McConnell suddenly doesn't like the filibuster that much

[theiacowtipper]

FWIW, I agree that their needs to be fundamental reform of the filibuster that moves legislation along, but recognizes at least some rights of the minority party. However, that was the senior Senator from Kentucky's position a few years back. He insisted that minority rights be protected at all cost and filibustered Democratic legislation at every turn. Now that Republican priorities are being blocked, it's time to look at changing the rules.

Note this is a Democratic opinion piece. However, there is no question that McConnell is looking to change the rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-eyes-changes-rules-he-used-exploit

 

[cigaretteman]

FWIW, I agree that their needs to be fundamental reform of the filibuster that moves legislation along, but recognizes at least some rights of the minority party. However, that was the senior Senator from Kentucky's position a few years back. He insisted that minority rights be protected at all cost and filibustered Democratic legislation at every turn. Now that Republican priorities are being blocked, it's time to look at changing the rules.

Note this is a Democratic opinion piece. However, there is no question that McConnell is looking to change the rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-eyes-changes-rules-he-used-exploit

Yep, the party in the majority always hates the filibuster rules and the party in the minority always loves them, and I agree that there should be some filibuster reforem.

 

[Lone Clone]

FWIW, I agree that their needs to be fundamental reform of the filibuster that moves legislation along, but recognizes at least some rights of the minority party. However, that was the senior Senator from Kentucky's position a few years back. He insisted that minority rights be protected at all cost and filibustered Democratic legislation at every turn. Now that Republican priorities are being blocked, it's time to look at changing the rules.

Note this is a Democratic opinion piece. However, there is no question that McConnell is looking to change the rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-eyes-changes-rules-he-used-exploit

Both parties have been on both sides of this argument for as long as I've been following politics. It depends almost entirely upon which one is in the minority.

 

[naturalmwa]

A talking filibuster preserves all the rights any minority could be thought entitled. No minority should be able to hold up government forever. The filibuster is just a mistake anyway, its not a thought out, well grounded in government philosophy, intentional part of the Senate rules.

 

[joelbc1]

Both parties have been on both sides of this argument for as long as I've been following politics. It depends almost entirely upon which one is in the minority.

But the GOP plays "the victim card" sooo much better than the Dems, Lone.
A pox upon both their houses.

 

[Lone Clone]

A talking filibuster preserves all the rights any minority could be thought entitled. No minority should be able to hold up government forever. The filibuster is just a mistake anyway, its not a thought out, well grounded in government philosophy, intentional part of the Senate rules.

No, the filibuster is the result of a policy that made a great deal of sense, and still makes a certain amount of sense. But it's been jiggered around over the years and abused and its time is past, IMHO.

If I were in charge of Senate rules, I'd require people to actually filibuster. Hold the floor. Don't just threaten to hold it, have a cloture vote, and claim a filibuster occurred, because it didn't.

Also, I think the Republicans were wrong, back when Frist was majority leader, not to make good on their threats to invoke the nuclear option for presidential nominations. That needs a court test, anyway. Unlike legislation, which is passed under rules the Senate devises, the nomination procedure is spelled out in the Constitution. It's pretty clear the Founders intended for nominations to require a simple majority. In effect, the filibuster raises that to 60%.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Fun to watch people shift positions on this.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, the filibuster is the result of a policy that made a great deal of sense, and still makes a certain amount of sense. But it's been jiggered around over the years and abused and its time is past, IMHO.

If I were in charge of Senate rules, I'd require people to actually filibuster. Hold the floor. Don't just threaten to hold it, have a cloture vote, and claim a filibuster occurred, because it didn't.

Also, I think the Republicans were wrong, back when Frist was majority leader, not to make good on their threats to invoke the nuclear option for presidential nominations. That needs a court test, anyway. Unlike legislation, which is passed under rules the Senate devises, the nomination procedure is spelled out in the Constitution. It's pretty clear the Founders intended for nominations to require a simple majority. In effect, the filibuster raises that to 60%.

We agree on having an actual filibuster which I assume means the hold the floor and talk as low ng as you can sort. So I assume when you say no, you mean that the filibuster was purposeful thought out, intended policy. It was not. I've linked this evidance to you before. The filibuster was created when Burr ( of killing Alexander fame) convinced the senate to remove the call the question rule. That created the filibuster by accident which wasn't realized for years later. The filibuster in the Senate was an accidental rule.