Senate Democrats successfully filibuster Keystone

[Paperman299]

I'm pretty much neutral on the ridiculous political football that is Keystone, but to this I say good. Let Republicans choke on the filibuster for a few months for a change.

I respectfully disagree. I say that it is time to change the mold. Without the filibuster, then the voters must actually see what the team they voted in is going to pass. And they may very well not like it. I am referring to both parties, now. So, with that in mind, knowing that a filibuster would no longer exist, perhaps our congress-critters would be more judicious and thoughtful in crafting meaningful legislation instead of wasting taxpayer time and money lobbing molotov cocktails at each other.

I was against the filibuster before November and I still am now. There is a reason for presidential veto-power. Filibusterers (I just made a new Bush word!) should not be using veto-power in this way.

Without the filibuster, I bet bottom dollar that we would see considerably more turnover in the Congress from cycle to cycle, and maybe that would be a very good thing.

I'm pretty hesitant to go from having no filibusters for nominations all the way to no filibusters period. It gives the little guy a way to fight back against legislation he perceives as egregious...although if a radicalized group perceives everything as egregious then of course we have a problem (as we have seen). I don't know. Maybe the filibuster's time is done.

In the meantime, I'm content to see the party that's been aggressively escalating filibuster use these past decades get a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Paperman299]

So far, there have been 15 amendments attached to the Keystone Bill...

Senate squelches Democratic amendments on fast-track Keystone XL kabuki bill

Yeah but there's always a number of amendments on a bill, aren't there? So I'm just wondering, is this a regular number of amendments or an unusually large number of amendments?

Also, a very telling bit from that link:

All 10 amendments presented by Democrats were nixed, including five that were tabled without debate,

 

[Mr. H.]

So far, there have been 15 amendments attached to the Keystone Bill...

Senate squelches Democratic amendments on fast-track Keystone XL kabuki bill

Yeah but there's always a number of amendments on a bill, aren't there? So I'm just wondering, is this a regular number of amendments or an unusually large number of amendments?

Also, a very telling bit from that link:

All 10 amendments presented by Democrats were nixed, including five that were tabled without debate,

Not sure how this number of amendments compares to other bills. Some have been tossed, others added.

Imagine if this RFS amendment remained attached to the bill at the time of vote. Can you imagine how scared shitless some of these politicians would be to vote FOR it? Those Ass-Fucking farmers would rain a whole lot of hurt down on their noggins.

 

[HenryBHough]

My goodness!

We have a NEW "Party of No".

 

[Statistikhengst]

Keystone vote fails in Senate - Elana Schor - POLITICO

The vote to close debate (cloture) was:

53-39, meaning that 8 were either not there or did not vote.

More details at the article.

I am principally against the filibuster and am just as against it now that the GOP has the Senate as I was before November. The filibuster needs to go.

If your math is correct we only have 50 states? Memo to the MinC.....

Yes, for those who after 8 years still remember one campaign trail error as if that is the end of the universe, poor sops, 50 states are represented in the US Senate. That makes for 100 senators.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Little-Acorn]

I"m not against the filibuster but I think people should actually have to stand up there and talk for as long as they can go if your going to do it then do it the way it's supposed to be done.

^^^^^^^^^^ This. ^^^^^^^^^^^

Something I wrote several years ago:

-----------------------------------

Bring Back the Noisy Filibuster.

Most people know about the origins of the Filibuster. A quirk in U.S. Senate rules, says that people can go on talking endlessly, about anything they like, during the "debate" period for a bill, and no one can stop them. This allows a small number of people, trading off their speech right, to bring the entire Senate to a halt, and prevent any action on whatever bill the talker(s) oppose. Years ago, it required a 2/3 supermajority vote in the Senate, to invoke "cloture" and force the talking to stop so they could get on to a vote.

This would have the effect of causing a huge furor in government, which quickly spread to the press and the attention of the voters (people who usually didn't pay much attention to Senate business). The people filibustering a bill, did it with exactly this in mind: To bring the bill (and the controversy around it) to the attention of the people. They believed that the people would side with them, if they knew what was going on, and would call their Senators and Congressmen to quit supporting the bill being filibustered. Sometimes the filibusterers were right about the people supporting them, and sometimes they were wrong. But whichever, that was their intention.

Then in 1975, the Senate changed the rules. Now it only took a 60% majority (60 out of 100 Senators) to invoke cloture and end the filibuster. And it became a "silent filibuster", where only that particular bill now needed the supermajority... but the rest of Senate business could proceed, instead of ALL Senate business being halted while the filibuster went on.

So, a filibuster became "not such a big deal"... filibusters could go on all the time, and weren't particularly disruptive. Senators (particularly those in the majority) praised the change, pointing out that now the Senate could do its legislating more smoothly and efficiently.

BUT... this violates one of the most basic principles of American government, as designed by the Framers. They deliberately designed the U.S. Government to NOT be "smooth and efficient".

The Framers were basically conservative men. They believed that society would work the best, and provide the greatest safety and freedom for its people, if governmental interference were minimized. To that end, they designed a Federal government where four very different groups of people, all had to agree on a law, before it went into force. The Framers decided that if any one of those four groups objected, that should be enough reason to dump the bill and keep the people free of its restrictions and encumbrances.

The four groups were, of course, (1) Citizen-legislators who had real jobs in the real world, who took two years off to join the legislature and then went back to their real jobs afterward (House of Representatives); (2) Professional politicians whose job it was to make sure the Fed govt did not take powers that should have been left to the states, and so were appointed by their state governments to a six-year term (Senate) to protect the State's authority; (3) An Executive officer whose job was to carry out the laws passed by the first two groups but to veto any law he considered unsuitable (President); and (4) a group of judges who would examine actual cases where someone complained his rights were violated by the exercise of a law passed by the first three groups (Supreme Court).

Only if all four of those very different groups ALL agreed that a law was good, would it be allowed to stay in force. If any one of them disagreed, the law was either never enacted, or was tossed out shortly afterward. The whole purpose of this clumsy, cantankerous arrangement, was to PREVENT as many laws as possible, from being imposed on the American people; and to leave them free to do as much as possible WITHOUT government restriction or interference. Only a relatively few laws were to be enacted: things that most people in ALL groups agreed we needed, and agreed were permitted by the Constitution.

People who praise the "silent filibuster" for its tendency to make Senate legislation "smoother and easier", have forgotten that it's not supposed to be smooth OR easy. The purpose of the U.S. Government, is to ensure FREEDOM, not to ensure government restriction. And that's all any law can do: restrict and/or punish people.

The reason it's always been possible for one guy (or one small group) to block ALL legislation in the Senate, is so that one guy can piss off a lot of people (including the general public who otherwise weren't paying much attention) and get them to examine what's going on. What is this one guy so concerned about, that he sees fit to bring the entire Senate to a halt and prevent ANY legislation?

The purpose of a filibuster, is to ignite furious debate among a much wider segment of the population, than the Senate usually gets. And the guy doing the filibustering, does it because he believes that when lots of the public get involved, his side is more likely to win. Those large numbers of people, will call or write their Senators and tell them to kill the bill; since he believes the majority of the American people would actually OPPOSE the bill if they knew the details.

The introduction of the "silent filibuster" in 1975, took away this valuable (if disruptive) safety valve, and ensured that most American people (who seldom pay attention to what's going on in the Senate) would remain ignorant of the bad things the one person finds in the bill. The 1975 change still allows a "noisy filibuster" IF the Senate Majority Leader insists on that kind. But the majority is the LAST group that wants massive public attention to a bill they can pass with a quiet vote.

I last talked about bringing back the "noisy filibuster", when Republicans had the majority in the Senate and Democrats were filibustering things, all without getting much of the public involved. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans filibustering things. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. [Since then, control has passed back to the Republicans, and now the Democrats are filibustering once again. My feelings on boths sides remain the same. -LA] In both cases, I wish the filibusters would cause MAJOR disruptions, and that the issues involved would get massive attention from the voting public, with massive calls to their Senators and Representatives following, to settle the matter quickly one way or another.

Bring back the "noisy filibuster" - a filibuster which must halt ALL activity in the Senate, hit all the headlines, and cause massive "What the h*ll??" reactions from as many voters as possible. And keep the "noisy filibuster" in place, no matter which party is in the majority.

 

[hipeter924]

Or the voters can simply give one party a filibuster-proof majority.

The problem isn't the filibuster, the problem is the voters' desire for divided government.

The voters can't decide who to vote for, as Democratic and Republican politicians are unpopular - just some more than others. I wasn't inspired by anyone on the ballot last election either.