frivolous and obstructionist misuse of the filibuster

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Dante, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    From an editorial. Usually I ignore talk about how to reform Congress, but this one made me stop and think:

    "...eturn to the old “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” model — in which a filibuster means that the Senate has to stop everything and debate around the clock — by allowing a motion requiring 40 votes to continue debate every three hours while the chamber is in continuous session. That way it is the minority that has to grab cots and mattresses and be prepared to take to the floor night and day to keep their filibuster alive."

    "Under such a rule, a sufficiently passionate minority could still preserve the Senate’s traditions and force an extended debate on legislation. But frivolous and obstructionist misuse of the filibuster would be a thing of the past." ​


    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/opinion/28ornstein.html?hp
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    41,414
    Thanks Received:
    6,443
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +11,305
    I have no problem with requiring that a filibuster be REAL. And not a damn roll call vote every once in a while if the people that want to break it think they have the votes.

    And you are right, the frivolous cases would not last as the Minority would not stay in numbers to support it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    :clap2:

    I am always amazed at those who would call for an END to the filibuster. The filibuster is a great tool for a body like the Senate. Reforming it's own rules, the Senate can makes mistakes. In this case, if everyone would go along, a reform would benefit not only the Senate, but the nation.
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,017
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,226
    That actually still exists, and can be used. If you ever watch C-SPAN you will see that Senators normally get the floor for a set time period, a rule specifically designed to prevent real filibusters. The reason for that is actually simple, the people who want to break the filibuster have to stay there and maintain a quorum, while the people who agree with the filibuster get to go home and eat dinner. they just changed the rules to make it easier on the majority, not the minority.
     
  5. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

    Dont Taz Me Bro USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    36,206
    Thanks Received:
    7,772
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +23,535
    They need to bring back REAL filibusters, the days when they all stayed and spoke nonstop for 24 hours and didn't even stop to go use the bathroom, but pissed in a bucket at the podium so they could keep talking.

    If they went back to those rules, there would be a lot less of them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    you obviously are commenting on something you aren't very well schooled on. watching filibusters on c-span is not a substitute for knowledge of Senate rules and their history

    "part of the problem lies with changes in Senate practices during the 1970s, which allowed the minority to filibuster a piece of legislation without holding up other items of business." - from the OP link which you failed to read or worse, failed to read and comprehend...
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-obstructionist-misuse-of-the-filibuster.html

    That is basically what one major point in the NYT Editorial is saying.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,629
    Thanks Received:
    7,823
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,229
    Actually that only happened once, Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights bill. So no wonder Dante agrees with it.
    In practice, you had a number of senators so while one was speaking the others could tend to their needs. Everyone needed to be close by for periodic roll call votes for quorum calls however. So senators would sleep in their offices.
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    read the editorial dufus :eusa_shhh:
     
  10. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    23,146
    Thanks Received:
    5,259
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +6,337
    As I understand it, a filibuster is when a Congressman yaks and yaks for hours and doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile. Sounds like everyday business in our Congress these days.
     

Share This Page