Filibuster

[DevilsAdvocate]

When will the Senate filibuster rule end?

This is being used, and abused, more and more. It was never even intended to be a rule. It now essentially requires a 60% vote instead of a 50% vote to pass a bill.

Everybody complains that Congress isn’t doing enough. With the filibuster, months of drafting a bill, and discussions, and votes in the house, can be essentially tossed into the waste bin unless one party has a super majority.

Should there be a bipartisain agreement ot end this rule? Should a majority party vote to end this rule for the improvement of the system?

 

[Kopji]

Wouldn't someone just fillibuster against getting rid of fillibusters?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Wouldn't someone just fillibuster against getting rid of fillibusters?

Yes. That is what makes it so hard to change.

It can only be eliminated by a super majority (which is unlikley because that party would already have the power to override the fillibuster) or a bypartisan effort. A majority party wants to end it, but the minority party wants to keep it to froce the majority party to be a super majority.

I think when the Democrats had a super majority in 2008, they should have ended it. Obama, as a former Senator, should have pushed for it. Of course the Democrats, after losing the 2010 elections, wish they would have done that. But now they won’t.

So it goes on and on where everybody knows it should be eliminated but nobody will do it when the other party is in power, or when they have a super majority. Which means never. Even though they want to do it and it is the right thing to do.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't have any suggestion about how to resolve it, but I completely agree with your assessment.

 

[SezMe]

I think when the Democrats had a super majority in 2008, ...

In name only. The Blue Dogs would never have gone along with such a rule change that would have given the "real" Dems legislative power. Without the filibuster requirement, the "conservadems" would have had no power at all and the Senate would have passed legislation that would have caused them to swoon. End result: no change.

 

[Random]

Well, it only requires a supermajority to change the rule while the Senate is in session. Every two years, at the start of each new Senate, they have an opportunity to change the rules the Senate operates under with a simple majority vote when they decide to set the rules that that Senate will operate under. Usually however, this is a simple voting in of the last Senate's rules, but there is nothing stopping the Senate from changing them at that point with a simple majority vote.

The real problem with the fillibuster is that instead of requiring 41 votes to maintain a fillibuster, it require 60 votes to stop a fillibuster. This means that if a Senator wants to support a fillibuster, all he has to do is basically say "I support this fillibuster", then go home and take a nap, maybe go out and catch a show. It is a lot easier to get 41 Senators to agree to this than to get 41 Senators to sit in the Senate around the clock ready to vote to continue the debate, while a couple of Senators switch shifts talking at the podium.

This is why you don't actually see fillibusters anymore. The dramatic shows of people standing up and talking continuously have been replaced by a quiet and painless vote behind closed doors.

 

[Bri]

The filibuster as we know it could be ended permanently by a simple majority vote, the so-called nuclear option. However, this couldn't be reversed as it essentially would declare the filibuster to be unconstitutional.

The problem is that neither side really wants to end the filibuster, because they know they will be in the minority at some point. When used responsibly, the filibuster is useful because it prevents the majority from essentially taking over and ensures compromise.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wouldn't someone just fillibuster against getting rid of fillibusters?

Yes. That is what makes it so hard to change.

It can only be eliminated by a super majority

That's not correct. The Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. The so called "nuclear option" would do just that. The reason majorities are reluctant to get rid of the filibuster that way is that they know their party will again be in the minority.

ETA: Bri beat me to it. I should've read the thread before posting.

To advance the discussion, I find it curious that Senate Democrats haven't even been threatening the nuclear option while the filibuster has been so abused in recent years. I supposed an empty threat is meaningless without the willingness to pull the trigger (or push the button, or whatever the correct metaphor is). Traditionally, this threat has been what prevents filibuster abuse.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In name only. The Blue Dogs would never have gone along with such a rule change that would have given the "real" Dems legislative power. Without the filibuster requirement, the "conservadems" would have had no power at all and the Senate would have passed legislation that would have caused them to swoon. End result: no change.

Good point. A real supermajority is difficult to attain.

Even so, they were able to get landmark legislation passed. (Funny that Politifact says the health care law passed by only a "slim majority" when it took a supermajority, counting Kennedy's vote, and then one vote short of that after his death.)

 

[Beerina]

Everybody complains that Congress isn’t doing enough. With the filibuster, months of drafting a bill, and discussions, and votes in the house, can be essentially tossed into the waste bin unless one party has a super majority.

Should there be a bipartisain agreement ot end this rule? Should a majority party vote to end this rule for the improvement of the system?

Some of us complain they do too much. I'm fine with gridlock. It's when Congress gets busy that I start getting nervous.


Each side whines about this when they can't get their stuff passed. But when their side is on the outs, suddenly it's the greatest thing.


The Republicans toyed with the "nuclear option", which the Democrats decried using. Now the roles are reversed. In the future, perhaps the near future, things will reverse again.



People should be careful what they wish for.

 

[Spindrift]

 

[Unabogie]

Some of us complain they do too much. I'm fine with gridlock. It's when Congress gets busy that I start getting nervous.


Each side whines about this when they can't get their stuff passed. But when their side is on the outs, suddenly it's the greatest thing.


The Republicans toyed with the "nuclear option", which the Democrats decried using. Now the roles are reversed. In the future, perhaps the near future, things will reverse again.



People should be careful what they wish for.

You know, I think I agree with you mostly on this. The thought of laws being repealed and re-passed, back and forth every few years doesn't strike me as a very good idea, but I think that an argument can be made that the current system rewards what I consider to be "fake policy". What I mean by this is that let's say the Republicans filibuster nearly all of Obama's judges (which they have). Because of this, the public doesn't get to experience liberal judges and decide for themselves if they like them or hate them. Likewise, filibustering Obama's economic team hinders his ability to put in place liberal economics. You may think that's a good idea, but I would submit that this allows the GOP to call whatever system is in place in lieu of an actual group of professionals, liberal and smear it as a failure. This merely fools the public. It's no more healthy for democracy than capricious laws that change every few years.

Would it be better for people to see actual results from elections? Meaning if a Republican gets in, he gets his judges, he gets his laws, and the public decides how they like that. If they hate it, the GOP loses elections until they change or they convince the public that they were right after all. The current system merely enables the parties to spread FUD.

I would not mind, however, changing the tenure of judges in exchange for removing the filibuster. Making the SCOTUS judges hold their jobs for a maximum of 20 years seems like plenty. And maybe federal judges get 4 years and can be re-appointed indefinitely. This way a bad judge can be fired while a good judge can stay, all decided by elections that happen every four years.

The current system isn't working. I'm sure there are things we can agree on that would improve it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I just love how we actually, literally have "Just keep talking until your opponnent gives up in frustration" as a codified, official process in our lawmaking procedure. What was "Hold your breath until you get your way" just too dignified? What's next an official procedure where someone can mumble rapidly and under their breath into the microphone "All the senators that agree with my bill say what?"

It's just so wonderfully absurd in it's base concept if you take a step back and look at it.

 

[SezMe]

The Republicans toyed with the "nuclear option", which the Democrats decried using. Now the roles are reversed. In the future, perhaps the near future, things will reverse again.

I do remember the Republicans threatening the nuclear option but I can't remember the reverse. Can you cite an instance where the Dems mounted such a visible, viable threat?

BTW, good post Unabogle.

 

[BravesFan]

I do remember the Republicans threatening the nuclear option but I can't remember the reverse. Can you cite an instance where the Dems mounted such a visible, viable threat?

BTW, good post Unabogle.

From Wikipedia:

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was able to effect rule changes by majority vote four times when he was majority leader despite the formal requirement for a two-thirds vote: to ban post-cloture filibustering (1977), to adopt a rule to limit amendments to an appropriations bill (1979), to allow a senator to make a non-debatable motion to bring a nomination to the floor (1980), and to ban filibustering during a roll call vote (1987).[13] These actions have been cited as precedent for the nuclear option.

 

[Bob Klase]

Even so, they were able to get landmark legislation passed. (Funny that Politifact says the health care law passed by only a "slim majority" when it took a supermajority, counting Kennedy's vote, and then one vote short of that after his death.)

It only passed the house 219-212- A 7 vote majority out of 431 seems pretty slim to me. When you say "congress" you can't just count the Senate to make a blanket statement.

 

[SezMe]

LogicFail, 30+ years ago? Take a look at this graph. To me it says 30+ years ago has no relevance.

 

[applecorped]

LogicFail, 30+ years ago? Take a look at this graph. To me it says 30+ years ago has no relevance.

For dogs, it does.

 

[BravesFan]

LogicFail, 30+ years ago? Take a look at this graph. To me it says 30+ years ago has no relevance.

I wasn't trying to prove anything or push any agenda, I just looked on wiki to see if there was anything and saw that first and posted it....

It doesn't appear that anyone has gone through with the nuclear option, but both sides of the aisle use similar methods against the other when it suits them.

That's why they will never get rid of filibusters, they both want it there for future use.


Plus you did say "can you cite time when the democrats mounted a similar threat?", you didn't give a limitation or timeline....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It only passed the house 219-212- A 7 vote majority out of 431 seems pretty slim to me. When you say "congress" you can't just count the Senate to make a blanket statement.

I understand that, but you also can't just count the House either. It passed by a slim margin in the House and by a supermajority in the Senate.