Posted on 08/02/2010 10:13:52 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
When Democrats awoke the day after the 2008 election to overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, plus control of the White House, many imagined they would be able to accomplish nearly anything they wanted. It seemed possible that Congress would finish health care reform within a year, including a strong "public option" plan. A climate bill would sail through, along with immigration reform, the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act and an end to the ban on non-closeted gays in the military.
But the reality has been very different. Health care passed, but just barely, months behind schedule and with no public option. Every other measure listed above is a nonstarter or in limbo. The Obama White House struggles to pass even minor measures designed to create jobs in the sick economy. (See the top 10 knockdown congressional battles.)
What happened to those Democratic hopes? They have been shattered by the Republicans' unprecedented reliance on the filibuster, a legislative maneuver that can slam the brakes on even popular legislation. The filibuster allows 41 Senators to block a bill from coming to a vote by voting against motions to end debate (which need 60 votes to pass). Since Barack Obama took office, Senate Republicans have used the tactic dozens of times, throwing the President's agenda into chaos and infuriating Democrats. In late December, an exasperated Obama told a PBS interviewer that he was tired of seeing even "routine" measures fall to GOP filibusters.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
They can thank little tommy d for this mess.
Since there weren’t 41 GOP Senators until this January, I’m at a loss as to how the Republicans managed to mount any filibusters at all. Could some Democrats have joined them?
Funny they can’t seem to recall the Dems using the filibuster for judges under Bush.
Harry Reid used it to his advantage when it suited him. (finger) to the Left
When the GOP gets the majority the Dems will be screaming that the filibuster is the sacred protection of our democratic republic.
The filibuster was intended so that enough debate would occur. And then cloture was used to stop debate. The democrats would have a leg to stand on if Harry Reid had not started the practice of filing for cloture at the same time as filing a bill.
These bills have not been debated at all. They want to push them through without debate and if possible, without a vote through unanimous consent.
At least 2 Dems were out a lot because of illness -- Kennedy and Byrd. I'm surprised that the Dems didn't push that their aides be allowed to vote for them, or that they be allowed to vote via phone, or email.
unprecedented reliance on the filibuster
BULLSHII
OK, so end the filibuster rule. And when the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to prevent something the majority wants watch them squeal like stuck pigs.
The socialists want to have everything go their way, always. Never any dissent, no votes, just deem it passed or do it on a voice vote.
Just lovely. /sarc
LOL, the article glowingly says that if the dems retain control of the senate “as expected” then they can change the rules with only a simple 51 votes. I wonder how TIME would feel if the GOP manages to take a 51-49 majority and then THEY change the rules to eliminate the filibuster with those 51 votes. Do you want to bet the tone of TIME will change from glowing approval to stating that this is the greatest travesty in the history of the world?
Time appears ignorant of the fact that the cloture requirement is "60 votes to pass", not "41 votes against".
Unprecedented? The only UNPRECEDENTED use of the filibuster was the corrupt lying sack of S**T democrats using the filibuster to prevent an up-and-down vote on several of W's judicial appointments.
What about unpopular legislation? Hasnt all the legislation been unpopular? Speek up, you leftist lackeys!
Absolutely :-)
But you won't hear this from the Democrat Goebbels running the media.
Exactly! The liberals were outraged at talk in 2005 that the Senate might change the filibuster rules for judges. At that time, Republicans had 55 Senators, and the talk was that a bare majority of 51 votes would be needed to change the rules then.
It never happened because of the “Gang of 14” agreement on judges, in which Dems. promised not to filibuster judge nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances”.
So we never saw the showdown over filibusters then. If Dems. retain control of the Senate after November’s elections, I expect they will try to change the rule with a bare minimum of 51 votes.
Politics affects how the liberals look at these things. When they were in the political minority, they were outraged that the filibuster could change to take away their power. Now that they are in the majority, they see the filibuster as an impediment to forcing through their liberal agenda.
They just kinda forgot to mention that being nominated by Bush constituted an "extraordinary circumstance".
the Libtards are very openly expressing regret now over the Gang of 14 deal. In retrospect they could have lived with a few more Bush appointed judges in exchange for “full speed ahead” on the agenda. This has become their #1 rallying cry....”The US Senate is BROKEN and MUST be FIXED!” I expect them to try something in a lame duck session.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.