Filibuster

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Republicans toyed with the "nuclear option", which the Democrats decried using. Now the roles are reversed.

Really? I must have missed it when the Democrats threatened the "nuclear option" recently. Clearly Republicans who were once considering the "nuclear option" have now reversed their stance on the acceptability of using (or abusing) the filibuster.

 

[SezMe]

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

Yep.

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

Yeah, I know. But still .... I think that graph I cited says the politics now are quite different than they were 30 years ago.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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?

The Democrats did threaten the nuclear option fairly recently.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-grand-rapids/democrats-threaten-nuclear-option-if-brown-wins

http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2009/09/22/reid-threatens-nuclear-option-health-care

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ns-democrats-invoke-nuclear-option-in-senate/

Was it to the level of threats that the republicans made back when the Dems were the minority party? No, but the dems are not immune from threatening to use it.

 

[Beerina]

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 The thought of laws being repealed and re-passed, back and forth every few years doesn't strike me as a very good idea, but I think that an argument can be made that the current system rewards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.

This is fine, but works by an unspoken assumption of the primacy of the President and the executive branch in setting policy, and that the election of the President represents the Will of the People w.r.t. this.

There is another branch. For that matter, it reflects the Will of the People 2 years newer than that which elected the President.

And finally, last time I checked, the President's budget was unanimously rejected by Congress earlier this year.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Democrats did threaten the nuclear option fairly recently.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-grand-rapids/democrats-threaten-nuclear-option-if-brown-wins

http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2009/09/22/reid-threatens-nuclear-option-health-care

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ns-democrats-invoke-nuclear-option-in-senate/

Was it to the level of threats that the republicans made back when the Dems were the minority party? No, but the dems are not immune from threatening to use it.

I only looked at the first link, but it was talking about a different "nuclear option"--the reconciliation rule. This is not the "nuclear option" that would do away with the filibuster.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I only looked at the first link, but it was talking about a different "nuclear option"--the reconciliation rule. This is not the "nuclear option" that would do away with the filibuster.

Ah, OK. My bad. I thought they were the same thing. But I do recall some dems threatening the same nuclear option within the past few years that the reps were threatening when they were in the majority. I forget what exactly it was they were fighting over though.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah, OK. My bad. I thought they were the same thing.

In the short term, both are ways of getting around a filibuster, but in the long term, invoking the reconciliation rule did not do away with the Senate filibuster. (The reconciliation rule basically says that they had already passed the bill with a supermajority and only needed to reconcile that version of the bill with the slightly different on passed in the House.)

I think Democrats recognize that a check on the abuse of the filibuster is the fact that it can be repealed more or less permanently, but they've also indicated their unwillingness to do so (effectively nullifying the deterrent effect).

 

[Unabogie]

This is fine, but works by an unspoken assumption of the primacy of the President and the executive branch in setting policy, and that the election of the President represents the Will of the People w.r.t. this.

There is another branch. For that matter, it reflects the Will of the People 2 years newer than that which elected the President.

And finally, last time I checked, the President's budget was unanimously rejected by Congress earlier this year.

That's fine (although that last part about unanimous rejection is untrue, and I bet you understand why - let's keep on the topic of the filibuster). What I'm arguing is that if the public elects the GOP to congress and the Presidency, it's because they want those policies enacted. They should get them. If they get them and love them, the GOP will win year after year. If they hate them, they will elect liberals to go the other way. This is Democracy. I am suggesting that perhaps the volatility of such a system is a fair trade-off for the ability to pursue actual policies, instead of allowing one party to hamstring the other and then point to the lack of success as proof that those policies don't work. I think this is how you have "fake politics" dominate the discourse.

 

[Random]

Ah, OK. My bad. I thought they were the same thing. But I do recall some dems threatening the same nuclear option within the past few years that the reps were threatening when they were in the majority. I forget what exactly it was they were fighting over though.

Not really. The GOP threatened the “nuclear option” of eliminating the filibuster for Judicial appointments, and Democrats objected. It was a really unpopular idea and was not needed after the gang of 14 decided to protect the judicial filibuster by promising never to use it unless they really felt like it.

Years later, the Democrats moved to have the health care bill go through the reconciliation process, where they took a version of the bill that had already passed the Senate (when the vote was 60-40) and combined it with a bill that had passed the House (after the Senate had shifted to 59-40) without making any substantive changes, and declaring that they had already voted on it.

Republican pundits, remembering how unpopular the “nuclear option” was, decided to rename the reconciliation process “the nuclear option”, then flooded the airwaves with clips of Democrats objecting to the “nuclear option” from a few years ago. Then they called Democrats hypocrites for having two different stances on two different things in an effort to confuse voters.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I suggest requiring the filibusterer to actually speak for the duration of the filibuster.

 

[BravesFan]

Yep.



Yeah, I know. But still .... I think that graph I cited says the politics now are quite different than they were 30 years ago.

Ya know what, I think politics has pretty much always been the same. It's the increased coverage by 24 hr news and the internet that has changed.

 

[SezMe]

24 hour news cycle; increased and seemingly more bitter partisan politics. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

 

[BravesFan]

24 hour news cycle; increased and seemingly more bitter partisan politics. Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

I think that 24 hr coverage and the internet are the egg.

24 hr news lead to the increased coverage of editorial, pundit based "opinions" hiding under the guise of "news". (on both sides). Basically cuz there just isn't enough stuff going on to make 24 hr news that interesting. People popped in and saw the weather, got a score update or watched the highlights of the day stuff, then they watched TV. The News producers discovered that they could make news a profitable industry by treating it like any other TV show. They focused on ratings over quality of content. Hence we have the monstrosity as it exists today.


Now, combine this with the rise of the internet blog. People now had a platform of which to espouse their own personal political propaganda (and often anonymously , so not even repercussions) and rant about whatever floated their boat. Like minded people begin to join up and before you know ,it rampant partisanship erupts.

Being able to get the news you want to hear from the perspective you want to hear it isn't really a good thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I suggest requiring the filibusterer to actually speak for the duration of the filibuster.

Strom Thrumond actually did that during his Fillibuster of the Civil Rights Act. He talked for 24 hours, 18 minutes straight. Apparently he just rambled on, discussing such topics as his Grandmother's biscuit recipe.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Strom Thrumond actually did that during his Fillibuster of the Civil Rights Act. He talked for 24 hours, 18 minutes straight. Apparently he just rambled on, discussing such topics as his Grandmother's biscuit recipe.

Right, so the truly dedicated to do it. Just not any old chum who happens to sit in the right chair.

It'd make American politics more of a show.

 

[Beerina]

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?

Right now?

Or last year when they weren't sure they could get the health care bill passed?

 

[Beerina]

That's fine (although that last part about unanimous rejection is untrue, and I bet you understand why - let's keep on the topic of the filibuster). What I'm arguing is that if the public elects the GOP to congress and the Presidency, it's because they want those policies enacted. They should get them.

Sure, subject to Constitutional approval.

Now, the 60 rule is part of the Senate, and I'm fine with them not changing it, precisely because it gets in the way of things.

Even the passing of laws that I like.

I am not a fan of unrestricted vox populi vox dei. I'd strengthen the filibuster rule to make every law require a supermajority.

Why? It's quite reasonable that if you can't get 60% of the people (or 75%, better yet) to agree something should be a law, it probably shouldn't.


Note this also gets rid of Congress as a spoils system, so money donations become less of a problem because people can't carve up things to begin with. But that's a tangential issue.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Sure, subject to Constitutional approval.

Now, the 60 rule is part of the Senate, and I'm fine with them not changing it, precisely because it gets in the way of things.

Even the passing of laws that I like.

I am not a fan of unrestricted vox populi vox dei. I'd strengthen the filibuster rule to make every law require a supermajority.

Why? It's quite reasonable that if you can't get 60% of the people (or 75%, better yet) to agree something should be a law, it probably shouldn't.


Note this also gets rid of Congress as a spoils system, so money donations become less of a problem because people can't carve up things to begin with. But that's a tangential issue.

I don't see how encouraging doing nothing will help resolve Medicare, Social Security, Energy, etc. I highly doubt we could ever get a 75% vote for any SS reform package, so is no reform better?

I could foresee them making super-omnibus bills and just rolling tons of things together until they can get it passed. And of course adding in more deal sweeteners, just we've had with our regular mega-bills.

 

[willhaven]

Nuke the filibuster. You get 51 votes, you pass your legislation. End of story.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Nuke the filibuster. You get 51 votes, you pass your legislation. End of story.

Which then allows the party with the slimmest of a majority to basically do whatever it wants to do.