Skip to main content

Democrats, use the constitutional option and end the DADT filibuster and all this other filibustering once and for all!

If DADT isn't repealed in the lame duck session, it may be a decade before we get another chance. Republicans are filibustering every single bill, requiring a supermajority to do anything at all, and just signed a letter saying they won't let us vote to end discrimination until we pass tax cuts for multimillionaires adding hundreds of billions to the national defecit.

Do you think democrats shied away from civil rights legislation in the 1960s just because it was unpopular in the south?

No, they did the unpopular thing, and they did so without fear of reprecussions, no matter what it took, because it was the right thing to do.

Even as the law was being signed, it was predicted that signing it will destroy the democratic party in the south once and for all.

Let the republicans try and filibuster the repeal of DADT, as they just promised to do, and use the constitutional option when they try to do so in order to end this discriminatory practice.

It will be a great moment in US politics.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.

Now with this letter from senate republicans, saying they will filibuster every damn bill until they get a nice fat tax cut for millionaires, the time for sitting still has passed.

Let the republicans try and filibuster the repeal of DADT, and use the constitutional option when they try to do so. Get the government moving again, and do so in order to end discrimination.

Similar to the 1960s, the GOP are standing against the tide of history and they will be judged harshly for it, but only if the democrats fight back right now, and use the nuclear option to end DADT.

It will be a great moment in US politics. Democrats will be rewarded for doing the right thing, atleast with the youth and the homosexual population.

The elections have passed, two years is a long time for gridlock. And most importantly, if DADT isn't repealed now, it may not be for decades.

The fact is, which ever party is in charge, democrats, or republicans, the filibuster was NEVER meant to be used this in this fashion.

With this threat by the republicans, is it possible to use the nuclear option, for the senate to quickly work through some of the 1000+ bills passed in the house awaiting a senate vote.

We can also end DADT once and for all. By getting rid of the filibuster, the senate can bring to the floor to vote on a new bill or two that the House already passed, every single day for the next 30 days. That should help do some good.

Doing this will end this filibuster nonsense once and for all. And for that, I say, good riddance. All requiring a supermajority to do every single thing accomplishes is grind the govt to a halt.

If this isn't an option for some reason, I would rather just let the tax cuts expire in whole. Letting them expire will overnight shave the national defecit in half, over night.  Giving a $200 tax cut to the middle class  isn't worth giving $100,000+ dollars to each multimillionaire, all while doubling the national deficit.

An Associated Press-CNBC poll released Tuesday indicates that half questioned wanted tax cuts to be extended only for families making under $250,000 a year, with 34 percent saying they should be extended for all Americans, and 14 percent calling for the cuts to sunset for everyone at the end of the year.

Originally posted to wikoogle on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:34 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Civil Rights was very popular (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    just not among the Southern Democratic base. That's why more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than the Democrats. Sure, the parties have changed since then, but you got your history wrong.

    And there is debate on whether the nuclear option is even allowed. The parliamentarian will have to approve that.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 06:55:40 PM PST

    •  I think he will approve it. It's worth a shot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erratic, emsprater, bear83

      DADT is similarly very popular with the public. It's ludicrous that the military is allowed to discriminate.

      The filibuster is worth ending. It's used these days on every freaking bill, a few decades ago, that was unheard of.

      If you opposed something, you voted against it, you didn't filibuster it to prevent it from even being voted on in the first place.

      The constitution explicits states that you only need a simple majority to pass legislation. This is why I am quite certain that the senate parlimentarian will approve the constitutional option.

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Zack from the SFV, erratic

        I want the filibuster ended too. But it may not be as easy as you think.

        People panic too much on this site.

        by thematt523 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 07:02:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Few things worth doing are ever easy. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erratic, bear83

          The fact is, discrimination in the military MUST be ended, here and now. If it's not done before the new session, it may not be for a decade or more.

          Almost just as critically, the government needs to be allowed to function again.

          We have seen the GOP grind the Senate to a halt using the filibuster.

          The filibuster was blatantly abused the past decade (by both parties). And every sign shows that it will continue to be abused.

          It's time we ended the filibuster and get the govt functioning again as it was always supposed to.

      •  Where does the Constitution say this? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom, erratic, FG

        The constitution explicits states that you only need a simple majority to pass legislation.

        I AM aware that Article 1, section 5 says that each House of Congress can set its own rules.  I know of nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the Senate from having a rule that it requires 60 votes to invoke cloture.  

        •  It's an interpretation of the constitution, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, Scientician, erratic

          that the filibuster is in fact unconstitutional, an interpretation that was upheld in 1975...

          Citing wikipedia...

          The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

      •  if he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

        You can fire the Senate parliamentarian.  The Republicans did when their parliamentarian didn't rule the way they wanted.  They fired him and no one noticed.  

        Actually, I'm pretty sure the majority can just vote to overrule the parliamentarian.  The rules are what 51 Senators say they are.

  •  I wish that I were wrong.... (4+ / 0-)

    The Dems will do NOTHING that their corporate handlers do not approve of.

    Dems are moderately better at social issues than Repubs.

    Your choice.  Do you want to support rats or do you want to support cockroaches?

    I am sick to death of being betrayed.  I have always been a Dem and I will continue to vote Dem...for now.  I am ready to consider a third party.  Dems promise big and then spit upon those who support them.

    After all, for progressives, taking one for the team is desirable, but all too often at present, we are taking one from the team.

    by El Tomaso on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 07:01:31 PM PST

  •  this assumes that you have 50 Senators (4+ / 0-)

    who will vote to abolish the filibuster.

    Frankly, I don't think there are 50 Senators who will vote to abolish the filibuster.  

    •  This has been my theory all along. In fact (0+ / 0-)

      I doubt that there are even 25 senators that would vote to end the filibuster.  Members of the senate are perfectly happy with the way things are now because the threats of filibusters and objections to unanimous consent requests guarantee that every senator gets something.  Sure it might suck for a few of your fellow party members to lose office, but the perks even when you are in the minority are huge.

      If the Democrats want to get any more progressive funding stuff settled such as middle class tax cuts and ending the Bush tax cuts, then they should ram it through via reconciliation ASAP.  Tag it onto the defense bill and be done with it.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:45:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site