On filibusters

[jwoodie]

The Filibuster Rule is a more modern iteration of the Founder's desire to limit the fickle power of the mob to influence the national government. Originally Senators, as well the President, were selected by State Legislatures; only the House was elected directly by the people. This protection was later lost when Senators became elected by popular vote, with their six year terms being the only remaining restraint on the swings of popular opinion. Modernly, the growth of out-of-state funding in Senate elections has further undermined this principle by nationalizing practically every Senate campaign. As a result the Senate's filibuster rule, effectively requiring a 60 vote majority for passing a controversial bill, acts as the final backstop against the vagaries of current public opinion.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Depends what the purpose is. Is it to extend meaningful debate in a great deliberative body (in which case, taking the floor to read recipes or dictionary entries is a joke) or is it to stop all legislation from being passed with less than 60 Senators supporting it? It's not possible to figure out how it should be designed and used (or if it should even exist) until its purpose is determined.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

 

[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.

Link?

Look uo the "nuclear option".

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Link?

Look uo the "nuclear option".

Thats not a link.
Fail.

 

[SniperFire]

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

Hell yes!

Reid can do it without the media and public opinion exploding. The next Republican Senate cannot. Then the Republicans can repeal Obamacare and the rest of his shit regulation with simple majorities in '16.

 

[konradv]

Link?

Look uo the "nuclear option".

Thats not a link.
Fail.

Don't care. You know it's true.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look uo the "nuclear option".

Thats not a link.
Fail.

Don't care. You know it's true.

OK, so you cant provide a link.
Typical.

 

[AmyNation]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

Because we don't want the majority to be able to completely ignore the minority.

 

[SniperFire]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

Because we don't want the majority to be able to completely ignore the minority.

How's that Obamacare workin out for ya?

 

[konradv]

Thats not a link.
Fail.

Don't care. You know it's true.

OK, so you cant provide a link.
Typical.

What's typical is that you have no knowledge of recent history. What are you doing on the board, if you can't remember simple facts from the last decade? It was in all the papers, just like Obama's birth announcement.

 

[occupied]

Filibusters need to be real, when did they become such a low risk, almost casual tactic where no one even has to explain why bills are being obstructed?

 

[SniperFire]

Filibusters need to be real, when did they become such a low risk, almost casual tactic where no one even has to explain why bills are being obstructed?

Reid can certainly change the filibuster rules without a public outrage.

He needs to do it.

Republicans are held to a higher standard and will be hammered by the media when they do it in '16 to repeal Obama. It will be nice for Ried to set precident.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

The Senate can’t ‘repeal’ Supreme Court decisions.

Otherwise it all depends on whose ox is being gored…

Keep the filibuster for a time in the future – coming too soon, I fear – when republicans control the Senate and indeed engage in irresponsible governance.

 

[SniperFire]

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?

The Senate can’t ‘repeal’ Supreme Court decisions.

Otherwise it all depends on whose ox is being gored…

Keep the filibuster for a time in the future – coming too soon, I fear – when republicans control the Senate and indeed engage in irresponsible governance.

Welcome to the age of tribalism. You wanted it, you got it.

 

[Trajan]

the conundrum is why as it has become easier to bust one, they have become more common.

anyway, the dems already changed it once, when they had a 61-38 majority to lower the requirement from 66 ( 2/3's) to 60 (3/5th's) in 1975 because the number of filibusters rose under Nixon Ford...


and newt brought bills up in the Clinton congresses as they were sent to the senate, the dems did plenty of their own filibustering too.....


oh and I agree with others and have said here many times, they have to make them actually employ the filibuster, this gentleman's agreement they both have , is BS what that has done is allow each leader to use it as a purely gratuitous political device in that they don't want a their own bill to close on a vote, so they poison it, knowing the other side will threaten a filibuster and say, gee ok, well thats that.....

 

[Trajan]

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?

The Senate can’t ‘repeal’ Supreme Court decisions.

Otherwise it all depends on whose ox is being gored…

Keep the filibuster for a time in the future – coming too soon, I fear – when republicans control the Senate and indeed engage in irresponsible governance.

exactly, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

What is wrong with your brain?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The Senate can’t ‘repeal’ Supreme Court decisions.

Otherwise it all depends on whose ox is being gored…

Keep the filibuster for a time in the future – coming too soon, I fear – when republicans control the Senate and indeed engage in irresponsible governance.

The Senate can do anything it fucking wants to if we eliminate the filibuster, is SCOTUS going to send the Marines in to stop them?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is wrong with one man/women, one vote?

What is wrong with your brain?

lol, typical response from the partisan fringe, unable to answer a simple question windbag resorts to personal attacks. Hey, why not answer the question?

Elections have consequences. When one party is in power and overreaches, the common sense voter kicks them out. Happened in '06 and '08 and '10 and '12. Why give the minority Senator more power than the majority chosen by the people?