frivolous and obstructionist misuse of the filibuster

[Dante]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

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...

 

[Dante]

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.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-obstructionist-misuse-of-the-filibuster.html

That is basically what one major point in the NYT Editorial is saying.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

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.

read the editorial dufus

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

 

[Dante]

This article hits the nail right on the head in my estimation. What do you think?

As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently. We don't have to look to the radicals in the Taliban or Hamas to see issues that most Americans would question. Sharia Law is practiced by most Islamic centric countries, and it is in almost direct opposition to the principles on which America was established and in direct contrast to the agenda of the left in America. What is important to realize is that Sharia Law isn't an outlier, practiced by radicals like al-Qaeda, but actually the mainstream core of jurisprudence in the Islamic world.

Rest of the OP here: American Thinker: The Left's Unlikely Alliance with Islam

How is this thread any different than one calling conservatives allies of the enemy?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

read the editorial dufus

I did, jackoff. I wonder why the NYT is complaining about it now. Dums used the filbuster to block Bush's judicial appointments all the time. Why weren't they complaining then?