If the Filibuster did not Exist, Would we the People think it up and Demand it?

[Seymour Flops]

A brief history of the filibuster:

The filibuster is a practice in the U.S. Senate which allows senators to extend legislative debate for the purpose of preventing a measure being brought up for a vote. Since no rule limits the time senators may speak, it is impossible for the majority to end debate and move to a vote when one or more senators continue talking. The first use of a filibuster to prevent voting on a bill in the Senate was in 1837. The House also had filibusters until 1842, when its unwieldy numbers led adoption of a rule allowing a simple majority to limit the time for debate.

In 1917, the Senate regulated filibusters by passing a rule allowing for cloture — ending debate on a measure by a two-thirds vote. In 1975, the cloture threshold was further reduced to a three-fifths vote, or 60 of 100 senators. Though cloture motions were intended to allow ending filibusters more easily, the number of filibusters dramatically increased after 1970, when the Senate implemented a “two-track system” for dealing with filibusters. The two-track system allows the Senate to continue working on aspects of a measure facing filibuster instead of halting the business of the Senate entirely. While this system provided some level of protection for legislation under discussion in the chamber, filibusters were easier for the minority to sustain as they became less of a hindrance to Senate’s business.

I've always been against killing the filibuster, for the reasons often stated, i.e. the opposing party will use that precedent to pass all kinds of crazy laws as soon as they come into power again.

But I have looked at it differently lately, in light of this bizarre spectacle of the Democrats filibustering funding a significant part of the government, and with horrible timing considering the increase in Spring Break travel. Then the Senate - who perpetuates the filibuster - sends a bill they know is not acceptable to the House and prances off for their own spring breaks, leaving federal employees unpaid for the third time in six months.

So I ask myself this: If there were no such thing as a filibuster and someone, say an independent Senator with no partisan axe to grind, and with no pending controversial bill, suggested that we allow debate to be endless if one Senator is willing to keep talking with an option to include cloture with 60 votes, would we all clamor to support that idea?

Or more to the point, how many of us would support that idea?

 

[Rambunctious]

Thune is a coward at a time we need a fighter....

 

[1srelluc]

Thune is a coward at a time we need a fighter....

Everyone knew he was a shit choice.....Sigh, proven correct again.

 

[task0778]

I've always been against killing the filibuster, for the reasons often stated, i.e. the opposing party will use that precedent to pass all kinds of crazy laws as soon as they come into power again.
.
.
.
So I ask myself this: If there were no such thing as a filibuster and someone, say an independent Senator with no partisan axe to grind, and with no pending controversial bill, suggested that we allow debate to be endless if one Senator is willing to keep talking with an option to include cloture with 60 votes, would we all clamor to support that idea?

Or more to the point, how many of us would support that idea?

Are you suggesting that once the filibuster is gone it might be brought back? If so, then your idea will never happen. once the minority party regains control they're going to erase as much as possible whatever the former majority party did, and they'll do it with 51 votes. There's no way either party will vote to go back to a 60-vote cloture vote once the filibuster is dead.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you suggesting that once the filibuster is gone it might be brought back? If so, then your idea will never happen. once the minority party regains control they're going to erase as much as possible whatever the former majority party did, and they'll do it with 51 votes. There's no way either party will vote to go back to a 60-vote cloture vote once the filibuster is dead.

I guess it could be done away with and brought back as many times as the Senators would be willing to vote for it. It isn't in the Constitution. It's just a natural outgrowth of the Senate's pride in being very deliberative and each Senator never being cutoff by any others. Probably comes from the time that Senators were chosen by their state legislatures and so really represented the State as opposed to now where they represent the voters of the state.

Oh, wait. LoL, now I get what you mean. No, my intent would not be for it to brought back. I hope if it is ever done away with that you are right and it is never brought back.

It's just sillly. If Democrats ever get the majority, I say let them govern and let the people see what kind of laws they pass. If they are shi-ite laws as I think they would be then the Repubs will will the majority back forthwith.

 

[task0778]

It's just sillly. If Democrats ever get the majority, I say let them govern and let the people see what kind of laws they pass. If they are shi-ite laws as I think they would be then the Repubs will will the majority back forthwith.

I think it's possible that if and when the democrats regain control of Congress and the WH that they would abolish the filibuster if it ain't gone already and then repeal the SAVE Act, which kinda is the point right now. They could and would then institute their own election/voting laws to favor mail-in ballots with no ID req't and possibly go to a popular vote national election for prez. Which would make it very tough for a GOP candidate to win. So, I am somewhat dubious that the Repubs could/would win back the majority.

I get that the ongoing gridlock in Congress is a terrible thing and damaging to the country. But I also think that getting around the filibuster rules or ending it altogether would open up possibilities that could be disastrous down the road if/when the dems take over.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think it's possible that if and when the democrats regain control of Congress and the WH that they would abolish the filibuster if it ain't gone already and then repeal the SAVE Act, which kinda is the point right now. They could and would then institute their own election/voting laws to favor mail-in ballots with no ID req't and possibly go to a popular vote national election for prez. Which would make it very tough for a GOP candidate to win. So, I am somewhat dubious that the Repubs could/would win back the majority.

I get that the ongoing gridlock in Congress is a terrible thing and damaging to the country. But I also think that getting around the filibuster rules or ending it altogether would open up possibilities that could be disastrous down the road if/when the dems take over.

Good points.

In fact, that was almost my exact thinking right up until literally yesterday when I thought of that "what if there were no filibuster" question.

So three points:

1 - Not ending the filibuster now would not prevent the Dems from ending the filibuster if they ever come into power again. Ending it would make it easier for them to pass their crazy laws, but they could still end the filibuster even if Republicans don't.

2 - It is a strange democracy/republic if averting disaster depends on one person being able to hold up legislation that the majority strongly favors.

3 - A minor point, but I don't believe that deciding the presidential election by popular vote would advantage the Democrats nearly as much as they think it would. Not unless they were able to make that change in the middle of an election when it looked like their person would lose the EC, but win the popular vote.

If the Election were to be all about the popular vote, from start to finish, then the Republicans would go for the popular vote instead of adopting an electoral strategy. They would pull ads and campaign events from swing states and focus on large population centers.

 

[Dekster]

The Senate can make any rule they want just about. Whether they stick with the rule Arron Burr created before he shot JR Ewing or whoever it was, it is up to them. I have greater issue with the Majority leader being able to unilaterally block votes from happening.

 

[task0778]

1 - Not ending the filibuster now would not prevent the Dems from ending the filibuster if they ever come into power again. Ending it would make it easier for them to pass their crazy laws, but they could still end the filibuster even if Republicans don't.

True, but I do not see this argument as persuasive. We should do something really dumb before they do it just doesn't appeal to me. Whoever makes this change will likely go down in history as extremely short-sided, because it forever ends the possibility for normal cooperation and compromise. There might be a few cases where neither side would obstruct a given piece of legislation, but for the most part the voice of the minority would be silenced. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it isn't.

2 - It is a strange democracy/republic if averting disaster depends on one person being able to hold up legislation that the majority strongly favors.

One might also say that the one person holding up legislation might be a good thing that averts disaster because the bill didn't pass. And whether the legislation was disastrous or not. I recall John McCain's vote on cloture to end ObamaCare; he voted no and the ACA lives today. Some people might say that was a good thing while others would disagree.

3 - A minor point, but I don't believe that deciding the presidential election by popular vote would advantage the Democrats nearly as much as they think it would. Not unless they were able to make that change in the middle of an election when it looked like their person would lose the EC, but win the popular vote.

Maybe, maybe not. But it ain't just that, a democrat-controlled federal gov't could pass other election/voting legislation that highly favors their chances in congressional and presidential elections. What if they decided to admit DC and Puerto Rico as states? What if the expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 and install their choices? What if they repealed the SAVE Act in it's entirety, assuming it passes if the GOP ends or subverts the filibuster? What if they required mail-in ballots to be counted without verification, and who knows what else?


My point is that while gridlock is a bad thing, so is a one-party gov't that is hell-bent on preserving it's power. Yeah, maybe they'll end the filibuster anyway when they get the chance. But maybe not, and the GOP shouldn't do it for them.

 

[candycorn]

The filibuster is essential and it needs to be preserved.

What really needs to happen though is this....the filibuster should be a true filibuster. Nobody is interested (nobody with a working brain anyway) in seeing someone collapse on the floor having to speak for hours on end. So thats not what I’m talking about. What needs to happen is that the Senate filibuster needs to stop all bills from floor debate. Meaning that if you have a bill--Senate bill 14 or whatever--there can be no floor debate on SB 15, 16, 17....85 or whatever. If bill 15 is filibustered and bill 16 funds the army and pays the soldiers...the filibuster stops the payment to the army or the soldiers. So the party leaders start--gasp--talking to the senator and one another to negotiate a solution. Put another way...they govern.