On filibusters

[Wry Catcher]

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

 

[FJO]

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

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only when it suits Democrats

 

[francoHFW]

Make them ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER FCS...lol

 

[blackhawk]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

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.

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?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[konradv]

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.

When that was the case, it was the Republicans asking for an end to the filibuster rule.

 

[Richard-H]

Perhaps the idea of the filibuster isn't so bad. If 40% of the Senate is adamantly opposed to a bill, perhaps they should be able to stop it.

The real problem is the the Republicans have been over using the filibuster - they've used it to stop just about every bill.

Maybe they should limit the number of filibusters per Senate session - then the Republicans would have to be judicious about using the filibuster.

if the Dems countered by proposing a huge number of ridiculous bills to try to get the Repubs to use all their filibusters - it wouldn't matter - the House would never pass those bills, and them Dems would come out looking foolish.

 

[Stephanie]

Only when it suits Democrats

yep..

 

[konradv]

Only when it suits Democrats

yep..

Look up the "nuclear option". Republicans aren't innocent in this debate.

 

[Freewill]

Perhaps the idea of the filibuster isn't so bad. If 40% of the Senate is adamantly opposed to a bill, perhaps they should be able to stop it.

The real problem is the the Republicans have been over using the filibuster - they've used it to stop just about every bill.

Maybe they should limit the number of filibusters per Senate session - then the Republicans would have to be judicious about using the filibuster.

if the Dems countered by proposing a huge number of ridiculous bills to try to get the Repubs to use all their filibusters - it wouldn't matter - the House would never pass those bills, and them Dems would come out looking foolish.

You say "every bill." Can you name off the top of your head one bill that was stopped?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Should the Senate revise its rules and allow for a simple majority to call for the vote, ending a filibuster?

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.

Will you still say that when the Republicans have White House and 50 votes in the Senate and they vote to repeal Roe v Wade, Dodd Frank, and end the EPA and Obamacare? Or will it magically serve a purpose again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps the idea of the filibuster isn't so bad. If 40% of the Senate is adamantly opposed to a bill, perhaps they should be able to stop it.

The real problem is the the Republicans have been over using the filibuster - they've used it to stop just about every bill.

Maybe they should limit the number of filibusters per Senate session - then the Republicans would have to be judicious about using the filibuster.

if the Dems countered by proposing a huge number of ridiculous bills to try to get the Repubs to use all their filibusters - it wouldn't matter - the House would never pass those bills, and them Dems would come out looking foolish.

They have not. The fracking rules were changed so that all it takes to make a filibuster is an intent by one Senator have one, and they vote on whether to pretend there is one or not. They did this because a filibuster actually requires that people who oppose the damn thing stay in the Senate just as long as the guy doing the filibustering, and we keep electing a bunch of pussies who prefer to sleep at night.

Cloture is not a filibuster, stop pretending it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only when it suits Democrats

yep..

Look up the "nuclear option". Republicans aren't innocent in this debate.

Only a few idiots said they were, and those are the same idiots that want to pretend that ending filibusters are a good thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

When that was the case, it was the Republicans asking for an end to the filibuster rule.

Link?

 

[AmyNation]

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

No.


Although limiting the use of filibusters in some way is needed.