DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 15, 2010, 07:41:07 PM
-
Would Congress be justified in passing a massive entitlement legislation (behind closed doors I might add), with only a 51 vote Senate majority, despite the Constitution's clear requirements that any legislation must be able to defeat a filibuster??
Please demonstrate for us how one could possibly rationalize a "yes"
-
Would Congress be justified in passing a massive entitlement legislation (behind closed doors I might add), with only a 51 vote Senate majority, despite the Constitution's clear requirements that any legislation must be able to defeat a filibuster??
Please demonstrate for us how one could possibly rationalize a "yes"
find me a rational dem and I'll give you money
-
Hmmm........is Fatman around?
-
Would Congress be justified in passing a massive entitlement legislation (behind closed doors I might add), with only a 51 vote Senate majority, despite the Constitution's clear requirements that any legislation must be able to defeat a filibuster??
The Constitution only requires the Senate to run by their own rules. If there is no filibuster, no cloture vote is required, and a simple majority can pass a bill.
-
Does this relate to the "nuclear option" that the majority Republicans never had to nerve to open up?
-
Hmmm........is Fatman around?
last I heard he was on holiday in San Francisco
-
Does this relate to the "nuclear option" that the majority Republicans never had to nerve to open up?
The nuclear option is changing the Senate rules to allow cloture votes with some smaller number of votes. This has been changed several times in the past; changing it to 51 would seem to be what they're discussing.
-
Does this relate to the "nuclear option" that the majority Republicans never had to nerve to open up?
The nuclear option is changing the Senate rules to allow cloture votes with some smaller number of votes. This has been changed several times in the past; changing it to 51 would seem to be what they're discussing.
That is what I thought , but why was it Nuclear five years ago , is it not nuclear now?
-
That is what I thought , but why was it Nuclear five years ago , is it not nuclear now?
Because the people calling it "nuclear" back then are the ones proposing it now.
-
That is what I thought , but why was it Nuclear five years ago , is it not nuclear now?
Because the people calling it "nuclear" back then are the ones proposing it now.
Quite!
-
Stunning......no committed, passionate liberals able to address this serious question? Once again, I think we may have a situation where the silence speaks volumes
And Ami, I knew that if there's no filibuster being in-acted, then there's no need for a 60vote cloture. My question kinda implied that a filibuster was in order. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. My bad
-
A filibuster is a lot of work , and the success of a philibuster would let the Democrats off the hook.
Let them birth this baby , and they own the results, which for the next four years includes higher taxes and bills but doesn't include better coverage.
Two Congressional election cycles, I imagine some Democrats looking for some way out from under.
-
You're right about 1 thing, Plane. This monster (Cash for Croakers) is 100% pure democrat. There's no way in hell they can pull the Blame Bush or Blame Republicans card for any subsequent worsening of both our economy & healthcare. Might put them in the minority for at least 2 presidential election cycles even. But I don't think they care. They believe they'll be in power once again, and at that time, Cash for Croakers will be a mainstay in American life, having lurched the country into a center-left Euopean model (despite the polls that demonstrate this country to be nearly 2:1 conservatives to liberals), so the sacrafices now are acceptable.
Besides, as the economy, unemployment, and healthcare deteriorate, they can then blame the GOP, despite the foundation of the cancer being 100% pure democrat injected