Senate Filibuster Targeted By House Democrats, Dream Act Activists In Federal Lawsuit

[whoman69]

Senate Filibuster Targeted By House Democrats, Dream Act Activists In Federal Lawsuit

By Nick Wing

A federal lawsuit claiming the filibuster is an unconstitutional "accident of history" is set to be considered on Monday, months after it was filed by a coalition of House Democrats and activists.

The plaintiffs, including Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), John Lewis (Ga.) and Mike Michaud (Maine), as well as a trio of undocumented immigrants represented by government reform group Common Cause, claim that the filibuster is "inconsistent with the principle of majority rule" and had never been contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution. They filed the suit in May, and on Monday will face a motion by Senate lawyers to have the case thrown out.

Filibuster rules grant massive power to Senate minorities by requiring a supermajority of 60 senators to vote to end debate on a bill. Traditionally a rare occurrence, their use has surged since 2009.

"Actual or threatened filibusters have become so common that it is now virtually impossible as a practical matter for the majority in the Senate to pass a significant piece of legislation or to confirm many presidential nominees without 60 votes," argued Emmet Bondurant, a Georgia attorney who represents the challengers, according to NBC News.

In this particular case, Common Cause argues that filibuster rules are preventing Erika Andiola, Celso Mireles and Caesar Vargas -- three young professional undocumented immigrants -- from achieving a "path to American citizenship" offered by the long-stalled Dream Act. The legislation has been filibustered repeatedly by Senate Republicans, most recently in 2010.

The latest legal push against the filibuster comes as Senate Democrats are seeking to reform the procedure through legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has come out aggressively and optimistically in favor of filibuster reform, claiming that the changes will go through in January whether Republicans like it or not. President Barack Obama has embraced Reid's and other Democrats' plans to reform the rules.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2270729.html

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's not really a loophole when it's a part of the income calculation (i.e. revenue minus expenses). "Loophole" is more appropriate when we're talking about a subsidy like the "incentive" that you're talking about.

right now we are subsidizing jobs moving overseas. we should be subsidizing them coming back. like always you talk semantics while I talk reality.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

right now we are subsidizing jobs moving overseas. we should be subsidizing them coming back. like always you talk semantics while I talk reality.

No, that's not correct. We are allowing normal deductions of expenses whether jobs are being moved overseas or back to the US. You want to pervert the income calculation by disallowing normal expense deductions for moving operations overseas and by adding an incentive on top of the normal deduction for moving operations back to the US.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by whoman69

You two have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Must have had Mitt Romney explain it to you. Currently business are deducting moving expenses involved with sending jobs overseas. There's already a loophole they are taking advantage of. The bill takes away that loophole and replaces it with an incentive for businesses to bring jobs here.

All that would have to be done is repeal the fake-free trade agreements and their appendage institutions.

You're just tinkering. If Obama was serious, he'd do this. But he won't because he's part of the problem.

[Psyko Tek]

Originally Posted by whoman69

2 new filibusters this week, one to protect tax breaks for companies that outsource and another to that would disclose campaign contributions bigger than $10K.

link that