But somehow it doesn’t seem right. It is how a lot of bills gain favor or disfavor in the press and a lot of people who don’t ever think of these things get on board. It is a shame, but it is the truth.

How would you have liked the mess created if there were no filibuster then? You think we may never be in such a position again? Guess again.

That sounds right but it would take all the fun out of it. I think we would like the Senate to ground to a halt more often than it has and grind to a halt on every piece of communist and socialist drivel that Reid proposes. But somehow it seems we may be missing something, but upon first and second reading your comments seem right on! We are sure some bloggers will tell us how wrong we are, but it seems lke that would be a novel thing to see how it all would work out. We would hate to give Reid anything, but maybe if he thinks this would be great for his Demonrat party he will support it and gather all the votes needed and then the House Republicans turn the tables on them. Even the R Senators seem to be elistists and establishment, not repecting the will of the people. (Our R Senators went along with Bush in his bailout of Wall Stree through 80 percent of the people were against it! and then they both had the gaul to defend their vote and assure us that this would not open the floodgates for government bailouts!)

That sounds right but it would take all the fun out of it. I think we would like the Senate to ground to a halt more often than it has and grind to a halt on every piece of communist and socialist drivel that Reid proposes. But somehow it seems we may be missing something, but upon first and second reading your comments seem right on! We are sure some bloggers will tell us how wrong we are, but it seems lke that would be a novel thing to see how it all would work out. We would hate to give Reid anything, but maybe if he thinks this would be great for his Demonrat party he will support it and gather all the votes needed and then the House Republicans turn the tables on them. Even the R Senators seem to be elistists and establishment, not repecting the will of the people. (Our R Senators went along with Bush in his bailout of Wall Stree through 80 percent of the people were against it! and then they both had the gaul to defend their vote and assure us that this would not open the floodgates for government bailouts!)

You’re missing the battle over Obama’s radical appointments that have to be confirmed by the Senate. Without the filibuster, he could appoint Osama bin Laden as the Secretary of Defense and the GOP would be powerless to stop it.

Same with judges and Supreme Court nominations. Without the filibuster, the federal bench will look like the ACLU and Communist Party steering committee roster.

The majority will go back and forth over the years so don’t think that passing new laws easily is a good thing. The Senate has traditionally been a brake on things in Washington and if we didn’t have as a brake then the number of laws that we have would be even larger. In fact getting rid of as many of them as is practical is one of the things we need to do most.

until you consider that the Constitution gives the House and the Senate the right to make their own rules (Article I Section 5) and recall of Senators or Representatives is unconstitutional.

For the record, unanimous consent is the equivalent of a unanimous Aye vote.

That’s what frosts my britches moire than anything…Ried wouldn’t have been able to pass half the bills he did in the lame duck if Republicans would have forced votes on germane issues,..I can see why they wouldn’t want to go to the mat to that extent…but to not force a vote on an actual law?

I mean…what do we send them up there for if it’s not to vote on legislation…yet we fast track the food safety bill through by unanimous consent?

Bahhh!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

The Senate doesn’t have a Rules committee, like the House, so nothing happens automatically (i.e. without approval of 50%+1 votes). Normally, this process “stuff” is taken care of by the chair asking for unanimous consent, pausing for 3 seconds and then moving on if no senator voices objection. If there is an objection, the full Senate has to vote … on every trivial detail of procedure. Whether to consider debating a bill, then to send it to committee, then to consider debating the committee report, then to consider each amendment, then to end debate and THEN to vote on the final legislation. Along the way there’s all sorts of other stuff that crops up, like a vote on every point of order, etc.

If this were seriously done, it would take 25+ full Senate votes to do anything … even naming post offices.

eddie 74, I agree if you take it degrees, a bank robber will steal from you face to face and we will know it,. but our elected are like those reprehensible low lifes that take from you in the dead of night, search out and rip your lifes savings while you sleep thinking that they are taking care of you. Our elected are the stealth, smile to you in broad day light and stab you in the back behind closed doors. Im sick of the lot of them. good post

lessons from Pelosi. And play offense instead of defense 120% of the time.

Boehner wants to negotiate? I dont get that.

In point of fact, it is actually VERY EASY to get Republican Senators to work together on any Senate business: you merely have to make it clear to them that you are watching them and paying attention.

But, I know: that’s work.

Keep in mind when the Senate was 58-42 or even 59-41 all you had to do was make a deal with Brown, Collins, Snow, Graham, etc. it was easy to pick off one or two Republicans to get the 60. This motion is being done simply because Harry Reid can’t get seven votes at one time and hold his group together (especially when over 20 are up for reelection) .

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

Keep in mind when the Senate was 58-42 or even 59-41 all you had to do was make a deal with Brown, Collins, Snow, Graham, etc. it was easy to pick off one or two Republicans to get the 60. This motion is being done simply because Harry Reid can’t get seven votes at one time and hold his group together (especially when over 20 are up for reelection) .

Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN

They’re trying to say (if I’m not mistaken) that the senate is NOT a continuing body, and therefore not subject to rules imposed by the previous session.

Voila! They can deem a new lower vote standard to change rules.

Am I right on this?

what they said 5 or six years ago means nothing…

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Their favorite guy Chavez.

Their favorite guy Chavez.

A Constitutional Convention is a dangerous thing – - it could prove to do the exact opposite of what we desire. I’m not versed in the legality, but once you open it up in a certain way, you leave it even more vulnerable to “radical” change and new interpretations that go even farther AWAY from the intent and principles of the founding fathers. Remember that Obama would like nothing MORE than to “overhaul” the Constitution! Any suggested info or reference articles on this, anyone?