Filibusters and Reconciliation

[Thunder]

Filibusters are used by the minority in the Senate to keep a simple majority from passing laws. I do not believe such a procedure was created to allow for constant and repetitive use, due to pure political wrangling and dissagrement.

Additionally, Reconciliatiion is used by the majority to avoid Filibusters once a super-majority passes legislation.

How often should Filibusters be used? Should there be a yearly limit? Should the majority have the right to appeal a Filibuster to the SCOTUS?

I think, if the minority is gonna use the Filibuster, they better have a damn good reason, and they should be able to argue this reason. Filibusters should be used to prevent legislation which the minority feels is dangerous for the nation. Not due to petty politics or election concerns.

 

[willhaven]

Do away with filibustering.

Majority rules.

 

[Ziggurat]

Should the majority have the right to appeal a Filibuster to the SCOTUS?

Um... no. The filibuster is a Senate procedural rule, not a law. The senate gets to decide their own rules. The Supreme Court has no say in those rules, and no authority to weigh in on them. This is really basic government stuff, why are you so unaware of it?

If the senate chooses to change their rules, it is free to do so, and can do so with a simple majority. You will find, however, that many democrats argued during Bush's presidency that the rule should not be done away with, and their arguments carried the day. It would be political folly for them to reverse their position now.

 

[Policenaut]

So what's new? Washington politics seems to be a mobius strip. It's so predictable.

I'm right! That is until I'm out of office. Then everything I did is wrong when done by you!

No I'm right! What you did was wrong but now that we're in power I'm going to do it too!

 

[leftysergeant]

The best change I could see would be a rule requiring that if the mionority wishes to extend debate, they can bloody well stand right there, in session, no going home to change clothes, raise campaign funds or do the freak nasty with the main squeeze. Fllor speeches should be limited to discussion of actual or percieved defects in the measure at hand.

It would at least make life difficult for blithering little twits like Bunning.

 

[Random]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster per se. It allows a strong minority to oppose legislation put forward by a bare majority. The problem is with the current mode of "60 Senators to do anything" mechanism. They have a cloture vote, the minority has 41 votes, they table the bill and thats it. It enables the minority to kill a bill without paying a political price for it.

They are supposed to be standing up there and making a big deal about opposing this stuff. Things are supposed to grind to a halt while this is done. Instead it is just a painless procedure for both and nothing gets done.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster per se. It allows a strong minority to oppose legislation put forward by a bare majority. The problem is with the current mode of "60 Senators to do anything" mechanism. They have a cloture vote, the minority has 41 votes, they table the bill and thats it. It enables the minority to kill a bill without paying a political price for it.

They are supposed to be standing up there and making a big deal about opposing this stuff. Things are supposed to grind to a halt while this is done. Instead it is just a painless procedure for both and nothing gets done.

That's what I had thought too. David Waldman wrote an interesting article recently explaining the procedural reasons why the Dems would not want to force an actual filibuster:
http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2010/2/18/2108/-What-stands-in-the-way-of-forcing-a-filibuster

 

[Thunder]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster per se. It allows a strong minority to oppose legislation put forward by a bare majority. .

59 votes is not a "bare majority". it is a damn good majority, which can still be over-ruled by 41 votes. 41 Senate votes can stop the business of Congress? Such a rule should only be used in extreme circumstances, in my humble opinion.

now, if the Democrats were using it left and right, between 1995 and 2005, then I condemn that.

 

[Random]

59 votes is not a "bare majority". it is a damn good majority, which can still be over-ruled by 41 votes. 41 Senate votes can stop the business of Congress? Such a rule should only be used in extreme circumstances, in my humble opinion.

now, if the Democrats were using it left and right, between 1995 and 2005, then I condemn that.

So what number would you liek for a supermajority? It doesn't really matter as whatever number you chose would cause problems it you were near that threshold. If the number was currently 55, would could tell Lieberman to take a long walk off a short pier, but if we had 55 Senators we'd be right back to the same problem.

I am more concerned about the disproportionate representation in the Senate, where it is enitrely possible to have a filibuster proof majority with a clear minority of the voters. But I freely acknowledge I will not win that one, as disproportionate representation is what the Senate is for.

 

[Thunder]

So what number would you liek for a supermajority?

its not about a super-majority. I think 60 is fine...even 70 is fine. I just don't like the idea of the minority imposing its will on the majority for anything less than extreme circumstances.

and, as it appears that an appeal process to the SCOTUS would violate Constitutional rules, perhaps Congress should set up some sort of Congressional Rules Council, to make sure such rules are not being abused for political and petty purposes.

 

[dirtywick]

I just don't like the idea of the minority imposing its will on the majority for anything less than extreme circumstances.

You keep saying that. So who's to say what the circumstances are?

and, as it appears that an appeal process to the SCOTUS would violate Constitutional rules, perhaps Congress should set up some sort of Congressional Rules Council, to make sure such rules are not being abused for political and petty purposes.

I guess this would work, as long as they can filibuster.

 

[Skeptic]

The best change I could see would be a rule requiring that if the mionority wishes to extend debate, they can bloody well stand right there, in session, no going home to change clothes, raise campaign funds or do the freak nasty with the main squeeze.

(sarcasm) I agree! Let's start applying this rule the next time Republicans have the majority! (/sarcasm)

 

[The Painter]

Filibusters are used by the minority in the Senate to keep a simple majority from passing laws. I do not believe such a procedure was created to allow for constant and repetitive use, due to pure political wrangling and dissagrement.

Additionally, Reconciliatiion is used by the majority to avoid Filibusters once a super-majority passes legislation.

How often should Filibusters be used? Should there be a yearly limit? Should the majority have the right to appeal a Filibuster to the SCOTUS?

I think, if the minority is gonna use the Filibuster, they better have a damn good reason, and they should be able to argue this reason. Filibusters should be used to prevent legislation which the minority feels is dangerous for the nation. Not due to petty politics or election concerns.

You are naive. You act as if the Democrats have never done this. Do you really want to change the rules? The Democrats won't be in power forever, you may need these tools in the future. Filibusters are as American as apple pie. Davy Crockett even filibustered. Now you think reconciliation is OK here's what the Democrats thought about it just 4 or 5 years ago. Completely opposite of what they think now.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

 

[pgwenthold]

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster per se. It allows a strong minority to oppose legislation put forward by a bare majority. The problem is with the current mode of "60 Senators to do anything" mechanism. They have a cloture vote, the minority has 41 votes, they table the bill and thats it. It enables the minority to kill a bill without paying a political price for it.

They are supposed to be standing up there and making a big deal about opposing this stuff. Things are supposed to grind to a halt while this is done. Instead it is just a painless procedure for both and nothing gets done.

I agree.

The filibuster works well when it is an issue of continuing the debate. Make the filibuster be an issue of whether to end the debate or not. But if you are going to vote against that, that means you have to actually participate in the debate, and when the debate is done, the vote takes place.

Now, the filibuster is being used to prevent debate from even happening in the first place.

 

[Thunder]

Now you think reconciliation is OK here's what the Democrats thought about it just 4 or 5 years ago. Completely opposite of what they think now.

Reconciliation and the "Nuclear Option", are not the same thing.

though..please correct me if I am wrong. I am under the assumption that Reconciliation can only be used when a bill has ALREADY once defeated a filibuster and faced a vote, and now the majority wants to ammend that bill rather then proposing a new bill and facing the possibility of a new filibuster....while the "Nuclear Option" is before any filibuster was defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

yes, it does appear I am right. Reconciliation seeks to ammend legislation that has already defeated a filibuster, rather the proposing a new bill, while the Nuclear Option seeks to avoid a filibuster before a bill has ever been voted on.

IMHO, the Nuclear Option is the more drastic of the two options. I think most at JREF will agree.

....and btw, are you aware that your link discusses the Nuclear Option..and NOT Reconciliation?

 

[leftysergeant]

....and btw, are you aware that your link discusses the Nuclear Option..and NOT Reconciliation?

Sloppy research. But then, what do you expect from someone who would expect to find reliable information on a Breitbart site?

As for Skepti's suggestion that I am serving gored ox, no, I would not have a problem with requiring the same thing of a Democratic or Republican-controlled Senate. You wanna filibuster and look like a total moron in front of the whole country? Fine. As soon as you run out of hot air, we vote any damned way.

 

[pgwenthold]

I saw something about the "nuclear option" vs "reconciliation" thing the other day, where it was reported that some republican called it "an unprecedented act" by the senate. Barbara Boxer found that "reconciliation" had been used 22 times in the last 30 years...16 times by republicans.

 

[Thunder]

Reconciliation may be bad, but the Nuclear Option, is much much worse.

Its one thing to amend a bill that has ALREADY beaten a filibuster, but to simply avoid filibusters ALTOGETHER??? that's a whole different creature.

Reconciliation seeks to avoid more red-tape after a super-majority has already been achieved. Nuclear option? I don't know how to describe that.

 

[Thunder]

I saw something about the "nuclear option" vs "reconciliation" thing the other day, where it was reported that some republican called it "an unprecedented act" by the senate. Barbara Boxer found that "reconciliation" had been used 22 times in the last 30 years...16 times by republicans.

yes. its called GOP hypocrisy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I saw something about the "nuclear option" vs "reconciliation" thing the other day, where it was reported that some republican called it "an unprecedented act" by the senate. Barbara Boxer found that "reconciliation" had been used 22 times in the last 30 years...16 times by republicans.

I heard that too--that "reconciliation" is relatively common. I sort of hope the Dems just go ahead and do that.

For that matter, the House could just pass the Senate version that has already passed.

Since these options are available, as cynical as I am, I have to think Obama and the Democratic Party's overtures to engage the Republicans in this is sincere. (And I note that wanting a bi-partisan bill for political reasons still means that they're sincerely trying to engage the Republicans who are obviously only interested in keeping the status quo.)