What the Filibuster is All About

[DGS49]

While there is nothing in the Constitution about the "filibuster," it is logically, morally, and ethically equivalent to Article V (regarding Amendments to the Constitution), at a lower threshold.

Article V creates a super-majority requirement for amending the Constitution. That is to say, THIS DOCUMENT is so fundamental to the existence of the country, that it requires a super-majority to change it. It SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED PROMISCUOUSLY!

The filibuster serves the same purpose at a slightly lower level. What the filibuster does is, it prevents a slight majority from making significant changes to law that in truth have no majority support.

The latest push for eliminating the filibuster (always advanced by the Party with a microscopic or - in this case - NO MAJORITY in the Senate), is that they are pushing a NEED for laws that violate the Second Amendment, because, they say, Republicans are preventing them, the virtuous party, from doing "what is right." While this is total bullshit (there is no such law), the point of the filibuster is universal.

Because when we have these slight majorities, the party with the slight majorities tries to make changes that the other Party abhors, which changes have no majority support but will impact the lives of VIRTUALLY EVERYONE in the country, like it or not (e.g., Obamacare). Further, they craft these laws in such a way that they essentially cannot be repealed, either because they create a new class of government dependents, or there is so much administrative inertia that repeal would be majorly disruptive to millions of peoples' lives.

To go off on a slight tangent for a moment, the Democrats are now trying to create a situation where they will have a permanent insurmountable majority. They do this by bringing in hordes of illegal immigrants, shipping them off to "swing states," in anticipation of the moment when they will have a clear majority in Congress, when they will enact "immigration reform," and make these pathetic, government-dependent bastards all reliable Democrat voters.

But ignoring that for the moment, these congressional slight majorities are always temporary. The Democrats today are antagonizing not only the Republicans but also independents and the few sane Democrats who remain, such that if they don't steal another election, they will be given their walking papers this November, and all of their bullshit laws, passed with the vote of the infamous former Senator from California will be repealed.

Long live the filibuster. If a Party in the future holds 60 votes, or can persuade 60 senators to their side, then fine, they can pass whatever laws they like. But non-majorities like the Democrats hold today SHOULD be harnessed and prevented from enacting a platform that does not have majority support in the country.

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster used to be a rare occurrence and you were required to actually speak

Today it has become an automatic you need 60 votes to pass any legislation

It gridlocks Congress and encourages minority rule

It is being abused, time to get rid of it

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

While there is nothing in the Constitution about the "filibuster," it is logically, morally, and ethically equivalent to Article V (regarding Amendments to the Constitution), at a lower threshold.

Article V creates a super-majority requirement for amending the Constitution. That is to say, THIS DOCUMENT is so fundamental to the existence of the country, that it requires a super-majority to change it. It SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED PROMISCUOUSLY!

The filibuster serves the same purpose at a slightly lower level. What the filibuster does is, it prevents a slight majority from making significant changes to law that in truth have no majority support.

The latest push for eliminating the filibuster (always advanced by the Party with a microscopic or - in this case - NO MAJORITY in the Senate), is that they are pushing a NEED for laws that violate the Second Amendment, because, they say, Republicans are preventing them, the virtuous party, from doing "what is right." While this is total bullshit (there is no such law), the point of the filibuster is universal.

Because when we have these slight majorities, the party with the slight majorities tries to make changes that the other Party abhors, which changes have no majority support but will impact the lives of VIRTUALLY EVERYONE in the country, like it or not (e.g., Obamacare). Further, they craft these laws in such a way that they essentially cannot be repealed, either because they create a new class of government dependents, or there is so much administrative inertia that repeal would be majorly disruptive to millions of peoples' lives.

To go off on a slight tangent for a moment, the Democrats are now trying to create a situation where they will have a permanent insurmountable majority. They do this by bringing in hordes of illegal immigrants, shipping them off to "swing states," in anticipation of the moment when they will have a clear majority in Congress, when they will enact "immigration reform," and make these pathetic, government-dependent bastards all reliable Democrat voters.

But ignoring that for the moment, these congressional slight majorities are always temporary. The Democrats today are antagonizing not only the Republicans but also independents and the few sane Democrats who remain, such that if they don't steal another election, they will be given their walking papers this November, and all of their bullshit laws, passed with the vote of the infamous former Senator from California will be repealed.

Long live the filibuster. If a Party in the future holds 60 votes, or can persuade 60 senators to their side, then fine, they can pass whatever laws they like. But non-majorities like the Democrats hold today SHOULD be harnessed and prevented from enacting a platform that does not have majority support in the country.

The filibuster is and always has been about the minority's ability to rule the majority.
End of story.

 

[Pellinore]

The filibuster is not only unconstitutional, it is anti-constitutional. Article I clearly intends for every bill to be passed by simple majorities in both houses, and the filibuster hijacks that. The Founding Fathers knew all about slight majorities, and designed the system this way anyhow; the filibuster was never intended to be part of the system, and was only even considered as a parliamentary loophole after Aaron Burr unknowingly encouraged the Senate to eliminate its cloture rule.

Now, it only serves to paralyze Congress, lessening its effectiveness, and to prohibit our government from addressing real needs. It should be shunned by all democracy-minded Americans, regardless of party, and eliminated immediately and forever.

 

[para bellum]

The filibuster is about protecting the rights of the minority. If you can't get 60% to agree on something, maybe you aren't giving fair consideration to the objections.

IOW, it's intended to force compromise.

If we eliminate it, a simple majority will be able to cram through whatever legislation they want. When the other party is in power, they will do the same thing. It would be very destabilizing to have radical changes in the law every few years, but that would be the result. (We are already at that point with budget reconciliation, I know. But it would make it even worse.)

The real reason the dems want this is to institutionalize their electioneering operations, obviously...

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster is not only unconstitutional, it is anti-constitutional. Article I clearly intends for every bill to be passed by simple majorities in both houses, and the filibuster hijacks that. The Founding Fathers knew all about slight majorities, and designed the system this way anyhow; the filibuster was never intended to be part of the system, and was only even considered as a parliamentary loophole after Aaron Burr unknowingly encouraged the Senate to eliminate its cloture rule.

Now, it only serves to paralyze Congress, lessening its effectiveness, and to prohibit our government from addressing real needs. It should be shunned by all democracy-minded Americans, regardless of party, and eliminated immediately and forever.

The founders established checks and balances to ensure a distribution of power

That does not mean minority rule

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster is about protecting the rights of the minority. If you can't get 60% to agree on something, maybe you aren't giving fair consideration to the objections.

IOW, it's intended to force compromise.

If we eliminate it, a simple majority will be able to cram through whatever legislation they want. When the other party is in power, they will do the same thing. It would be very destabilizing to have radical changes in the law every few years, but that would be the result. (We are already at that point with budget reconciliation, I know. But it would make it even worse.)

The real reason the dems want this is to institutionalize their electioneering operations, obviously...

That would make sense if either side were willing to compromise

In addition to that 60 percent, you have 40 percent who will not agree regardless of proposed compromises

 

[para bellum]

The founders established checks and balances to ensure a distribution of power

That does not mean minority rule

The filibuster does not give minority rule. You cannot pass anything with 49% of the votes.

It only interferes with mob rule, by forcing the majority to consider the minority view.

We've already seen the effect of eliminating the filibuster for Presidential appointments, and it isn't making things better. It only serves to radicalize those positions, by making the appointments political statements rather than based on merit.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The filibuster does not give minority rule. You cannot pass anything with 49% of the votes.

It only interferes with mob rule, by forcing the majority to consider the minority view.

We've already seen the effect of eliminating the filibuster for Presidential appointments, and it isn't making things better. It only serves to radicalize those positions, by making the appointments political statements rather than based on merit.

It most certainly does. It allows the minority the ability to force its will on the majority. More recently, it is a tool for silencing and quelling discussion and voting on almost ANY topic the minority opposes. The Senate is the LAST word on legislation.

 

[para bellum]

That would make sense if either side were willing to compromise

In addition to that 60 percent, you have 40 percent who will not agree regardless of proposed compromises

Well, in matter where there is no clear consensus, doing nothing is the preferable choice.

 

[para bellum]

It most certainly does. It allows the minority the ability to force its will on the majority. More recently, it is a tool for silencing and quelling discussion and voting on almost ANY topic the minority opposes.

Can you give me one example where the minority was able to force it's will on the majority?

The Senate is the LAST word on legislation.

Actually it's the conference cmte, then the POTUS (and potentially the SCOTUS)...

 

[rightwinger]

Well, in matter where there is no clear consensus, doing nothing is the preferable choice.

No it isn’t

Repeatedly, in times of crisis
Congress has been paralyzed

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster does not give minority rule. You cannot pass anything with 49% of the votes.

When the majority says……Yes, let’s do this
And the minority says……No, let’s not

You have minority rule

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Can you give me one example where the minority was able to force it's will on the majority?

Actually it's the conference cmte, then the POTUS (and potentially the SCOTUS)...

The President signs, approving or vetoing a bill. That can be overriden. The courts step in on a miniscule amount of legislation.
The Senate is where the horse trading and the deal making gets done. And for the last 15 years or so, they've been hopelessly
impotent..mostly due to the fact that the minority uses the filibuster to squash legislation that they don't like. It goes into the Senate
majority leaders desk to die.

 

[DGS49]

As I stated above, a "majority" that requires the sign-on of a sitting VP to pass a vote is no majority at all. 50%+1 is not a majority.

And lest we forget, the less Congress does the better off we all are. The Founders INTENDED that it be difficult to pass legislation because it impacts people's lives and should only be done when there is bipartisan support, or when one party has a clear majority in both houses, which is not the case today.

And also keep in mind, in six months time, the DEMOCRATS will be extolling the wisdom of the filibuster. Mark my words.

 

[Jets]

Two schools of thought on this.

The filibuster should be kept because a slim majority vote is not necessarily indicative of what the people want passed.

The filibuster should be scrapped and any simple majority should pass legislation knowing that when the opposition party takes over they can remove it by the same simple majority.

 

[rightwinger]

As I stated above, a "majority" that requires the sign-on of a sitting VP to pass a vote is no majority at all. 50%+1 is not a majority.

And lest we forget, the less Congress does the better off we all are. The Founders INTENDED that it be difficult to pass legislation because it impacts people's lives and should only be done when there is bipartisan support, or when one party has a clear majority in both houses, which is not the case today.

And also keep in mind, in six months time, the DEMOCRATS will be extolling the wisdom of the filibuster. Mark my words.

50 plus one is a majority
Ask Chuck Schumer

Congress is elected to serve We the People
A Gridlocked Congress does no good

In six months time, Biden will still be President
Dems don’t need a Filibuster

End it now, it is being abused