A Gridlocked Senate Agrees to Some Limits on Filibusters

[porque]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/u...ibuster-deal-is-reached-in-the-senate.html?hp

First, in a concession from Republicans, the majority party — Democrats currently — would no longer have to marshal 60 votes in order for debate on a bill to proceed. But, in turn, Democrats would have to agree to allow Republicans two amendments to the bill.

The new rules will not include, for instance, a requirement that senators be present on the Senate floor when they want to block a bill from coming to a vote, continuing the practice of allowing them to filibuster in absentia.

what yall think about this?

 

[Brown_Pride]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/u...ibuster-deal-is-reached-in-the-senate.html?hp

First, in a concession from Republicans, the majority party — Democrats currently — would no longer have to marshal 60 votes in order for debate on a bill to proceed. But, in turn, Democrats would have to agree to allow Republicans two amendments to the bill.

The new rules will not include, for instance, a requirement that senators be present on the Senate floor when they want to block a bill from coming to a vote, continuing the practice of allowing them to filibuster in absentia.

what yall think about this?

do they have to actually filibuster...i.e. read out the dictionary for hours on end in order to "filibuster" or can they just "call" filibuster?

2 amendments can go a long way too. BUT IMHO it'll force both sides to actually vote, which may resonate with voters better than, "we couldn't vote because THEY wouldn't let us".

LOL @ line item vetoing the two amendments out (that's possible right?)

 

[Brown_Pride]

do they have to actually filibuster...i.e. read out the dictionary for hours on end in order to "filibuster" or can they just "call" filibuster?

2 amendments can go a long way too. BUT IMHO it'll force both sides to actually vote, which may resonate with voters better than, "we couldn't vote because THEY wouldn't let us".

LOL @ line item vetoing the two amendments out (that's possible right?)

ok i completely read that wrong.
on this. They'll still be useless.

As i read it (correctly this time) this doesn't do much or is very limited in actually fixing the problem of inactivity.

 

[porque]

ok i completely read that wrong.
on this. They'll still be useless.

As i read it (correctly this time) this doesn't do much or is very limited in actually fixing the problem of inactivity.

Democrats had the power to force people to actually filibuster but no them mofos quickly backed down like always

bet next time Rep are in power they'll make it so you actually have to stand there and filibuster

 

[Brown_Pride]

Democrats had the power to force people to actually filibuster but no them mofos quickly backed down like always

bet next time Rep are in power they'll make it so you actually have to stand there and filibuster

Nah neither side wants that for the reasons i gave.

IF they have to talk it highlights who exactly is stalling shyt. "The People" don't want there senator up there blowing smoke and both sides know this. So, they protect eachother's asses by saying you don't have to draw attention to yourself you simply have to "call it". Shyt's worst that when you used to play tag with "that kid" who would always make a new base where he stood.

Here's what always blows my mind. House and Senate have a low teen approval rating 15%, i.e. 3/20 people agree with how they are doing things, how is it some of these fools have been in office so damn long decades in some cases.

Hard not to blame the voter for things TBH.