I am torn about the Filibuster!!!

[Hercules56]

So I know the filibuster and super-majority control of the Senate is of course NOT in the Constitution. But clearly the filibuster and the 60-vote rule for cloture has become a very useful tool.

The Dems have used it to stop some very irresponsible and dangerous laws, like Concealed-Carry Reciprocity. But the rule has also stopped some very GOOD laws, like a Public Option for Obamacare, immigration reform, etc.

Equally important, if it was soooo important to require a super-majority to pass big changes in the USA, and allow the minority to stop terrible things, then why do we allow big bills to be passed through 51-vote Reconciliation?

I just don't know anymore. But clearly there is something very UNdemocratic, about the filibuster. If the American people choose a Republican President, and a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, maybe we should let them pass their bills if they are unified.

 

[Donal]

Technically, neither party needs a majority of votes to take the White House, Senate and House.

The problem with the filibuster or any other rule is that the GQP uses them as weapons to take more power, not as guides or safety measures.

I've said it before many times: The Dems need to stop acting scared of what the GQP might do and act as if they will do it anyway.

 

[Hercules56]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/

The filibuster has been a VERY useful tool for the Democrats to stop Trump's and Bush 2's agenda. Do we want to lose this power? Is this power a mockery of democracy?

 

[Donal]

What good will it be when right-wing extremists take over the Senate? They'll just do WHAT THEY ALREADY DO and ram everything through on 50 + VP votes. And there will be no John McCains to stop them.

 

[theprestige]

So I know the filibuster and super-majority control of the Senate is of course NOT in the Constitution. But clearly the filibuster and the 60-vote rule for cloture has become a very useful tool.

The Dems have used it to stop some very irresponsible and dangerous laws, like Concealed-Carry Reciprocity. But the rule has also stopped some very GOOD laws, like a Public Option for Obamacare, immigration reform, etc.

Equally important, if it was soooo important to require a super-majority to pass big changes in the USA, and allow the minority to stop terrible things, then why do we allow big bills to be passed through 51-vote Reconciliation?

I just don't know anymore. But clearly there is something very UNdemocratic, about the filibuster. If the American people choose a Republican President, and a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, maybe we should let them pass their bills if they are unified.

There are a couple misconceptions here. The filibuster isn't about blocking big changes, it's about blocking contentious changes. Obviously there's some correlation: The broader the scope or the more drastic the effects, the more likely it is to have some contentious parts to it.

And the budget is an exception to the general rule. Most bills, the House and the Senate can argue indefinitely over the details, and never actually agree on wording they can both vote for to pass the bill. But a nation-state can't really go without a budget for extended periods. Reconciliation is a tool to help ease the contention and shepherd the budget through to an agreement in a timely manner. There are very few things that are so urgent that they need the reconciliation process (other than the budget, I can't think of any).

Each Senator is entitled to threaten a filibuster, to block a bill they find objectionable. The current Senate rules basically say that if a bill is found to be objectionable in this way (by threat of filibuster), the objection can be overridden by a supermajority vote. And by convention, the Senate does not bother bringing such contentious bills to a vote unless they're pretty sure they have a supermajority to override the objection.

Sometimes I think that the Senate should go back to actually having the objecting lawmaker stand up and hold forth, if they want to block the bill. But overall I think the current rule is a good one. Contentious policies should not be imposed by bare majorities if it can be avoided, is my opinion.

 

[Donal]

There are a couple misconceptions here. The filibuster isn't about blocking big changes, it's about blocking contentious changes.

No, its about exploiting a gap.

Obviously there's some correlation: The broader the scope or the more drastic the effects, the more likely it is to have some contentious parts to it.

Especially when one party has decided that "contentious" is a synonym for "all"

And the budget is an exception to the general rule. Most bills, the House and the Senate can argue indefinitely over the details, and never actually agree on wording they can both vote for to pass the bill. But a nation-state can't really go without a budget for extended periods. Reconciliation is a tool to help ease the contention and shepherd the budget through to an agreement in a timely manner. There are very few things that are so urgent that they need the reconciliation process (other than the budget, I can't think of any).

Well, then let's just constantly redefine what "budgets" means.

Each Senator is entitled to threaten a filibuster,

You mean have an intern send and email

to block a bill they find objectionable.

Which, for a certain group, means any and all bills.

The current Senate rules basically say that if a bill is found to be objectionable in this way (by threat of filibuster), the objection can be overridden by a supermajority vote. And by convention, the Senate does not bother bringing such contentious bills to a vote unless they're pretty sure they have a supermajority to override the objection.

Which just goes to push for more extremism.

Sometimes I think that the Senate should go back to actually having the objecting lawmaker stand up and hold forth, if they want to block the bill.

Yes, get up and give a reasoned argument. Not an email declaring your intent to filibuster. And not getting up and reading Dr Suess or Ayn Rand or any other such nonsense.

But overall I think the current rule is a good one. Contentious policies should not be imposed by bare majorities if it can be avoided, is my opinion.

Even when that "bare majority" represents 2/3rds of the country? Or when the minority is simply leveraging their position to acquire more disproportionate power?

 

[Hercules56]

Its true, the filibuster was supposed to be used to block bills that a Senator found especially objectionable or unacceptable, due to moral or budgetary reasons.

But starting in 2009 the GOP used the filibuster to instead block ANY and EVERY bill that had a (D) infront of it. Even when they admitted that the actually supported the bill and would vote for the bill. They simply wanted to stop the Democrat and Obama agenda from getting any success, for purely political reasons.

Meanwhile, Dems still passed highly ideological bills through Reconciliation, which kinda makes the filibuster meaningless.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Sometimes I think that the Senate should go back to actually having the objecting lawmaker stand up and hold forth, if they want to block the bill. But overall I think the current rule is a good one. Contentious policies should not be imposed by bare majorities if it can be avoided, is my opinion.

I never understood why anyone really believes the "talking filibuster" is a good idea. A test of physical endurance shouldn't have an effect on what laws get passed. Why not make it really interesting and have trials by combat?

Really, the filibuster is just a convoluted way of saying "the bill takes 60 votes to pass, not 51." Of course, when I say it like that, it sure sounds like an obviously bad idea, but when it is cloaked in Calvinball rules, then a lot of people get tricked into thinking it's a good idea.

 

[Donal]

Why not make it really interesting and have trials by combat?

Ya, why not? CSPAN could have its own Pay-Per-view channel

 

[Hercules56]

I have this ONE question for Schumer and the Democrats: if they TRULY believe that the Filibuster should be done away with, for specific issues or all together, are they willing to commit to NOT use the filibuster against Republican legislation, when it is clear they have at least 51 votes to pass it?

If not, then this is all hypocritical ********.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I have this ONE question for Schumer and the Democrats: if they TRULY believe that the Filibuster should be done away with, for specific issues or all together, are they willing to commit to NOT use the filibuster against Republican legislation, when it is clear they have at least 51 votes to pass it?

If not, then this is all hypocritical ********.

That wouldn't be hypocritical. That would be bad strategy. In this scenario, the filibuster would still exist, but only one side would be using it, thus having an advantage.

 

[theprestige]

That wouldn't be hypocritical. That would be bad strategy. In this scenario, the filibuster would still exist, but only one side would be using it, thus having an advantage.

Like Ayn Rand taking Social Security. She was compelled to pay into the system. She was entitled to benefits from the system. She would have been an idiot to accept a downside she couldn't avoid, but not the upside that came with it.

I'm sure if the government had simply given her back all the money they collected for SS over the years, with interest at market rates, she would have been more than happy to opt out of the SS benefits.

 

[digger]

The Republicans stopped playing by the rules. They'll tear down the filibuster themselves the second it becomes politically expedient. They kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year so that they could get the pick. They invited foreign powers to interfere in our elections. They stormed the Capital building and now they're obstructing the investigation of that act. They're openly conspiring to steel the next election at the state level.

They're going to take power by any means necessary and hold power by any means necessary. If it becomes politically expedient for the GOP to tear down the filibuster themselves, they'll do it without wasting a second thought. All of this hand wringing is theatre.

 

[Hercules56]

The Republicans stopped playing by the rules. They'll tear down the filibuster themselves the second it becomes politically expedient. They kept a Supreme Court seat vacant for a year so that they could get the pick. They invited foreign powers to interfere in our elections. They stormed the Capital building and now they're obstructing the investigation of that act. They're openly conspiring to steel the next election at the state level.

They're going to take power by any means necessary and hold power by any means necessary. If it becomes politically expedient for the GOP to tear down the filibuster themselves, they'll do it without wasting a second thought. All of this hand wringing is theatre.

They didn't undo the Filibuster for legislation, even though Trump urged them to do so.

 

[Hercules56]

That wouldn't be hypocritical. That would be bad strategy. In this scenario, the filibuster would still exist, but only one side would be using it, thus having an advantage.

I think if the Dems REALLY think the Filibuster should be scrapped, and Senate should be by majority vote, not super-majority, they should have the guts to lead by example and NOT Filibuster any GOP bills once they lose the Senate majority.

 

[Venom]

They didn't undo the Filibuster for legislation, even though Trump urged them to do so.

They undid every other unspoken/arbitrary Congressional rule. It's amazing how this one just happens to be the one Democrats apparently need to get anything done with a slim majority, otherwise their hands are tied?

 

[theprestige]

They're going to take power by any means necessary and hold power by any means necessary. If it becomes politically expedient for the GOP to tear down the filibuster themselves, they'll do it without wasting a second thought. All of this hand wringing is theatre.

Ironically it's politically expedient for the Democrats to tear it down, only they don't have the votes.

 

[digger]

They didn't undo the Filibuster for legislation, even though Trump urged them to do so.

That's just because they didn't have any legislation that they wanted to pass.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think if the Dems REALLY think the Filibuster should be scrapped, and Senate should be by majority vote, not super-majority, they should have the guts to lead by example and NOT Filibuster any GOP bills once they lose the Senate majority.

Lead by example? Do you really think the Republicans will see the good deed, enlarge their heart three sizes, and follow suit? Again, this is a foolish strategy.

 

[Upchurch]

Everything old is new again.