- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed. Now I'm sympathetic to the filibuster as a last ditch measure in extreme cases, but using it on a constant basis like this? I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being abused to this point, it needs to be cut. Now I know that as a Democrat, I'd be removing an important tool from our arsenal when we're in the minority, but something needs to be done, as I see it. The constitution only requires a super-majority on a few items, such as impeachments. To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
I would have to do some research (Google is my friend) to pull the articles together, but I have read where Hapless Harry Reid wanted to reduce the votes for cloture to 55 from 60, or even to just a simple majority of 51.
Interestingly, the last reduction of the votes required for cloture was also during a Democratic majority.
Cloture originally required 2/3 of all Senators "present and voting". In 1975, the cloture requirement was reduced to 3/5 of all Senators "duly chosen and sworn."
I would like to see this information.
I have not seen any articles suggesting that Democrats are going to remove the filibuster as a minority tool to prevent the majority from running over them and rubber stamping legislation without debate.
But if they do try this, it sends a message to Americans that Democrats only like rules when it suits their purpose and are hardly interested in honest transparent debate and Democracy.
Gingrich was a Representative not a Senator. The House does not have the filibuster.Wasn’t the nuclear option (bypassing Dems filibuster) what contributed to the ending of Newt Gingrich's career and helped get Clinton another term as President? The same thing could happen here, anyone that is perceived to have had the brain fart idea of bypassing the filibuster can kiss his career in the Senate goodbye. Rightfully so.
That being said its been used by both parties in the past, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 and Bushes tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. My opinion is it is being used as leverage, leaving the idea dangling all the while having no intention of using it.
In the meantime keep feeding RNC money to Minnesota hoping in a vain attempt at blocking number 59 from being seated. :mrgreen:
Thread thanks. :2wave:
I found this particularly interesting:
Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.
These were Democrats correct?
As for why it should be kept, the answer is simple. It preserves the rights of the minority. It ensures the majority will not trample the minority in passing legislation. By slowing down legislation, it allows for greater debate, and hopefully more meaningful debate; it helps ensure that laws are not enacted in the spur of the moment, or in a burst of partisan outrage.
Historically, that was the case. It used to be that one person had to actually talk for the entire time. The rules have changed since, so that now all they have to do is to vote no on cloture for a bill. No speaking or stalling is actually needed. They can delay a bill indefinitely if need be. I'd be ok with changing back to the "Mister Smith" rules, but I don't see it happening. And the founding fathers did want majority rule. That's the whole point of our government: Majority Rule with respect to Minority Rights.Actually, the fillibuster is exactly in the spirit of the constitution. The founding fathers were not all of one mind when the constitution was ratified and some of the most heated political debate came from the very writing of our constitution, that process was based upon argument and concession, the fillibuster is merely a stalling tactic to see who can outlast it to get their bill passed, and I wouldn't have it any other way as I see the best thing for us is a congress too deadlocked to do anything to us in the form of unsuitable legislation. The best reason to keep the fillibuster is to prevent majority rule, which is not our system of governance, whether I agree with the side being fillibustered or not I prefer to have multiple opinions with the appropriate checks and balances, plus, there have historically been some hilarious uses of the fillibuster such as reading the phone book and other ridiculous stalls, it's high comedy at it's best.
Did you even read my OP? I said that I would feel the same if the Republicans were in charge. Zyph is more or less right. Now being on the other end of things has made me sit down and actually evaluate the filibuster and its merit. Like I said, it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the founding fathers, or representative democracy. I've decided that the filibuster in its present form is overused and detrimental, and I'll keep that position when Dems are the minority again.This begs the question, why is this an issue NOW for you? Do you think a rubber stamp congress is a good thing? Would you feel the same if Republicans were in charge?
Filibusters as such are not about actual "discussion"--they are meant to slow the process down. I venture to say no filibuster was launched with an intention to further discuss a matter before the Senate; they are launched to stop a matter before the Senate.I'm sure very few people have a problem with making sure debate is allowed. The minority should have as long as is reasonably needed to discuss the merits of a bill. But that's not what filibusters are usually used for. They're used to keep a bill from passing entirely. They make sure the majority party can't get anything done, more often than not. If they were just used to further legitimate debate, that'd be one thing, but it isn't the case. Can you give me the last time the minority started a filibuster so they could actually discuss the bill?
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed.
It could just as easily be used to stop someone trying to roll laws back though, it is a two edged sword. And don't forget, it goes against the concept of American Democracy.
Do you care about anything other than trying to score cheap political shots?
It does?
You are aware that the US Senate originally was an appointed body, not an elected one, right?
That means American "democracy" had, as one of the co-equal halves of the legislature making laws, a group of un-elected representatives of the states, not the people.
So how is it contrary to this mystical principle of American "democracy" you believe in that this unelected Senate could not also require tht a super majority vote be required to end the debate on bills? Would this not therefore be even MORE representative of the will of the states than a simple majority, since if the states are split nearly 50/50 on an issue, does it not raise more contention when it's passed?
But do remember...the Senators aren't supposed to be "congressmen" with state-wide constituencies, they're supposed to represent the whole state, not just the people who bought them.
You were happy with it when the Democrats did it, so enjoy your turn in the barrel.
When the Democrats stop trying to pass bills that are going to hurt the country, maybe the Republicans will stop filibustering them.
The Democrats were fillibustering bills that were going to help the country, if I can recall the few they tried it on, not to mention their repeated threats to filibuster judges that would use the Constitution as their guide for judging cases, not their political alignment.
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Thread thanks.
I found this particularly interesting:
Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.
These were Democrats correct?
Your desperate drama aside, what part of my question was a cheap political shot? Your answer certainly will provide amusing entertainment. :roll:
The cheap political shot was that we were discussing something that wasn't specifically about either party, and you decided to try to dig up something to smear the party you don't like with. Let me ask you: what happened to most of those Democrats who opposed the act? For instance, what party did Strom Thurmond end up in? Jesse Helms? Most of those Democrats switched parties to the Republican Party, where they ended up controlling the party. On the other hand, the president who signed that bill, knowing full well that his party would lose the south for a generation, but that it was the right thing to do was a ... what again? That's right, a Democrat.
The cheap political shot was that we were discussing something that wasn't specifically about either party, and you decided to try to dig up something to smear the party you don't like with. Let me ask you: what happened to most of those Democrats who opposed the act? For instance, what party did Strom Thurmond end up in? Jesse Helms? Most of those Democrats switched parties to the Republican Party, where they ended up controlling the party. On the other hand, the president who signed that bill, knowing full well that his party would lose the south for a generation, but that it was the right thing to do was a ... what again? That's right, a Democrat.
Yep, that is why I argued earlier that the fillibuster is definitely within the original spirit of the constitution, while the fillibuster can be used to block something that would reform government and shrink the federal government, it can also be used to block something on the other extreme of the argument as well. Whether used for good or bad, I would rather have the fillibuster and take it's flaws than have a runaway train with majority rule.There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.
There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.
There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.
In the Constitution, regarding procedure?Did they ever mention anything about the filibuster or a supermajority?
In the Constitution, regarding procedure?
No. But they did allow for the senate to make its own rules.
Again, the way the founders argued, sometimes resulting in fatality(dueling) and the heated debates that formed the founding document, they would probably give the fillibuster a thumbs up, but that is just a guess on my part.Call it the law of unintentional consequences. I doubt they intended for there to be a filibuster option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?