Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

[Sporanox]

I always figure I'm doing something right when all the Republicans here start hyperventilating everytime they see a post of me.

Not exactly sure what I'm doing right, but it sure is something!

By that standard, Palin is doing something awesomely right.

 

[Sporanox]

"He is governing as a progressive dirigiste."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Then enlighten us. *cough* make a substantive post *cough*

 

[MikeMangum]

"He is governing as a progressive dirigiste."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Hrm, let'e see...

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over the nation's largest banks? Check.

Implement partial government ownership and increase government control over much of the nation's automobile manufacturing sector? Check.

Implement government takeover of health care, which is currently ~16% of GDP (~40% of which is already controlled by government) basically increasing the total size of government between 20% and 30%.

Massively expanding the size of government, having government become more tightly entwined with businesses by partial state ownership and greater direct control over operational decisions of businesses...I believe there is a word for that: dirigisme.

 

[theprestige]

and finally, as far as I am concerned, the only TRUE barometer of the pulse of the average American and the will of the people, is the vote on Election Day.

"Barometer of the pulse", is it? So, parky, what would you say the temperature of the heartbeat of the average American and the will of the people was the Election Day they elected Scott Brown?

Also, I have no joke here, I just like saying "progressive dirigiste".

I imagine some kind of dirigible, drifting ponderously through the sky, blaring avant-garde slogans in French, like a sort of post-modern cloud formation.

 

[Peephole]

By that standard, Palin is doing something awesomely right.

Oh, Palin is just harmless fun.

 

[Sporanox]

Oh, Palin is just harmless fun.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out.

And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60.

The filibuster seems to be used far too often. What is the benefit of the filibuster? I can only think that it would be beneficial hold off legislation to give time to garner support against it.

So why not tie the number of votes to the filibuster period? One week per vote. If a bill is filibustered it needs 60 votes to pass, otherwise it can come up again after a week. Then it needs 59 votes to pass, and so on. So a bill could be filibustered for up to 2½ months depending on how strong the filibuster is, but would eventually come down a majority vote.

 

[leftysergeant]

I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority.

Absolute guarantee that nothing will get doen unless there are people dying in the streets.

What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. Where's the evidence that the barest abstraction of might makes right will somehow yield good lawmaking?

Under the current system 41 sociopaths who would be hapy to see disaster strike the working class can just totally castrate government.

Maybe you would be happy to see most of government go away, but I would rather have the State running the country than the corporations.

I would say that the best solution isto make the idiot who decides to filibuster remain on the floor, except for a latrine break every two hours, as long as he yields some of his time to another member of the Senate for the fifteen minutes it should take, and don't fall asleep on your way to or from the restroom.

 

[Sporanox]

Maybe you would be happy to see most of government go away, but I would rather have the State running the country than the corporations.

LOL

Well, the state does run the country, as it turns out. I get the feeling that's not what you meant, though.

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

 

[leftysergeant]

LOL

Well, the state does run the country, as it turns out. I get the feeling that's not what you meant, though.

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

Haven't seen it happen recently.

If the little prima donnas are not willing to give up their vacation time to do their duty, they should not be allowed to stop action just by shrieking NO like little babies. I would also like to do away with this stupidity of a Senator's ability to put a hold on the nomination of a federal appointee.

Thanks to David "Diapers" Vitter, we seem to have two unfit federal prosecutors keeping any real work from getting done in one state.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

what u guys think?

I think that someone who isn't smart enough to spell the word “you” isn't anywhere near smart enough to participate usefully in a discussion of complex political issues.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

you must be talking about the OTHER Democrats. the stupid ones living in caves.

You mean the illiterate ones, who cannot spell the word “you”, and who don't know the difference between “fare” and “fair”? Or are there Democrats that are even more stupid than that?

 

[theprestige]

Tuning in to an NPR piece yesterday, on "bipartisanship", I heard an interview with Alan Grayson (Democrat, Florida). The Representative pointed out that for all but 14 of its 222 years of existence, the U.S. Senate has managed to get things done without a supermajority. He then concluded that it should therefore be possible for the Democrats to advance their agenda without working with Republicans (who weren't interested in bipartisanship anyway).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123164812

 

[ZenFountain]

....it should therefore be possible for the Democrats to advance their agenda without working with Republicans (who weren't interested in bipartisanship anyway).

It's simply not possible when the Republicans are willing to filibuster every bill they don't want. It is historically unprecedented, although both parties took part in the march up to this point as the minority.

First to blame should be the American people and our massive civic incompetence. What fraction of the population even understands the legislative process and how procedural tactics are used to block legislation that has a majority vote? It's far to easy to block legislation and let it spin out into the netherworld of the media as more congressional inaction and "Washington stuff", naturally far too complicated for Joe Six Pack to understand or even care about.

These obstruction tactics don't end with changes to the Senate debate rules either; a truly determined obstructionist has an entire arsenal of procedural hurdles to throw up against legislation in the Senate. Quorum calls, reading of amendments in entirety, points of order, budget points of order, motions to recommit to committee, offering frivolous amendments, requesting substitute amendments, demanding division of ammendments. You get the idea, and this is all before a bill goes conference to harmonize with the house bill, which presents another grab bag of delaying tactics.

In the end all the legislative hurdles in the Senate give Senators an easy political out for inaction and that's how they like it.

 

[Malerin]

It's already happening. Medicare payments to doctors were supposed to go down by 21% Jan. 1, but was pushed back to March now.

Would you like to make a bet that it wll be pushed back again before it takes effect? Winner gets to pick the loser's avatar for 2 weeks?

That's an awesome wager.

Oh, and the medicare cuts will never happen.

 

[ZirconBlue]

By the way, what happens when the filibuster is needed to save the country from fifty plus sociopaths ready and willing to destroy Liberty herself? Or do you think that will never, ever happen?

Sounds like some serious paranoia, to me. 51+ sociopaths all elected to the Senate at the same time, (well, not at the same time, since only 1/3 of Senators are up for election at once), and, despite being sociopaths, are able to work together to pass the Liberty Destruction Act?

Of course, there would have to be at least 218 similarly like-minded sociopaths in the House of Representatives and 1 in the White House for this to actually make it into law.

At the point that the nation has elected 270 sociopaths with a common, Liberty-Destroying Agenda, I don't think a filibuster is really going to stop them. Heck, being Liberty-Hating Sociopaths, they'll probably have already revoked the filibuster rules by then, anyway.

 

[Sporanox]

It's simply not possible when the Republicans are willing to filibuster every bill they don't want. It is historically unprecedented, although both parties took part in the march up to this point as the minority.

They had a filibuster-proof majority. Like it or not, the bill could have been passed if the Blue Dogs didn't get so scared.

At the point that the nation has elected 270 sociopaths with a common, Liberty-Destroying Agenda, I don't think a filibuster is really going to stop them. Heck, being Liberty-Hating Sociopaths, they'll probably have already revoked the filibuster rules by then, anyway.

Probably so.

 

[Beerina]

It's there so that your politicians have to really want something to pass it. Tyranny of the supermajority is supposed to be better than tyranny of the simple one.

It's slower, which, generally speaking, is a good thing with government. See, it's the demagogues skilled in taking advantage of the blowing passions of the masses that's been, you know, the main preventable killer of humanity.


There is nothing so damned urgent it must be passed now, now, now!

And if you want to get rid of the 60 rule because you're scared the winds will blow the other way for another 20 years, well, guess what? You're part of the problem.

 

[Beerina]

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

You mean the remaining 59% of the senate which, according to your math, not mine, represents a whopping 35% of the country?


Sorry, don't want them ruling, either.

 

[Beerina]

by what basis do you have to suggest that if the Democrats lose control of the Senate, I will take back my assertion that a filibuster should be broken by 55 instead of 60 votes?

I note you pick a minor supermajority number that the Democrats frequently clear, but the Republicans rarely do.

Purely accidentally, I'm sure.


Given the unfortunate "re-interpretation" of the Constitution over the past 80 years to give Congress power over almost everything (very telling: in a Supreme Court decision that, thankfully, went against Congress, the majority challenged the minority opinion to come up with even one example that the "interstate commerce clause" wouldn't cover, and the pro-clause justices couldn't do it), the role of this super-majority to end debate so the vote can take place has become amplified in its effect.

I don't see why this is a problem. Oh, I know why people complain -- their pet project of the month can't get passed, and they rationalize the hideousness of the 60 rule. But that's not a problem, and it's a good thing because it stops the laws.

After all, if the law is so god damned good, most people will think so, not just a bare majority, right? And they will think so next year, and in 5 years and 10 years, not just for a few months, right?

I mean, nobody wants to pass laws that are only favored briefly due to the shifting passions of political winds, right?


I am right in those ideas, aren't I? Or is there some goodness to be found in passing massive, permanent changes, based on a few months or a year of bare majority popularity?