On filibusters

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Wry Catcher, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,803
    Thanks Received:
    4,249
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,180
    Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

    Background:

    Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture


    The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize senators to control the flow of business. If no senator holds the floor, any senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.


    Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.


    The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.


    Link: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Senate Legislative Process
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. FJO
    Online

    FJO Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    7,255
    Thanks Received:
    936
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Just North of the 49th
    Ratings:
    +2,616
    A Senator proposed to end all filibusters in the Senate.

    However, a bi-partisan coalition of 99 other Senators, lead by Senator Philip Buster was successful of quelling that motion.
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,269
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,076
    Only when it suits Democrats
     
  4. francoHFW
    Online

    francoHFW Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    33,539
    Thanks Received:
    2,178
    Trophy Points:
    1,115
    Location:
    NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
    Ratings:
    +5,630
    Make them ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER FCS...lol
     
  5. blackhawk
    Offline

    blackhawk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Messages:
    17,775
    Thanks Received:
    3,404
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Deep in the heart of Texas.
    Ratings:
    +9,107
    If you want this fine just don't try and swing the pendulum back the other way when Democrats are the minority party in the Senate again as one day they will be if your ok with both parties having that power to push their agenda through when they are in the majority go for it.
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    A transparent attempt to suppress minority rights in the Senate. When the Dums held a 60 vote majority I never heard any proposal like this.
     
  7. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    Filibusters no longer serve any purpose, other than to impose a de facto supermajority requirement on every single piece of legislation introduced in the chamber.
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,269
    Thanks Received:
    14,920
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,076
    Only when it suits Democrats

    Republican control the House, so it is still majority rule or do Dems get to pass everything on a "2 out of 3 ain't bad" theory?
     
  9. Dont Taz Me Bro
    Offline

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

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    31,656
    Thanks Received:
    6,686
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Ratings:
    +17,544
    If they're going to have a filibuster then it needs to be a REAL filibuster. I'm talking about going back to the days when they were required to literally stand there and read from the dictionary for 24 hours straight, not this candy ass bullshit where they just declare they're having a filibuster and that's it.
     
  10. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,574
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,676
    When that was the case, it was the Republicans asking for an end to the filibuster rule.
     

Share This Page