Filibuster

[willhaven]

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right now?

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

Did they? I was looking for it, and I never heard any of them threatening it.

(Don't be confused. As mentioned earlier, for some reason, people were also referring to the application of the reconciliation rule as "the nuclear option". Basically, budget bills already are not subject to filibuster.)

I think another reason they didn't is, as has been pointed out, the "nuclear option" wrt the filibuster and the Affordable Care Act is that Democrats actually had a supermajority in the Senate at the beginning of the 111th Congress. Of course, it's probably also true that in general Democrats are not in favor of doing away with the filibuster. (Sadly, that means they have pretty much given up the ability to use the "nuclear option" as a deterrent to filibuster abuse.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

True enough. And the veto, which has come to be something seen to have heavy political costs, would end up being used more frequently (and therefore would shed its heavy political price), and eventually we'd have about the same balance between ease and difficulty in passing major legislation.

So what would the advantage be to ending the filibuster?

I suppose one would be the one I've been mentioning. The Democratic Party has more or less given up the ability to threaten the "nuclear option" as a deterrent to filibuster abuse. If they went through with it, and things shifted around so that the veto was the way of preventing slim majorities from making wholesale changes, at least the parties would be back on more or less even ground.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

Until you have a party that controls both houses and the executive branch, such as 2002-2006.

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

 

[BravesFan]

The line item veto would help stop filibusters a bit I think.

So would increasing bill requirements to 60% majority to pass.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

<snip> would help stop filibusters a bit I think.

So would increasing bill requirements to 60% majority to pass.

Wouldn't requiring a 60% majority to pass bills in the Senate essentially be the equivalent of a filibuster on every bill (given that a cloture vote--to end a filibuster--requires a 3/5 majority or 60 votes)?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

I agree, but what is the check against misuse of the filibuster? Apparently, the GOP has figured out that the traditional check (threatening the "nuclear option") is meaningless if we all know one party will never pull the trigger.

I suppose the only remaining check is the ballot box.

 

[BravesFan]

Wouldn't requiring a 60% majority to pass bills in the Senate essentially be the equivalent of a filibuster on every bill (given that a cloture vote--to end a filibuster--requires a 3/5 majority or 60 votes)?

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

The line item veto, would help presidents pacify their party members in congress as they could assure them of vetoing certain parts of bills that they had planned to filibuster , yet allow other parts that all might agree upon.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

I hope you're only speaking of the Senate, at least. Relatively few House bills are passed by that margin.

So, in the Senate, your plan to get rid of the filibuster is to have a de facto filibuster on every bill?

 

[BravesFan]

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters usage is to increase passage to 60%.

But , I tend to think gridlock is a good thing for republics.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters usage is to increase passage to 60%.

But , I tend to think gridlock is a good thing for republics.

Yeah, not seeing it...

The mere thought of political gridlock normally makes investors smile. But grins are giving way to frowns and worry lines as the countdown to a U.S. debt default inches closer with divided lawmakers still unable to strike a deal.

Linky.

Standard & Poor's has evaluated the data of what actually does happen to stocks during a divided government, and the answers might be surprising. The study examined three conditions: Total unity, when one party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives; partial gridlock, where one party controls both houses of Congress and another the White House; and total gridlock, when Congress is split.
Looking at the numbers more internally, there is a tie for best performance when looking at party control. Both complete Republican control, and a Democratic president and Republican Congress have had returns of 15.1 percent. The latter scenario was best seen under the Clinton administration and often serves as the template for the "gridlock-is-good" crowd.

...

"The good thing with perceived gridlock is at least bad things for business won't be coming out of Washington anymore," says Steve East, chief economist and market strategist at Height Analytics in Washington, D.C. "To take a longer-term view, gridlock is not good. The country has big problems. It would be better for the intermediate and long-term health of the economy and markets if we could deal with it before it becomes an outright crisis."

Linky.

On Monday, after the bipartisan 12-member super committee announced its failure to agree upon $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, Roubini, also known as Dr. Doom, tweeted the following: "Super-Committee: Super-Failure, Super-Pathetic, Super-Gridlock, Super-GOP-Lunacy on Taxes, Super-Fiscal Drag in 2012 that ensures double dip."
But his prediction goes beyond the partisan bickering of the committee tasked to cut the country's budget deficits. His point rests upon the inability of ALL Republicans and Democrats in Washington to work together on any economic issue that would benefit the good of the country. He does note that more blame should be laid at the feet of Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise.

Linky.

I know this is a popular mantra, but looking at all the problems that aren't being addressed, and I don't see it.

Not to mention that more gridlock leads to perverse outcomes, like log-rolling and omnibus bills.

 

[BravesFan]

I love log rolling!!!

 

[willhaven]

Until you have a party that controls both houses and the executive branch, such as 2002-2006.

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

Then they should pass whatever they want.

2002-2006 had the administration get much of what it wanted anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, in the Senate, your plan to get rid of the filibuster is to have a de facto filibuster on every bill?

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters [sic] usage is to increase passage to 60%.

So by "Nope" you mean "yep"?

(Remember, cloture requires a 60% majority, so again, making passage of all laws dependent on a 60% majority vote is essentially the same thing as calling an automatic filibuster on every bill.)

ETA: You won't be diminishing use of the filibuster if you effectively require a filibuster of every bill. That's what you're actually proposing.

 

[geni]

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

Then realisticaly you are too ignorant of party politics to hold a meaningful opinion.

Even with the loser party system the US has the reality is that a significant chunk of the opposition party will vote no on pretty much everything. Given the fairly narrow majorities that tend to be held in the senate that means that even if you have a bill that is a fairly good idea there is a fair chance it won't pass simply because:
1)there aren't enough switch voters
2)There are enough Switch voters but on this occasion they think they've been switching too often and feel the need to polish up their opposition credentials.

Bipartisanship and consensus goverment are nice slogans but tend to break down once you consider the real world conditions that politicians face.

The line item veto, would help presidents pacify their party members in congress as they could assure them of vetoing certain parts of bills that they had planned to filibuster , yet allow other parts that all might agree upon.

An offer that makes it impossible for the other party to put together a compromise bill since they know that the president will just remove the stuff they want.

 

[BravesFan]

Then realisticaly you are too ignorant of party politics to hold a meaningful opinion.

Even with the loser party system the US has the reality is that a significant chunk of the opposition party will vote no on pretty much everything. Given the fairly narrow majorities that tend to be held in the senate that means that even if you have a bill that is a fairly good idea there is a fair chance it won't pass simply because:
1)there aren't enough switch voters
2)There are enough Switch voters but on this occasion they think they've been switching too often and feel the need to polish up their opposition credentials.

Bipartisanship and consensus goverment are nice slogans but tend to break down once you consider the real world conditions that politicians face.



An offer that makes it impossible for the other party to put together a compromise bill since they know that the president will just remove the stuff they want.

I'm not ignorant of anything. (well, not the subject at hand anyway) I realize exactly how party politics work. I am also in favor of very few new laws. I would love for there to be gridlock to the point that the American public is forced into opening up the multiple party possiblities as well as put the screws on the existing parties to work together better. a 60% majority required to pass votes would enable this in a faster manner.

See? I'm using this as a lever to try and force cooperation.

 

[Random]

I'm not ignorant of anything. (well, not the subject at hand anyway) I realize exactly how party politics work. I am also in favor of very few new laws. I would love for there to be gridlock to the point that the American public is forced into opening up the multiple party possiblities as well as put the screws on the existing parties to work together better. a 60% majority required to pass votes would enable this in a faster manner.

See? I'm using this as a lever to try and force cooperation.

Setting up procedural roadblocks to force cooperation assumes that both sides actually want to get something done. If your side is willing to let things fall into ruin rather than actually accomplish anything, you can hold the whole thing hostage whenever you want.

Not to mention it being possible in some circumstances to implement your agenda by doing nothing. If you are opposed to the minimum wage, you can simply not vote to increase it, and inflation will eat away at it over time.

 

[BravesFan]

Setting up procedural roadblocks to force cooperation assumes that both sides actually want to get something done. If your side is willing to let things fall into ruin rather than actually accomplish anything, you can hold the whole thing hostage whenever you want.

Not to mention it being possible in some circumstances to implement your agenda by doing nothing. If you are opposed to the minimum wage, you can simply not vote to increase it, and inflation will eat away at it over time.

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

BTW, there is some evidence that the minimum wage contributes as much to inflation as anything.

 

[Upchurch]

Previously on US Politics

 

[SezMe]

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

When "eventually" is measured in decades, that solution is pretty meaningless.