Will the Senate scrap the filibuster?

[rightwinger]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

 

[rightwinger]

On Jan. 5, the Senate has the chance to change the rules on filibusters and secret holds; it should take it - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com

The filibuster originated in 1806, when the Senate eliminated a rule that had allowed the chamber to end debate by majority vote; in effect, that meant a senator or group of senators could delay progress by simply talking incessantly.

But that hardly ever happened in the 19th century. It wasn't until 1917 that the Senate decided to limit these stemwinders by imposing a rule that debate could be ended by a supermajority vote. Since then there have been some other rule changes altering the vote threshold, along with frequent arguments about whether the Senate should go back to its original rule allowing debate to be ended with a simple majority vote. We think it should.

Under the current system, senators don't even have to stand up and speak until they're hoarse in order to filibuster a bill; a party leader just has to refuse to allow a bill to be brought up by unanimous consent, forcing supporters to find 60 votes in favor of a motion to end debate.



Read more: On Jan. 5, the Senate has the chance to change the rules on filibusters and secret holds; it should take it - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah... talk of this always after power shifts... don't think it's gonna happen though

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On Jan. 5, the Senate has the chance to change the rules on filibusters and secret holds; it should take it - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com

The filibuster originated in 1806, when the Senate eliminated a rule that had allowed the chamber to end debate by majority vote; in effect, that meant a senator or group of senators could delay progress by simply talking incessantly.

But that hardly ever happened in the 19th century. It wasn't until 1917 that the Senate decided to limit these stemwinders by imposing a rule that debate could be ended by a supermajority vote. Since then there have been some other rule changes altering the vote threshold, along with frequent arguments about whether the Senate should go back to its original rule allowing debate to be ended with a simple majority vote. We think it should.

Under the current system, senators don't even have to stand up and speak until they're hoarse in order to filibuster a bill; a party leader just has to refuse to allow a bill to be brought up by unanimous consent, forcing supporters to find 60 votes in favor of a motion to end debate.



Read more: On Jan. 5, the Senate has the chance to change the rules on filibusters and secret holds; it should take it - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com

Go ahead, just remember that in 2012 the Republicans may control the Senate.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

They have to be on the floor talking. None of this thing that came in during the last reform where they just do tag teams.

 

[pencilitin]

They're NEVER going to get rid of the filibuster IMHO... The fact is the senators are always afraid of the other side getting too much power. The filibuster is a check on that and they won't want to give it up.

 

[rightwinger]

Filibuster was a quaint, hardly used custom until recent Congresses.

It is now used to change the Constitutional requirement of a majority vote in the Senate to pass legislation. Rather than being used for crucial legislation it has become a defacto 60% majority to pass laws.

Both sides should sign up to filibuster reforms since both sides have been abusing it.

The Democrats may benefit for now, but both sides, and more importantly, the country will benefit from ending the filibuster

 

[rightwinger]

Southern Democrats were the first to seriously misuse this tactic during the civil rights era, but Republicans have perfected such abuse in the last three years. According to the good-government advocacy group Common Cause, which once defended the filibuster rule but now aims to eliminate it, 8 percent of major legislation was affected by threatened or actual filibusters in the 1960s, compared with 70 percent since 2006. The result is gridlock, which will only get worse now that the balance of partisan power is close to even

Read more: On Jan. 5, the Senate has the chance to change the rules on filibusters and secret holds; it should take it - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com

 

[Avatar4321]

Filibuster was a quaint, hardly used custom until recent Congresses.

It is now used to change the Constitutional requirement of a majority vote in the Senate to pass legislation. Rather than being used for crucial legislation it has become a defacto 60% majority to pass laws.

Both sides should sign up to filibuster reforms since both sides have been abusing it.

The Democrats may benefit for now, but both sides, and more importantly, the country will benefit from ending the filibuster

Then perhaps we shouldnt have our politicians telling us that we are constantly in a crisis and every piece of legislation is crucial?

Or perhaps we just return the fillibuster to what it was originally.

 

[Revere]

The filibuster has been around for 100+/- years.

 

[Revere]

The Senate filibustered a Bush SCOTUS nominee.

Hardly used?

 

[The T]

Will the Senate scrap the filibuster on January 5? - The Week

A large group of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, wants to reform the filibuster process on January 5, the first day of the new Congress — when, according to precedent, the incoming Senate majority can alter the rules by a simple majority vote without fear of the process itself being filibustered. Although Reid's exact plans are unknown, the changes would reportedly require legislators to be speaking on the Senate floor in order to block a proposed bill (see Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). Will this work, and is it constitutional for Democrats to even be trying?

As to the Constitutionality:

From Article 1, Section 5:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

 

[rightwinger]

The Senate filibustered a Bush SCOTUS nominee.

Hardly used?

"8 percent of major legislation was affected by threatened or actual filibusters in the 1960s, compared with 70 percent since 2006"

 

[Revere]

Who cares what percent? Those were all contentious and major votes.

 

[Revere]

You fucking crybabies want to change the rules now that they don't work your way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If a bill is so damn good it should take 70 to 75 votes to pass in the senate. Our bills are costly, feel good legislation, worthless measures that benefit no one.

 

[rightwinger]

Who cares what percent? Those were all contentious and major votes.

LOL

Sure they were

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution, which all Liberals love and respect, requires a majority vote in the Senate with the Vice President as the tie breaker

Requiring a 60% vote before you can actually vote on a bill is circumventing our beloved Constitution

Good stuff there, rw. Now that's funny.

The Constitution was written by Liberals