recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : filibuster   3

Filibusters and arcane obstructions in the Senate : The New Yorker ["The Emptry Chamber: Just how broken is the Senate?"]
“The two lasting achievements of this Senate, financial regulation and health care, required a year and a half of legislative warfare that nearly destroyed the body. They depended on a set of circumstances—a large majority of Democrats, a charismatic President with an electoral mandate, and a national crisis—that will not last long or be repeated anytime soon. Two days after financial reform became law, Harry Reid announced that the Senate would not take up comprehensive energy-reform legislation for the rest of the year. And so climate change joined immigration, job creation, food safety, pilot training, veterans’ care, campaign finance, transportation security, labor law, mine safety, wildfire management, and scores of executive and judicial appointments on the list of matters that the world’s greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing.”
2010  legislation  congress  obstructionism  partisanship  government  procedure  politics  governance  filibuster  democrats  republicans  rules  senate  history  georgepacker 
august 2010 by robertogreco
Op-Ed Contributor - Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution - NYTimes.com
"But the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended. ... In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton denounced the use of supermajority rule in these prophetic words: “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” That is a suitable epitaph for what has happened to the Senate."
filibuster  us  law  rules  politics  constitution  congress  senate 
january 2010 by robertogreco
Matthew Yglesias » So You Say You Want Me to Want a Revolution?
"Nick Baumann at Mother Jones and the mystery blogger behind Democracy in America both see my various complaints about American politician institutions as a sign of incipient radicalism. Well, not really. I’m very skeptical about the utility of violence in bringing about positive political change and am thus a poor candidate for revolutionary. But I do want to see reform of the political process. In particular, I would note: [list of specifics here]"
government  law  us  politics  policy  revolution  change  reform  progress  senate  congress  electoralcollege  filibuster 
july 2009 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read