I would like you to listen to NPR "Its All Politics" (link below) and comment on one of the following topics:
1: What is the "myth of the 60 vote majority"?
2. Senator Leahy has set Sotomayor's confirmation hearings for July 13; why; why are the Republicans unhappy?
3. If neither of these topics entice you; post a link and question for the class related to "We the People."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88409322
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. the 60 vote majority basically is 58 democrats and 2 independents trying to get more democrats into the Government. Many different democrats seem to not be able to make up their minds about what they want to happen in government. Ben Nelson is on his own course and doesn't seem to stay on topic and goes his own way. While another democrat Mark Sanford gives the media too much information about his personal life which is effected his job as govener in South or North Carolina. The people want him out of the government before things get worse.
ReplyDeleteBut why is a 60 vote majority significant in the U.S. Senate? How is it connected to a filibuster?
ReplyDeleteThe myth of 60 vote majority can only be used as a threat or a fallback strategy to be intimidating. The 60 vote is not set in stone. This year with 58 democrats and 2 independents, votes aren’t all consistent. You basically have to worry about each individual’s personal vote, not the democrats as one big voting machine. Just because democrats have the overwhelming population in congress doesn’t mean that they have absolute power over the decisions made. Two of its members this year, Ted Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd, have failed to make an appearance on the senate floor due to health reasons. That, and the threat of moderate democrats swaying on specific issues, defeats the intimidation created by “the 60 vote.”
ReplyDeleteConnecting to Mrs. Wulfing’s question about the filibuster, my opinion is that Republicans may use the filibuster to sway the weakly opinionated democrats on specific issues.
The Republicans are up set with the July 13th date because they feel that there isn't sufficient time to prepare for the hearings. They also are upset because they have tried to claim that they learned about the date through the news media, but this is false since they learned when Pat Leahy announced it on the floor.
ReplyDeleteThe date was chosen because that is the same allotment of time that was given for John Roberts hearings from the time he was nominated. The Republicans didn't complain then and are now seen as being poor sports and that they are continuing the mantra of being the party of no.
Keeping with the similar topic of the "60 vote majority", I stumbled upon this article:
ReplyDeleteCan Democrats Reform Health Care Without Republicans?
url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090709/us_time/08599190943900;_ylt=ArnfbK5acFd9JEqkY5AvQHI8KbIF
And, what do you guys think about the health care reform in general?
I am also responding to the "60 vote majority" question. Recently the Democrats reached what the program called a Magic Number-- 58 Democrats and 2 independents. As my colleagues have already pointed out, this means that they may have some serious power in the Senate now. However, connecting to Mrs. Wulfing's question, here is why: senators are allowed to filibuster, or speak for indefinite periods of time, on any issue they wish to. Opposing parties often filibuster bills they do not wish to pass, extending the session as to reduce the chance a vote will go through that particular day. This can be overcome, however, by 3/5ths of the Senate choosing to vote immediately. As you may have guessed, 3/5ths of 100 is 60 members! This would mean that the Democrats could pass any bill they wish, as soon as they wish it to happen. However, this is assuming that all 58 Democrats vote exactly along party lines (and the few independents vote favorably as well). As the program indicated, there are many reasons why this may not occur. Two of the Democrats in the Senate are seriously ill, one that recovered from a staph infection and the other fighting brain cancer. They then listed a group of Democrats that did not vote with their party, particularly the senators from Southern states. They especially mention Southern senators that are up for reelection, and may want to appear more moderate. In any case, as Tucker put, the 60 vote majority may serve more as an intimidating magical number than an actual power source for the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteWell, I couldn't find the specific NPR story I was looking for, but here is a related one. I have heard on the radio recently arguments over whether force feeding is a form of torture. The basic arguments line up thus: it is a human right to not wish to eat and is torturous to infringe upon this right, not to mention being force fed is highly uncomfortable. On the other hand, it would be inhumane to allow prisoners to starve to death, it would reflect horribly on the United States if a ton of prisoners suddenly dropped dead from starvation, and we have a responsibility to force criminals to serve out their full sentence (meaning we must keep them alive for their whole sentence).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801344.html
Man what a hard topic. I can't decide what I think. What about you guys?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs there a text version of this, because it will not play on my computer.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, having a 60 vote majority means that the Democrats can vote to end a filibuster. There are only 58 Democrats in the Senate. The two independents are significant because they usually vote with the Democrats, therefore giving the Democrats a "60 vote majority."
I am hoping to hear from a few of you whether you think forced feeding is a form of torture ... this is a compelling questions and definitely the type of question we need to be able to answer using the constitution, court cases, and law ... so ... cruel and unusual punishment ... where is it in the constitution? What is precedent? Are there any court cases that establish the precedent of forced feeding being considered torture or cruel and unusual punishment?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy laptop decided to die this past Saturday, so my computer access is now limited, but I will try to keep updated with the blog and homework.
ReplyDeleteSomething that's all over the news today: The arrest of Harvard University scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Obama's response to the issue.
Here's an article about the arrest:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106838498
The following article is from the Sergeant's point of view:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106963782
And this last article is about Obama's words on the subject, and his apology to his initial remarks:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/07/obama_does_damage_control_on_g.html
My question(s) to you all are these:
Should Obama have gotten himself involved in this case? Was he out of line with his comments?
How does the race issue stand today? Is this case blowing it out of proportion, or should we be talking about it again and working to make it better?
I would love to respond to the force-feeding topic, when I can. It's an interesting topic, and one I have never considered before. :)
I found this particular article about the 60 vote majority and why it may not be as good as some people think... just another view point.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/02/Dems-60-vote-majority-may-not-be-super/UPI-55941246533378/
This is all kind of new to me but I interpreted this by in the event of a 60 vote majority the democrats can vote and end any filibuster that might come up. Also, I’ll restate what everyone else has already but the 58 Democrats are the majority leaving the just two very important independent senators. Many can argue they have the most power because they usually vote with the Democrats which adds up to 60 democratic votes; a majority.
ReplyDeleteChanse
Does anyone agree with Jason Mattera on how Conservatives can capture more of the youths vote? This guy sounds like he is trying to make a strong arguement out of nothing. I know this was about the 2008 elections but does anyone find his arguement convincing?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSeW1LozDgs
Forced feeding, and whether or not it is a form of torture, is really difficult to discern; especially since it can be interpreted in so many ways. There is force feeding in hospitals, and during hunger strikes. It's difficult to discern because forcibly feeding someone is just not pleasant as tubes are being forced down throats or stuck into stomachs. In a situation as a hunger strike, force feeding is torture because it is not being administered completely as a life preserving technique and more as a form of retaliation - thus the force feeding would be much more violent than in the case of a medical situation. But could it be considered torture when an anorexic is being force fed in a hospital against their will??
ReplyDeletehere's a link about the force feedings at Guantanamo: http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/testimony-of-military-physicians/hunger-strikes-at-guantanamo-2014-medical-ethics-and-human-rights-in-a-legal-black-hole
This has nothing to really do with what has been posted (sorry :/) But I was wondering what everyone's views were on this. On Friday, Squeaky Fromme was released from prison. From those of you who don't know who she is, she tried to assassinate Ford. I was wondering what everyone thought. Do you think that she should have been released even though she attempted to kill a person (more importantly the President)?
ReplyDeleteHere is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111885644
I personally think she shouldn’t have been released. She attempted to murder a person and then later escaped from prison. Also, I couldn’t really find it but what kind of psychiatric help has she had? She was practically brainwashed by Charles Manson and escaped prison so she could be closer to him. Has she had any type of help? Let me know what ya’ll find. I think it’d be crazy for her to be released and have not had any help.
Force feeding is wrong and illegal no matter the situation. It is a complete invasion of personal rights to your body. I think it is very similar to Roe v. Wade and the issue of birth control because it is also about your rights to your body. If you don't have control to your own body then what do you have? And force feeding in hospitals is still wrong, unless the person consents to it. But saving an anorexic by force feeding still seems wrong because where would you draw the line for when it is okay and when it is not? You can't save everyone.
ReplyDeleteI am going tackle the issue of whether or not Henry Louis Gates Jr. was rightfully arrested. This did not need to be made into a race issue, I feel as though the Obama administration simply made it come off that way to show that Obama is "breaking barriers" and addressing issues that no one else has the guts to. Mr. Gates was not arrested because of his skin color. He was arrested as a precaution. Listening to the radio the other day, I heard an interesting point of view on the subject. A black cop had called in to voice his opinion. He also felt that the Obama administration did not need to turn this into such a big conflict. He stated that because of situations like this, cops are even more careful arresting various ethnicities because of the potential for a back lash. This wouldn't have caused much commotion if the media and Obama hadn't turned it into a Rodney King-like incident.
ReplyDeleteTouching upon when this post was relevant, the 60 vote majority comes from the need to have 60 votes to pass a bill (currently 3/5ths). It is believed that 58 democrats and two independents can simply steamroll any bill into existence just because of their numbers. Unfortunately, all 60 people do not have homogeneous thoughts and that does cut down on the likeliness of such steamrolling. The interesting part of this story is that Congress is not full for various reasons and therefore the 3/5ths needed is substantially reduced and that increases the possibility of larger control. While the "60 vote majority" is a "myth" most people seem to be overplaying the roll of the 58 democrats and two independents and underplaying the large deficit caused by absences.
ReplyDeleteThe "myth" of the 60 vote majority is that because there are enought Democrats and as Wiley mentioned, independents, they could override any filibuster that the Republican party could put together. This shows how far our country has come on relying on political parties. People and politicans are becoming so entrenched within their own party platform, that their are fewer and fewer politicans who are willing to reach across the aisle. With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the Senate has lost one of those pragmatic politicans who was willing to compromise in order to get a bill through that would benefit the public. President Obama has made some attempts at trying to get partisan support, as shown with the health care bill, but his party has not made a great effort. It is sad that in order for a cloture to happen, the Senate must have one party be the majority of 60+. It would be better for the American people if party lines could be blurred and both sides would be willing to work together and pass legislation that would actually accomplish something.
ReplyDelete