Damn straight. The sooner we get rid of health care, the better.
It means that there is a **very **recent precedent for the Senate not to hold things up waiting for a Senator to get seated. I see no reason why Brown should get special treatment.
No, that’s true. But so far as I recall, there was no single hot-button issue being debated by the Senate at that time. And, frankly, I just didn’t think of it. I didn’t think of it this time, either – Jim Webb did. Once I heard it, though, it seemed to make sense.
And that’s actually a key element here. My view on the Senate’s actions are not likely to sway things. But Webb is a senator – he’s got a vote in the chamber and can give substantive effect to this plan.
Fallacy of equivocation.
Our politics have enough hold ups as it is I don’t want to see further precedent set that they should hold off votes. I’m sure the republicans will be more then happy to hold up votes till he’s seated they’ve plenty of experience making sure nothing happens to keep the democrats stalled for the next 14 days.
You say the Republicans will be happy to hold up votes, and I’m sure that’s true. But the first two quotes in this thread are from a Democratic senator and a Democratic Congressman.
Can’t speak for 2002 but, for as long as I’ve been aware of the procedural filibuster, I’ve thought it’s insane that one party can force a 60-vote by just saying “Yeah, we filibuster.” I don’t mean that we need 72 hour sessions of people reading the phonebook but, if the purpose of the filibuster is to continue debate then there should be a method of ensuring it’s used for that rather than plain obstructionism.
Best idea I’ve heard is to make a filibuster take 60 votes to break and last 72 hours. If the filibustering party wishes to continue it, it takes 58 votes to break. then 56, 54, 52 and after 15 days it only takes a simple majority to move along. This gives the issue over two weeks of additional debating time but doesn’t lock the bill up on the whims of a minority.
It’s also worth noting that many people maynot have had as many opinions about the filibuster before 2007 because it wasn’t as huge a deal. The 2007-2008 Senate doubled the number of filibusters from the previous Senate and broke any historical records by a large margin in doing so. The 2009-2010 Senate is going to easily break that record (if they haven’t already). When a tactic is being used to obstruct any and all legislation except for the most banal, then it’s understandable that people will start forming opinions from that even if they didn’t have a clear opinion in 2002 when the number of filibusters was far less.
As far as I am aware the bill is currently in the House and the House can ratify it as is without sending it back to the Senate.
I think you missed the joke - you said “The election was won by a candidiate who campaigned on defeating health care” not “defeating health care reform”.
Consider yourself whooshed.
I don’t care who’s saying what. My position is congress should not be held up for Brown or anyone else.
No, I got it.
My response is accurate. I said “defeating health care,” but clearly was referring to the health care reform measures, not health care as a whole. Thudlow’s rejoinder made light of that short-cut but suggesting that I literally meant “defeating health care” instead of “defeating health care reform.” Changes like that, when used in debate, are an example of the fallacy of equivocation, which includes this sort of semantic shift.
I could have posted a roll-eyes, I suppose. But what better show of appreciation for a joke than to treat it literally and explain it in excruciating detail?
Nope.
This is yet another Republican request for a do over when things didn’t go their way.
They should have engaged honestly on health care last February.
Rather than giving them a second chance to fuck things over even more, now that they’ll have an extra vote, everything possible should be done to minimize their power and shut them out of the debate they’ve already rejected.
I voted for my Senators because I believe in what they stand for, and I expect them to fight like hell for those priorities. Democracy is best served by them doing the job we elected them to do.
And as mentioned above, how is filibustering consistent with your notion of “respecting the election”? I’m not saying I’m anti-filibuster, but it seems like your idea of “respecting the election” should require an anti-filibuster stance.
To be fair, the modern day Republican filibuster is nothing like filibusters throughout history. I had not been in favor of the nuclear option, until now. I don’t believe the intent was to prevent all legislation from moving forward, as it apparently is used now.
Howso? During the health care debates much was made of the fact that the most obstructionist (meaning fence sitters who could make or break the legislation) senators (Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, Nelson, Conrad, Baucus) came from states whose populations combined came to about 8 million. Arguably less than that because for most of those states (Maine, CT, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota) only one of the senators caused problems (all except Maine).
So arguably senators that represented 4 million people (half the states of all the states listed & all of Maine) can block and derail health care reform.
Then again you can make that argument about any close vote.
But the point is that the people in MA, to whatever degree they voted for Brown to block health reform, are 1 state in 50 in our union. We should not cowtow to MA voters who have voted for a plethora of reasons related to and unrelated to health reform.
The 60-vote supermajority requirement is a procedural tactic rather than something with any moral standing or meaning. If the GOP wants to employ that tactic on a regular basis, that’s unfortunate, but the Senate rules allow it.
But there’s nothing about right and wrong in anyone’s insistence that the Senate postpone important business until a date, two or three weeks down the road, when the Republicans know they will be able to use this procedural tactic with greater effectiveness. It’s simply about what they can buffalo the Dems into being stupid enough to go along with.
Yesterday, the 60 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus represented 64% of the nation’s voters. (Giving half of each state’s electorate to each Senator.) Once Brown is seated, the 59 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus will represent 63% of the nation’s voters. The main difference between yesterday and today has nothing to do with any moral mandate; it has to do with the reality that the Dems have reverted to their usual group personality: that of a pack of scared rabbits.
Isn’t this the same Massachusetts that recently changed their election laws because it was vital for the people to have two voices in the Senate? Govenor Patrick even declared an emergency so that the law would go into effect immediately. Do the people no longer have that need?
Another thread to expose liberal hypocrisy. Oh boy.
The people of MA have spoken. The rest of the country spoke in 2008. Weighing the two, I see no reason to pay lip service to MA.
Where’s Hazel and Bigwig when you need them? :dubious:
I ask again. Isn’t the healthcare bill in the House now?