What would it take? 2/3 vote? I think there has been bipartisan support in the past on this issue. I'll bet that "bipartisan" support only came when that person's party was in power though lol. It sure would make the senate a more effective body.

__________________
Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got blacks the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things. They opposed health care reform but failed. Keep up the good work guys.

What do you care about the Senate? You want to have it abolished, remember? Fortunately, I don't think the Democrats can bribe enough votes to beat a filibuster.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

This from the man that lives in a country where the Senate is "The Senate consists of 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the prime minister.[1]"

That information is not made up , it is from Wikipedia.

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

It's a Senate rule, it can be changed with a simple majority vote.
Remember the GOP threatened the "nuclear option" to try to get some judges confirmed, which was removing the filibuster from the Senate rules.
The reason they didn't is because they realized that one day they would not be in the majority, (I don't think they imagined it would be so soon), and if they removed the filibuster, the Democrats would not replace it out of kindness once the GOP was again in the minority.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

If the dems do this, especially if they do it to push through something as impactful and contentious as the current bill, it would force a stake through the heart of our nation. it may finish what OBL started.

they have already indicated that they have no problem using reconcilliation protocol to bypass fillibuster. I thin that would be equally fatal to 2010 and elections beyond for them. America does not want health insurance reform.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Anyone who thinks this isn't by design, simply isn't paying attention, or, is blinded by partisan goggles.

What would B.O. be doing differently, if he wasn't trying to destroy our economy?

__________________
Right vs Left....IS....Right vs Wrong.

Mark Levin

No, it would make the Senate less effective. As we discussed at length in your "Disband the Senate" thread, the object of the chamber is to prevent exactly what you seem to want - a tyranny of the majority.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster at all, but I see the inherent danger in changing the rules when one side or the other is not getting their way.

Frankly, Danny, the legislature has fundamentally worked for more than 200 years, and it really doesn't need a makeover just because your party can't get it's act together.

Matt

It's not even his party, it's the party he is rooting for.

No one, and I mean no one should want this current version to pass.
In a nutshell - this bill doesn't fix the problems of our system, while adopting some of the worse problems of other western systems.

I am not a fan of filibuster either, but it is there for a purpose - and this is an example of where it's usage applies.

__________________

I have absolutely no idea what my generation did to improve our democracy. We dropped the ball. We entered a period of complacency and closed our eyes to the public corruption of our democracy.
Wynton Marsalis

Filibuster schmilifuster, they have 60 votes, no let me say they have 58 and 2 indies whom caucus with them and now Sanders the socialists indie is having issue with the bill too.

Oh and danny have any issues with Sanders breaking senate rules by pulling a amendment from the floor, he had submitted, mid way through its reading?

Its not a one party phenomena, but changing the rules mid stream is always a bad idea and they realize they would pay a big price for doing so. That’s why reid won’t try the reconciliation process, even the average non political joe realizes that’s dirty pool.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Bis interimitur qui suis armis perit...

The filibuster worked fine for you Danny when it bottled up scores of court appointments made by GW Bush... now... not so much eh?

The filibuster appears nowhere in the constitution, it is a senate rule, and the senate adopts rules with a simple majority vote. While it is true that an attempt to remove the filibuster rule could be filibustered, that is not true on the first day of a a new session of congress, when the Senate adopt rules changes, then a simple majority vote is all that is required.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/op...21krugman.html

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

And what about before 1960?

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

It wasn't used very often before 1960.
Filibuster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address