes, poor account management, etc. Not only that but even given that it's an "option" the people who are not opting for the old system will take money away from those who are using it.

Well, It is the only thing that has been suggested thus far and to assume no one has sat down to think about it is a tad absurd eh?

3 Trillion (maybe) now or a lot more later. The situation is not positive, but it does need to be dealt with.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 22, 2005, 2:51 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:The funny thing is the pussy foot republicans don't actually "make" the democrats stand up and perform the act. The threat alone seems accepted by the opposition.

I say line them up and let them talk to they drop, and then while they're in the hospital or whatever, we can get on with majority vote to remove the oligarchs from our federal courts.

so that we can replace them with priests?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » February 22, 2005, 10:32 am

Drasta wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:The funny thing is the pussy foot republicans don't actually "make" the democrats stand up and perform the act. The threat alone seems accepted by the opposition.

I say line them up and let them talk to they drop, and then while they're in the hospital or whatever, we can get on with majority vote to remove the oligarchs from our federal courts.
so that we can replace them with priests?

Drasta, priests have more important things to do.

Wrong arena

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 23, 2005, 2:06 am

damn my attempt at hijack didn't work :'(