• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

I am torn about the Filibuster!!!

I Am The Scum said:
Also, if it seems like I'm nitpicking the details of the filibuster, it's not because I'm addicted to being right on the internet (I can quit whenever I want). Instead, I think a lot of the inertia regarding filibuster reform is tied to the misguided idea that we're talking about a carefully crafted set of rules explicitly designed to maintain bipartisanship and promote debate and compromise.
Click to expand...
Lol. Succinct.
 
Segnosaur said:
First of all, while ONE infrastructure bill got passed, the user may be referring to the "build back better" act, which is still popular.

Secondly, the American Rescue plan did pass, although the only reason it did was because it was done through reconciliation (which circumvents the filibuster).

Interesting way to phrase it... half the population of texas has lost significant control over their bodies, and you characterize it as "moaning".


Not really sure what you are characterizing as 'universal health care'.

Are you assuming "doctors are available so everyone is covered"? Because having doctors available is only relevant of people have the finances to PAY for those doctors.

Given the fact that the GOP had had a virtual lock on power for much of the past 4 years, yet failed to enact any sort of significant reform, I doubt many people consider the GOP platform to be serious.

Ummm... "the feds" cover, well, the entire country. And even in states where it has already been legalized, the federal restrictions are still messing up businesses involved in the trade.
Click to expand...

The filibuster is not holding up Build Back Better. The last I heard it was being held back because there are only 48 votes in favor in the Senate with Manchin and Sinema remaining opposed. The filibuster didn't result in 50% of Texans losing significant control over their bodies. I haven't heard of the filibuster being used to hold up marijuana legalization bills, but perhaps you have an example?
 
Ok, it's time to kill the filibuster. If we can pass all sorts of massive legislation like Obamacare and the Trump tax cuts through Reconciliation, than the filibuster is really useless now. Plus its just a tool for the Right to block great legislation and programs that most Americans want.

So yeah, in the era of MAGA and massive GOP intransigence, its time to evolve & adapt and let all bills pass the Senate with only 51 votes.

However, if you're willing to STAND and talk nonstop, you can still delay votes and procedures. Good luck.

Just imagine what the Dems can pass without the filibuster:

Medicare for All
Free public college tuition
Assault weapons ban
Green New Deal
New voting rights act
Statehood for Puerto Rico
 
Hercules56 said:
Ok, it's time to kill the filibuster. If we can pass all sorts of massive legislation like Obamacare and the Trump tax cuts through Reconciliation, than the filibuster is really useless now. Plus its just a tool for the Right to block great legislation and programs that most Americans want.

So yeah, in the era of MAGA and massive GOP intransigence, its time to evolve & adapt and let all bills pass the Senate with only 51 votes.

However, if you're willing to STAND and talk nonstop, you can still delay votes and procedures. Good luck.

Just imagine what the Dems can pass without the filibuster:

Medicare for All
Free public college tuition
Assault weapons ban
Green New Deal
New voting rights act
Statehood for Puerto Rico
Click to expand...

A lot of the problems could be resolved by changing the filibuster requirement from 60 votes to end debate, to 41 votes to continue debate. While this might not seem like a big difference on its face, the 60 votes to end debate requirement makes it much, much easier to block stuff.

If you have 41 Senators, you can stop anything by simply having one guy in the Senate at all times ready to object and request a vote to continue debate. They can take it in shifts. The other 40 can go to shows, fundraise, spend time with their families, whatever. They don't even have to actually vote to block anything popular, just not show up. Easy and painless.

If it takes 41 Senators to continue debate, then they all have to hang around the Senate at all times in order to stop a vote. You can still block stuff, but blocking stuff actually has a cost.
 
Random said:
A lot of the problems could be resolved
Click to expand...
A lot of the problems aren't actually problems, for the people in charge of deciding whether or not to keep the filibuster. It's a rule created by Congress, for Congress. If Congress thought it was a problem, they'd change it. But they don't, so they won't.
 
theprestige said:
No.

Is there any chance you will lay out your entire train of thought on this point at once?
Click to expand...

If it's not in the constitution then it's not constitutional. The constitution lays out how the congress is to decide issues. It's plainly that majority rules. The filibuster is essentially making it minority rules.

Am I wrong in some way?
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
If it's not in the constitution then it's not constitutional. The constitution lays out how the congress is to decide issues. It's plainly that majority rules. The filibuster is essentially making it minority rules.

Am I wrong in some way?
Click to expand...

Democrat-controlled Senate could change the rule tomorrow, by simple majority vote, if they so desired.
 
ZiprHead said:
If it's not in the constitution then it's not constitutional. The constitution lays out how the congress is to decide issues. It's plainly that majority rules. The filibuster is essentially making it minority rules.

Am I wrong in some way?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are wrong.

The Constitution allows Congress to make its own rules about how it conducts its business. For example, Congress gets to make its own rules about how it decides which proposals will be brought up for debate, or sent to the entire chamber for a vote. The filibuster is part of those rules. And those rules are entirely Constitutional.
 
Hercules56 said:
Manchin and Sinema were no votes.
Click to expand...
Both will be gone next year.
Click to expand...
Sinema will likely be replaced by another Democrat (probably one easier to work with). On the other hand, Manchin is from a deep-red states, and I suspect he will be replaced by a republican.

Furthermore, the electoral map for the democrats is not looking very good in 2024, since they have to defend more seats (and thus can lose more) than the republicans.

So we could be looking at the republicans retaking the senate this year.
 
acbytesla said:
Democracy is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas and I would think that anyone who stands for free markets wouldn't oppose that. The filibuster is really a tool to prevent the implementation of the ideas the market says it wants. So are the Electoral College and the Senate.

Most Americans today support choice.
Most Americans are against discrimination.
Most are in favor of universal healthcare.
Most want to end the pharmaceutical tyranny of the drug companies.
Most want an investment in the nation's infrastructure.
Most want cannabis legalized nationwide.

These are all huge winners with the public. But the filibuster is one of a few reasons these things never seem to become reality.
Click to expand...
Where's your data, you certainly lack nuance.

Most americans might say they are pro choice on abortion but the roughly 70% think there should be limits after the first trimester and that abortion should be all but banned in the third.

The reality is that regardless of whether someone say they are pro-choice or pro-life, the usually have a much more nuanced understanding of those terms than is often portrayed.


Aside from that, I'm for the filibuster but they should actually have to do it, no of this announcing that you are filibustering and going to bet, you should have to stand there and make speech until the other side give up or you do.
 
Are there other governments that effectively require a supermajority to pass legislation? I'm not talking about amending Constitutions, treaties, appointments, etc. but "I'm just a bill, now I'm a law" type stuff.

Quick glance on Wikipedia seems to indicate generally no, other than notably South Korea and the U.S. states that require a supermajority to raise taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom