11-07-2009, 04:21 PM
It seems like whatever party has a majority in the Senate decries the minority party using the filibuster (or ancillary procedures like "holds" ) to stop the majority party from passing legislation by a simple majority vote. Several years ago Republicans (when they had a majority in the Senate) threatened to go with a "nuclear option" to circumvent the Democrats' filibuster threats. Now the roles are reversed. The Republicans, though, have taken it to a level of obstruction that probably has never been seen before. It is getting to the point where nearly EVERY significant piece of legislation is being held hostage to having to come up with 60 votes to proceed. Eventually (hopefully a very long time from now and only after they have gotten over their Tea Party obsession) the Republicans will regain a majority in the Senate. When that happens what they are doing now will set a precedent for the Democrats to follow - Republicans will have to garner 60 votes to get anything of importance done.
How do the dwellers of this domain feel about this situation? Is requiring 60 vote supermajorities on all significant legislation pending in the Senate a good thing for the country? For myself, I can see where there are occasions when requiring supermajorities may be worthwhile, but I think it usually is not a good thing. And, IMHO, requiring supermajorities for ALL major legislation is ridiculous.
How do the dwellers of this domain feel about this situation? Is requiring 60 vote supermajorities on all significant legislation pending in the Senate a good thing for the country? For myself, I can see where there are occasions when requiring supermajorities may be worthwhile, but I think it usually is not a good thing. And, IMHO, requiring supermajorities for ALL major legislation is ridiculous.