senate filibuster rule to come before scotus

I very seriously doubt that the Court will involve itself in this dispute. The Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to establish its own rules. I think the cloture rule is stupid and counter to the Constitution, but I doubt the Court would touch it.
 
I very seriously doubt that the Court will involve itself in this dispute. The Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to establish its own rules. I think the cloture rule is stupid and counter to the Constitution, but I doubt the Court would touch it.

according to the op, they already did once
 
when did the USA become a pure democracy instead of a representative republic?

the senate is part of the representative form of government and votes on a majority basis except for certain instances where a 2/3 vote is required except where a filibuster is concerned, then a 60 member vote is required for cloture defeating majority rule
 
you said that eliminating the filibuster would bring the country more in line with the constitutional definition of a republic. I want you to tell me how that is.


I don't think I actually said that. What I meant was that eliminating the filibuster would bring the Senate more in line with the intent of the Constitution, and would have no bearing on whether the government is a republic.
 
repealing the 17th Amendment would do that even better. do you support that?


I'm not talking about the method of electing Senators. I'm talking about the manner in which the Senate operates as an institution.


Edit: As a general matter, I don't understand what the hell your point is in this thread. The filibuster has nothing to do with the form of government of the United States or how Senators are elected. You're bringing up entirely unrelated matters that have nothing to do with the filibuster.
 
so what you're saying is that you made a foolish statement about the senates rules somehow straying away from the constitution and are trying to backpedal away from being called out about it by creating a strawman. that's all you had to say.
 
so what you're saying is that you made a foolish statement about the senates rules somehow straying away from the constitution and are trying to backpedal away from being called out about it by creating a strawman. that's all you had to say.


No, what I'm saying is that you made a foolish statement about pure democracy and whether the USA would be a republic in the absence of a filibuster and other stupid shit about the 17th amendment that have nothing to do with the filibuster.
 
responding to someones statement about the senate being 'majority rule of law' by asking about pure democracy is hardly a foolish statement. everything else has been dreamed up by you or are direct responses to your wayward and misinformed opinions about the constitution.
 
responding to someones statement about the senate being 'majority rule of law' by asking about pure democracy is hardly a foolish statement. everything else has been dreamed up by you or are direct responses to your wayward and misinformed opinions about the constitution.


No, it's a foolish statement, particularly in conjunction with "instead of a representative republic" (which is also redundant).
 
It's interesting, when Republicans tried to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, Nancy and Harry threatened to filibuster, and we heard not peep one from the pinhead brigade about it! In THAT case, it was perfectly okay, and how our system was supposed to work! The filibuster was celebrated by liberals because it kept us from being governed by a tyrant majority. It ensured the minority would have representation. Now, all of a sudden, we are to believe liberals want to do away with it? What makes me think this will fade into oblivion the first time a hot-topic liberal issue comes up for a vote? What liberals would LOVE, is a system that allows Democrats to filibuster, but not Republicans. Let's be honest about that!

Now, here is what I would like... let's keep the filibuster, but in the form the old filibuster used to be. In other words, if a filibuster is called, the congressmen have to remain on the floor until the end, none of this 'cheating' and rendering the filibuster as some kind of procedural technicality. By god, make them stay there filibustering day and night, like they used to do! If something invokes enough passion to filibuster, go balls to the wall with it, and put your stamina where your mouth is! Otherwise, drop it, have a vote and move on. The way they currently administer the filibuster rule, is ridiculous, and of course, never the way it was intended it to be used.
 
I very seriously doubt that the Court will involve itself in this dispute. The Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to establish its own rules. I think the cloture rule is stupid and counter to the Constitution, but I doubt the Court would touch it.


Exactly the point I was going to make,...you saved the trouble.....

and we've all long heard about the danger of tyranny of the majority rule crap......

thats the very reason the founding fathers established a representative, democratic republic....to guard against a majority that could rule without considering the
minority........
 
responding to someones statement about the senate being 'majority rule of law' by asking about pure democracy is hardly a foolish statement. everything else has been dreamed up by you or are direct responses to your wayward and misinformed opinions about the constitution.

say what?

i wrote, the senate usually decides votes by a majority vote except when someone invokes a filibuster and then it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, except for those special occasions when a 2/3 vote is required
 
Back
Top