NO! - Our Judicial System is dysfunctional, and eliminating the filibuster won't force the Senate to do the Will of The People.
46%
YES! - A super-majority shouldn't be required to simply begin debate for routine legislation. This is a good start.
54%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Cracking the Code:
"Thom Hartmann ought to be bronzed. His new book sets off from the same high plane as the last and offers explicit tools and how-to advice that will allow you to see, hear, and feel propaganda when it's directed at you and use the same techniques to refute it. His book would make a deaf-mute a better communicator. I want him on my reading table every day, and if you try one of his books, so will you."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Never one to shy away from the truth, Thom Hartmann’s collected works are inspiring, wise, and compelling. His work lights the way to a better America."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Lobbyists Wall ST Greed Ignorance are ruining our gov't / country We must rise up in mass and fight back . Corp Money - bought and paid for judges - Wall St banks run our economy. Wall St Banks are even bigger and more powerful than before 2008 Bush Paulosn depression / TARP scam on taxpayers : .
The question as framed is difficult to answer. I certainly agree that "A super-majority shouldn't be required to simply begin debate for routine legislation." But on the other hand the first alternative is true too: our judicial system is at least somewhat dysfunctional, rotting from the head as they say, and eliminating the filibuster *wouldn't* force the Senate to do the will of the people--not certainly, anyway. But I have to say "wouldn't" rather than "won't" because (as I commented elsewhere) this right-wing Supreme Court majority will never do anything to thwart Republican rule.
Not until the Republicans regain a majority in the Senate will the current rule by filibuster be overturned; but when that time comes, the change will be made so fast our heads will spin.
It should be a no brainer, but then we're dealing with a 5/4 partisan Court right now. What's the sense of having a majority in either the House or Senate if the minority actually rules? Never made sense to me and I doubt it made sense to our founders.