August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Senate's 'Magic 60'

Didn't know if this came up earlier -- but will having a filibuster-proof senate help or hurt things getting done in Washington?

Of the 35 Senate seats on the line this year, 23 are held by Republicans. Five Republican senators are retiring: Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Wayne Allard of Colorado, John Warner of Virginia, Larry Craig of Idaho and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Democrats control the Senate. Although it's split evenly with 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- caucus with the Democrats.

 

image
Adam & Shoshie 10-21-07: "My family is big and loud and everybody's in each other's lives and business. ... but wherever I go, they will always be there." * My Blog: Tales of a Hopeful Jewish Mom to Be * BabyFruit Ticker

Re: Senate's 'Magic 60'

  • When was the last senate filibuster? I don't remember it so I'm guessing it was a while ago.

    Any side that has a strong majority will have it on easy street when it comes to passing their agenda. I'm more nervous about the Dems controlling all 3 parties since the Senate republicans have no spine anyway.

  • Random thought, but it annoys me that Lieberman caucus's with democrats.  He is NOT a dem.  HE chose that.

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • He's a liberal. He caucuses with the Dems b/c most of the time he votes with them. You don't want him to vote like a Dem?
  • Yes, we don't need to be chasing Lieberman to the other side, thanks.
    image
    "As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
  • I'm torn on this; it's a great question, but a difficult one.

    I kinda feel like the last two years have been such a mess because Congress and the Bush administration are such polar opposites that they never get anything done, and w/o a veto-proof majority, one can't do anything w/o the other. 

    Mr.P argues that the counter to this is the 6 years before, where Repubs ruled the roost and went hog wild. He also feels they swung too far to the right during this time, and I'd say he felt this was a direct result. When one party controls everything they have less incentive to stay in the center.

    But while I can see how the converse is sometimes true (parties sharing power need to stay near the center), I certainly don't believe that = getting more done.

    imageimageBaby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • I see the pros and cons of both.

    But, my biggest issue is judicial nominations.  And I think we get the best, most fair judges when there is a threat of a filibuster on either side.  I like liberal judges, but I don't want a judiciary composed only of very liberal judges.  I think we need balance. 

    When the filibuster is used responsibly, it's an incredibly effective tool.  The threat of a filibuster has kept some crazy, right wing, radicals from being put on the bench.  The Dems have accepted that the majority does get to pick judges and have been good about picking their battles and only using the filibuster weapon for the most right wing picks.

    Assuming the Republicans would use the filibuster in the same way, then I think not having a filibuster proof majority is a good thing.

    That said, I'm not so sure the Republicans would use the filibuster in the same way, which is why I can see the advantages of having 60 Dems.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards