It is time to do away with the 60 vote filibuster tactic used in the senate..

[samrock]

Yes I know one day the republicans will get a majority back and the democrats will be hurt by not being able to use that tactic to stop bills democrats do not like.. BUT I think in the long run the ideas/bills democrats would pass when they have the majority will do MUCH more good and be seen by the country as good as they go into affect... than harm done by the republicans on bills they pass when they have the majority.. The country will be able to see who has the better ideas for the country as a whole..

[theoldman]

1. There is nothing wrong with requiring 60 votes.

Congress just needs to eliminate the filibuster. 51 votes are not enough for an important law. That is why five votes are not good enough in the Supreme Court. Can you imagine a jury convicting a person with seven votes?

[napi21]

2. Nope. I disagree. Sure I would love for us not to have to contend with

garnering 6- votes on HC & everything else, but the risk of passing insane things like privatising SS, eliminating all business taxes, eliminating Medicare & Medicaid...all of which Pubs want to do...is simply too great a risk for us to take.

I remember back when Shrub was first elected...err...named...I really disliked him, but I foolishly thought, the President really doesn't have that much power, it's all in the Congress. WOW, what a screwed up bbelief that was! The power really IS in the Congress, but I never thought there would be so whimpy Dems that would vote with the Pubs to get a lot of Shrub's wishes passed!

[anonymous171]

3. Why? Just so we can pass corporate healthcare "reform?" No thanks. nt

[T Wolf]

4. Another point in favor of eliminating it is the fact that the Dems DO NOT use it.

They do not even threaten it.

So, eliminating a weapon used by the pukes but not by us can only be a good thing.

[Recursion]

5. Democrats never use it anyways

It didn't help us when we were in the minority.

[kentuck]

6. Bush's trillion dollar taxcut did not need 60 votes...

and look at the damage it did to our country and our economy, in the long run.

[RDANGELO]

7. I have been for changing that for a while.

One way that a society advances is through trial and error. If something is established, and it doesn't work as well as you like, you can always change it. But if nothing gets implemented in the first place, then you have nothing to work on. Requiring a super majority to pass anything in the Senate slows down that trial and error process.

I suppose the reason for the rule, is to give more power to the minority, but that is already in place with the way the Senate is configured in the first place with each state having two senators regardless of population. The 60 vote rule actually multiplies that effect. As I understand it, the 40 Republican senators only represent about twenty percent of the population.

[ixion]

8. No. It was wrong when the rethugs tried to do it

and it's just as wrong now. It's a tool of the minority, and an important check, one of the few remaining in our system.

[Johonny]

9. Some would argue it's time to get rid of the Senate period