Filibuster: continued talk or go to lunch/home?

[Yurt]

By its very definition, filibuster requires someone to stand on the floor and talk, without cessation. This is exemplified in the movie, "Mr Smith goes to Washington." In modern times congress will simply ajourn with a filibuster by simply saying: "we are not going to talk about the filibustered issue," and then go home or to lunch.

Some famous filibusters were eventually broken becuase of, for example: potty breaks (forget the year). This is the whole point of a filibuster, to make someone stay talking, be it about their mother's recipes, but to stand or on a cot in that one famous filibuster, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk, until either the majority side gives up or the minority filibuster gives in.

I think this should still be the standard. To simply say, "I will filibuster," and then go home goes directly against the spirit of "filibustering." Now I know the congress can make their own rules/traditions, however, IMHO, a filibuster should be a filibuster, else call it a different name, like "obstruction."

What do you think?

 

[Nienna]

Sounds good.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

now why should standard senate rules be adhered to? after all, the republican majority senate would NEVER violate any rules like, say, hold open a vote for 5 extra hours to pass paid for legislation from some major industry, would they?

 

[Yurt]

now why should standard senate rules be adhered to? after all, the republican majority senate would NEVER violate any rules like, say, hold open a vote for 5 extra hours to pass paid for legislation from some major industry, would they?

this happened? please show me where, thanks.

also, what do you think about the filibuster actually being a "filibuster." I mean, holding something open for five extra hours does not sound like it completly changes the rules, in that, there is a time frame you must adhere too, but the republicans now adhere to "no" time frame at all. the issue with the filibuster is that the rule/standard has been completely changed, not just taking away five hours for a break, rather, to not have the break at all, instead, just allow all to go home.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

this happened? please show me where, thanks.

my bad, it was not the senate, it was the house.

medicare/drugcard vote

Time Was GOP's Ally On the Vote

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page A01

At exactly 3 a.m. yesterday, Rep. Richard "Doc" Hastings (R-Wash.), presiding over the House of Representatives, announced that time for debate on President Bush's Medicare reform and prescription drug bill had expired. "Members will have 15 minutes to record their votes," he said.

The forecast turned out to be wildly off the mark. It was nearly 6 a.m. when the longest roll call in House history ended, with Republicans cheering a 220 to 215 victory and embittered Democrats denouncing it as a travesty.
And we all see how that turned out now, didn't we?

also, what do you think about the filibuster actually being a "filibuster." I mean, holding something open for five extra hours does not sound like it completly changes the rules, in that, there is a time frame you must adhere too, but the republicans now adhere to "no" time frame at all. the issue with the filibuster is that the rule/standard has been completely changed, not just taking away five hours for a break, rather, to not have the break at all, instead, just allow all to go home.

the filibuster, despite the claims of abuse and unconstitutionality by the republicans, has become the only tool left by the democrats to prevent a wildly rampaging right wing extremist group of supposed conservatives to stack a judiciary with people who are anti-abortion. While that in and of itself would not be a bad thing because of the ridiculous roe v. wade ruling, its the anti-consumer attitude that all these nominees have with them that (in my opinion) seriously jeopardizes this country. Removing the filibuster or enforcing the exact action by definition is tyranny of the majority and opression of the minority no matter the bullshit spin and rhetoric.

 

[pegwinn]

I think that the majority should sit in and not allow an ajournment until a no-shit filibuster takes place. Keep em going until they pass out from exhaustion. Then call in enough republicans to vote the issue. If enough R's don wanna stand by and sleep through it, then nuke em and move on.

And then, if the D's still want to whine ...

 

[Gem]

I am fully willing to admit confusion or even ignorance on matters when they arise...and to prove that:

Can someone please explain to me how a filibuster is a worthwhile and/or neccessary thing?

I elect my officials, you elect yours. If more of your officials want to vote a certain way than my official does...then thats a representative democracy in action....my official stalling, in essence staging a mini-temper tantrum in calmer form, until your officials tire and decide that the issue wasn't that important to begin with seems like it is working AGAINST the system people who support the filibuster claim it is an integral part of.

Isn't it a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA" in the middle of a conversation and then, when the other person tires of trying to explain their point to you and walks away you laugh and say, "I WIN!"

I'm sure I just don't know enough about it...which is why I'm asking...can anyone explain it to me?

 

[insein]

I am fully willing to admit confusion or even ignorance on matters when they arise...and to prove that:

Can someone please explain to me how a filibuster is a worthwhile and/or neccessary thing?

I elect my officials, you elect yours. If more of your officials want to vote a certain way than my official does...then thats a representative democracy in action....my official stalling, in essence staging a mini-temper tantrum in calmer form, until your officials tire and decide that the issue wasn't that important to begin with seems like it is working AGAINST the system people who support the filibuster claim it is an integral part of.

Isn't it a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA" in the middle of a conversation and then, when the other person tires of trying to explain their point to you and walks away you laugh and say, "I WIN!"

I'm sure I just don't know enough about it...which is why I'm asking...can anyone explain it to me?

Hit the nail right on the head. A filibuster stands against everything the constituition was written for. We the people elect officials to do our bidding. When one side has the majority, that means the majority of people voted for them. Therefore the minority had better do a better job in the next election. Meanwhile, they dont get to have a BIGGER voice then the majority for losing. Completely assinine.

 

[dilloduck]

Hit the nail right on the head. A filibuster stands against everything the constituition was written for. We the people elect officials to do our bidding. When one side has the majority, that means the majority of people voted for them. Therefore the minority had better do a better job in the next election. Meanwhile, they dont get to have a BIGGER voice then the majority for losing. Completely assinine.

Guanteed gridlock to "protect the rights of the minority". If both parties do this continually, nothing will be decided on critical issues. Does essentially doing nothing really protect anyones rights or does it just "protect" the jobs of politicians?

 

[pegwinn]

Hit the nail right on the head. A filibuster stands against everything the constituition was written for. We the people elect officials to do our bidding. When one side has the majority, that means the majority of people voted for them. Therefore the minority had better do a better job in the next election. Meanwhile, they dont get to have a BIGGER voice then the majority for losing. Completely assinine.

Nope, with respect, Majorities are not always right. A true democracy is actually mob rule and that is just as wrong as activist liberal judges. A filibuster can serve a usefull purpose if it is constitutional. I am no scholar, but I am given to understand that there is no requirement for a supermajority for judges. But by engageing in a filibuster (which isn't a true FB btw) it creates an artificial requirement for a supermajority in this area. Just exercise the nuclear option and move on. IMO.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Hit the nail right on the head. A filibuster stands against everything the constituition was written for. We the people elect officials to do our bidding. When one side has the majority, that means the majority of people voted for them. Therefore the minority had better do a better job in the next election. Meanwhile, they dont get to have a BIGGER voice then the majority for losing. Completely assinine.

thats completely disingenious and intellectually dishonest. What part did the citizens of texas or california have in electing frist? what part did the citizens of illinois have in electing tom delay?

we have 50 states in this union, not one. those 50 states elect representatives according to their ideas and its a travesty to the constitution and a major injustice to this country to ignore or override their representation in the government body because the other out of the other 49 states, a majority of them happened to vote the opposite that they did. thats not how this country has EVER worked, nor has it ever supposed to have been that way.

 

[Annie]

Nope, with respect, Majorities are not always right. A true democracy is actually mob rule and that is just as wrong as activist liberal judges. A filibuster can serve a usefull purpose if it is constitutional. I am no scholar, but I am given to understand that there is no requirement for a supermajority for judges. But by engageing in a filibuster (which isn't a true FB btw) it creates an artificial requirement for a supermajority in this area. Just exercise the nuclear option and move on. IMO.

Exactly Pegwinn. It surprises me how little many know of parliamentary procedures, upon which the bi-cameral legislature was founded. It's being abused in the judiciary committee, rather twisted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/HL740.cfm

 

[dilloduck]

thats completely disingenious and intellectually dishonest. What part did the citizens of texas or california have in electing frist? what part did the citizens of illinois have in electing tom delay?

we have 50 states in this union, not one. those 50 states elect representatives according to their ideas and its a travesty to the constitution and a major injustice to this country to ignore or override their representation in the government body because the other out of the other 49 states, a majority of them happened to vote the opposite that they did. thats not how this country has EVER worked, nor has it ever supposed to have been that way.

WHAT?--they had the same input that everyone else did--One vote

 

[SmarterThanYou]

WHAT?--they had the same input that everyone else did--One vote

that simplicity is exactly how 'majority rules' ends up in tyranny, or opression of the minority, and thats EXACTLY why the senate and house DEBATE. Not change rules on the fly because whiney ass political parties don't get their fucking way.

This whole ideological bullshit WILL be the downfall of both parties AND this country unless people with wisdom (and it certainly isnt but 4 people in THIS government body) decide that doing whats best for the country ISN'T confined to a party ideal.

 

[dilloduck]

that simplicity is exactly how 'majority rules' ends up in tyranny, or opression of the minority, and thats EXACTLY why the senate and house DEBATE. Not change rules on the fly because whiney ass political parties don't get their fucking way.

This whole ideological bullshit WILL be the downfall of both parties AND this country unless people with wisdom (and it certainly isnt but 4 people in THIS government body) decide that doing whats best for the country ISN'T confined to a party ideal.

filibuster STOPS debate !!

 

[Gem]

So the minority party uses the filibuster to make sure that their point is heard? How is reading the phone book, talking about recipes, etc. furthering the democratic process?

Why not just say, every single person in the Congress has 30 minutes before any vote to make their point heard....their statement must relate to why we should or should not vote a certain way?

 

[Annie]

filibuster STOPS debate !!

In the judiciary committee regarding nominees, I agree. In general, sometimes, but really provides a chance for 'cooling off' and compromise to be reached. In order to avoid the minority not being heard, filibusters are employed, though should be rare.

 

[Annie]

So the minority party uses the filibuster to make sure that their point is heard? How is reading the phone book, talking about recipes, etc. furthering the democratic process?

Why not just say, every single person in the Congress has 30 minutes before any vote to make their point heard....their statement must relate to why we should or should not vote a certain way?

The minority, which has been GOP at times, has others trying to flip for votes, contacting constituents, working the administrations, while the drama or lack thereof takes place at the podium.

 

[dilloduck]

The minority, which has been GOP at times, has others trying to flip for votes, contacting constituents, working the administrations, while the drama or lack thereof takes place at the podium.

i.e.---times out until we can figure out a way to win

 

[Annie]

i.e.---times out until we can figure out a way to win

Again, read the Federalist Papers, Rousseau, Robert's Rules of Order, British Parliamentary system...

Democracy can quickly swirl into tyranny, so can a Republic-lest you forget the Caesar followed the Republic? There are many checks and balances, seperations of power inserted into our founding documents to try and avoid these problems.