If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party   (latimes.com) divider line 159
    More: Interesting, majority party, Strom Thurmond, filibusters, Goes to Washington, public laws, American Law, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

3795 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Nov 2012 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-26 09:31:36 AM
i1079.photobucket.com
RIP
 
2012-11-26 10:20:49 AM
Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.
 
2012-11-26 10:24:16 AM

Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.


Congressmen should be required to have their debates in the form of rap battles. MC Biden lays down the beat.
 
2012-11-26 10:25:39 AM

RminusQ: Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.

Congressmen should be required to have their debates in the form of rap battles. MC Biden lays down the beat.


Throw in breakdancing.
 
2012-11-26 10:26:16 AM
Never happen. Remember you're only one election away from being the minority party you dont want to take away the only means of stopping bad legislation.

Same theory as the line item veto, great when our party is in power but can we take it away when we are out of power?
 
2012-11-26 10:27:37 AM
Great coverage of filibuster reform going on at monkeycage.

Link

Link
 
2012-11-26 10:32:26 AM
John Cornyn on filibuster reform yesterday: "It will shut down the Senate," the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. "It's such an abuse of power."

John Cornyn on filibuster reform in 2005, via his own editorial on it:

Filibusters, Then and Now

Published: March 10, 2005

To the Editor:

"The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were "the tool of the sore loser" and should be eliminated ("Time to Retire the Filibuster," editorial, Jan. 1, 1995).

Federal judicial appointments have certainly been controversial, but surely all Americans can agree that the rules for confirming judges should be the same regardless of which party has a majority.

Now you praise the filibuster as a "time-honored Senate procedure." In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it "an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose."

You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.

John Cornyn
U.S. Senator from Texas
Washington, March 7, 2005
 
2012-11-26 11:00:57 AM
filibuster: IOKIYAR
 
2012-11-26 11:29:57 AM
One wonders how Senator Cornyn will "shut down the Senate" without the filibuster. If he's going to stand up there and talk, then more power to him.
 
2012-11-26 11:31:57 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Never happen. Remember you're only one election away from being the minority party you dont want to take away the only means of stopping bad legislation.

Same theory as the line item veto, great when our party is in power but can we take it away when we are out of power?


This. I have to explain this to every conservatard I speak with. The trick is, don't be a dick and over use it. The GOP did. They got modestly spanked for it on Nov. 6 too.
 
2012-11-26 11:32:08 AM
We don't need it to be eliminated. We just need it to be returned to the "filibuster", not the fake version where you just pretend to filibuster and everyone goes home for the day.
 
2012-11-26 11:33:55 AM

RminusQ: Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.

Congressmen should be required to have their debates in the form of rap battles. MC Biden lays down the beat.


Filibusta Rhymes
 
2012-11-26 11:34:57 AM
Filibustering a motion to proceed is ludicrous. Toss that out, but leave the full filibuster.

I like Merkley's idea too. Five senators need to be on the floor to sustain a filibuster for the first 24 hours, then ten for the next 24 hours, then twenty after that. I'd personally say change it to twenty for the next 24 hours, and all forty after that. They don't necessarily need to be talking, but there needs to be a price for holding up legislation.

Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.
 
2012-11-26 11:39:04 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Same theory as the line item veto, great when our party is in power but can we take it away when we are out of power?


Line-Item Veto was ruled unconstitutional. Sorry.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: We don't need it to be eliminated. We just need it to be returned to the "filibuster", not the fake version where you just pretend to filibuster and everyone goes home for the day.


I could go with this.

Mugato: Filibusterering senators should be beaten to death.

If you ever want an excuse to shoot out your TV Elvis style just watch C-SPAN for 5 minutes.


You've probably never seen a real filibuster. It's been years since they had one. Mostly it's senators putting "holds" on bills, sort of, "if this comes up I'll filibuster".
 
2012-11-26 11:40:02 AM
I don't see how that's going to help anything with the makeup of the current House. Any bill has to pass both houses, and the Senate is filled with a smaller percentage of nutters.

Still, I think changing the rules of "filibuster" is probably a good thing.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:27 AM

Serious Black: Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.


Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:54 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Never happen. Remember you're only one election away from being the minority party you dont want to take away the only means of stopping bad legislation.

Same theory as the line item veto, great when our party is in power but can we take it away when we are out of power?


Am I mistaken, or don't they want to remove the ability to *threaten* to filibuster without actually having to do it. I'm fine with keeping the filibuster provided that they actually DO it, instead of just say they want to.
 
2012-11-26 11:41:46 AM
Finally, it is time to make those who would filibuster a bill actually go through the exercise of doing so, and for the majority to cease yielding at the mere threat of it...Any senator who wants to block a bill today and is unwilling or unable to gather votes against it should have to do so by literally standing up for his principles, at a podium, reading or talking until he can stand no more.

im_okay_with_this.jpg
 
2012-11-26 11:42:31 AM
Bad idea. Sure it sounds good to the party in power. But that party won't stay in power and they will sure wish they had that ability when they are not in power.

The problem with the fillibuster is it is abused too often for obstructionary purposes.

OK, enough Devils advocate. It should probably go. Unless someone actually stands there and does a speaking marathon as it was originally used. None of this declaring a fillibuster. If you want a fillibuster, you stand your ass there and talk until everybody screams ENOUGH! I'm OK with that.
 
2012-11-26 11:42:56 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: We don't need it to be eliminated. We just need it to be returned to the "filibuster", not the fake version where you just pretend to filibuster and everyone goes home for the day.


No, it needs to be eliminated. Its a fundamentally antidemocratic system. Losing elections aught to mean you lose, no get a more powerful position.
 
2012-11-26 11:44:15 AM
People should be forced to stand in front of the senate and talk about why they are holding up the process. You shouldn't be able to just threaten to do it and be let off for free.

And, the idea that 60 votes is now needed to bring debates to an end is ridiculous.

Stand up and block legislation from being passed. If you can't do that, then a majority vote can pass legislation.
 
2012-11-26 11:44:28 AM

DeltaPunch: Am I mistaken, or don't they want to remove the ability to *threaten* to filibuster without actually having to do it. I'm fine with keeping the filibuster provided that they actually DO it, instead of just say they want to.


I think the idea of the "hold" was to avoid taking up the Senate's time with actual filibusters, so the Senate could get (ironically) more work done. It's become a convenient way for any Senator to kill a bill. A good idea that got abused to death. Probably time to let it go, or at least modify it.
 
2012-11-26 11:44:39 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.


The Senate gets to set its own rules. They can make a rule that consent is presumed in the absence of a vote.

There's a much stronger case to make that the filibuster is itself unconstitutional but it's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court would walk into that minefield.
 
2012-11-26 11:47:23 AM

Galloping Galoshes: DeltaPunch: Am I mistaken, or don't they want to remove the ability to *threaten* to filibuster without actually having to do it. I'm fine with keeping the filibuster provided that they actually DO it, instead of just say they want to.

I think the idea of the "hold" was to avoid taking up the Senate's time with actual filibusters, so the Senate could get (ironically) more work done. It's become a convenient way for any Senator to kill a bill. A good idea that got abused to death. Probably time to let it go, or at least modify it.


I don't have any problem with the minority party being able to hold anything up for as long as they want as long as :

1. There is a quorum (50%) of the minority party in the chamber
2. They actually hold the floor and speak the entire time, even passing it around to themselves.
3. No session can be closed without a vote on all bills presented. Yes, that means all bills presented must be voted on. You can adjourn from one day to another, but at the end of the quarter, votes must be taken, with absent votes being counted as "yay"
 
2012-11-26 11:47:42 AM
thebluehighway.com
 
2012-11-26 11:48:29 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: No, it needs to be eliminated. Its a fundamentally antidemocratic system. Losing elections aught to mean you lose, no get a more powerful position.


The Senate has always worked by unanimous consent. It was that way when the GOP had control, and it will be that way now.

bulldg4life: People should be forced to stand in front of the senate and talk about why they are holding up the process. You shouldn't be able to just threaten to do it and be let off for free.

And, the idea that 60 votes is now needed to bring debates to an end is ridiculous.

Stand up and block legislation from being passed. If you can't do that, then a majority vote can pass legislation.


Hey, 60 votes is an improvement from the old 67 vote requirement. The Senate has always considered itself the more grown-up of the two houses, where things are considered more carefully. I very much doubt you'll see this requirement go away.
 
2012-11-26 11:49:13 AM

Craptastic: I don't see how that's going to help anything with the makeup of the current House. Any bill has to pass both houses, and the Senate is filled with a smaller percentage of nutters.

Still, I think changing the rules of "filibuster" is probably a good thing.


Executive appointees, such as supreme court members, are only approved by the senate.
 
2012-11-26 11:49:49 AM

TofuTheAlmighty: Galloping Galoshes: Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.

The Senate gets to set its own rules. They can make a rule that consent is presumed in the absence of a vote.

There's a much stronger case to make that the filibuster is itself unconstitutional but it's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court would walk into that minefield.


SCOTUS will not go into the internal rules of either legislative body. They've already made that clear numerous times.
 
2012-11-26 11:49:57 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Hey, 60 votes is an improvement from the old 67 vote requirement. The Senate has always considered itself the more grown-up of the two houses, where things are considered more carefully. I very much doubt you'll see this requirement go away.


It seemingly worked when people were remotely interested in governing.

Simply stomping your feet and declaring no movement on any issue unless ridiculous demands are met is not governing. Threatening to shut down the government is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-26 11:50:20 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: We don't need it to be eliminated. We just need it to be returned to the "filibuster", not the fake version where you just pretend to filibuster and everyone goes home for the day.


Agreed, the pussy ass-fillibuster is too easy to abuse. Your senate needs to do it right. Butt plugs/astronaut diapers, pee buckets/catheters, the whole deal. If it's worth fillibustering at all, it's worth doing right.
 
2012-11-26 11:51:06 AM

Dafatone: Craptastic: I don't see how that's going to help anything with the makeup of the current House. Any bill has to pass both houses, and the Senate is filled with a smaller percentage of nutters.

Still, I think changing the rules of "filibuster" is probably a good thing.

Executive appointees, such as supreme court members, are only approved by the senate.


Ah! I had forgotten to take that into account. Good point!
 
2012-11-26 11:51:31 AM
If the Senate DID flip to say....51-49 Republican, what makes you think that McConnell wouldn't change the filibuster rules on Day 1. Even though it probably wouldn't matter as we know most Democrats will just cower in the corner and piss their pants.

Don't know why anyone thinks Reid is going to change anything.
 
2012-11-26 11:51:38 AM

LittleSmitty: Bad idea. Sure it sounds good to the party in power. But that party won't stay in power and they will sure wish they had that ability when they are not in power.

The problem with the fillibuster is it is abused too often for obstructionary purposes.

OK, enough Devils advocate. It should probably go. Unless someone actually stands there and does a speaking marathon as it was originally used. None of this declaring a fillibuster. If you want a fillibuster, you stand your ass there and talk until everybody screams ENOUGH! I'm OK with that.


You can limit it without completely eliminating it. That's why people are referring to fillibuster reform, not elimination.

Oh, and the article has an error in it-the fillibuster can be changed by a simple majority at the start of a session of Congress (but not mid-session).

As for the Democrats not staying in power permanently-I think they will. Barring a major scandal or extreme policy changes on the Republican side, the Democrats will have a majority in the Senate that probably will grow in size over the years. Demographics alone guarantee this.
 
2012-11-26 11:51:49 AM
Stop being pussies and call their bluff. The point of the filibuster depends on the Senators' physical ability to oppose legislation. When you accept the threat of a filibuster as the same thing, you defeat the purpose.
 
2012-11-26 11:51:59 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Serious Black: Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.

Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.


But the Constitution doesn't say HOW advice and consent should be given. Right now, we assume consent is not given without an up-or-down vote. Why would it be unconstitutional to instead presume it IS given unless they say no? That would still require seeking their advice and consent on nominees.
 
2012-11-26 11:52:22 AM

bulldg4life: People should be forced to stand in front of the senate and talk about why they are holding up the process. You shouldn't be able to just threaten to do it and be let off for free.

And, the idea that 60 votes is now needed to bring debates to an end is ridiculous.

Stand up and block legislation from being passed. If you can't do that, then a majority vote can pass legislation.


You should only have a fixed number of filibusters you can pull per Congress. Perhaps a fillibuster can only be used to delay any particular vote for 1 year (no longer). For instance, let's say you are late in 2013 or early 2014 and the DNC proposed new legislation that was not even discussed before. It might be reasonable to fillibuster until the 2014 election.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-26 11:52:31 AM
While we're at it, let's eliminate anonymous Senate holds. If you're going to prevent consideration of a bill, I want to know your name. Link
 
2012-11-26 11:53:05 AM

wooden_badger: If the Senate DID flip to say....51-49 Republican, what makes you think that McConnell wouldn't change the filibuster rules on Day 1. Even though it probably wouldn't matter as we know most Democrats will just cower in the corner and piss their pants.

Don't know why anyone thinks Reid is going to change anything.


Because Reid promised it's gone.
 
2012-11-26 11:53:36 AM
instead of 60 votes to end a filibuster, 40 should be required to maintain it.



I like this one the best
 
2012-11-26 11:53:41 AM

Serious Black: Filibustering a motion to proceed is ludicrous. Toss that out, but leave the full filibuster.

I like Merkley's idea too. Five senators need to be on the floor to sustain a filibuster for the first 24 hours, then ten for the next 24 hours, then twenty after that. I'd personally say change it to twenty for the next 24 hours, and all forty after that. They don't necessarily need to be talking, but there needs to be a price for holding up legislation.

Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.


I also liked the "40 votes to sustain a 'filibuster'", rather than the "60 to break it" we have now from TFA. 58 or 59 votes to break a filibuster, out of 98 or 99 cast, should be enough.

I like the rising requirement rules (though, couldn't the majority just wait out the clock on that?), I like the "when shiat hits the fan, make 'em talk", I like the "only one chance at a filibuster vote" thing, rather than the...what, 9? they have now.
 
2012-11-26 11:53:54 AM

rubi_con_man: I don't have any problem with the minority party being able to hold anything up for as long as they want as long as :

1. There is a quorum (50%) of the minority party in the chamber
2. They actually hold the floor and speak the entire time, even passing it around to themselves.
3. No session can be closed without a vote on all bills presented. Yes, that means all bills presented must be voted on. You can adjourn from one day to another, but at the end of the quarter, votes must be taken, with absent votes being counted as "yay"


Everything that comes to the floor IS voted on. Frequently a bill is either laid upon the table (killed), referred back to committee (usually killed), or amended (even to the point of tossing everything out and substituting an entirely new bill).

All votes are "aye" or "nay". A vote of "yay" would occur after the final disposition of the bill, usually by the winning group.
 
2012-11-26 11:54:09 AM

mrshowrules: You should only have a fixed number of filibusters you can pull per Congress. Perhaps a fillibuster can only be used to delay any particular vote for 1 year (no longer). For instance, let's say you are late in 2013 or early 2014 and the DNC proposed new legislation that was not even discussed before. It might be reasonable to fillibuster until the 2014 election.


I don't want a fixed number because they would just find a way around it by submitting ridiculous bills or splitting bills to a million pieces.

And, blocking things for a year would just create massive lame duck sessions.
 
2012-11-26 11:54:54 AM

bulldg4life: It seemingly worked when people were remotely interested in governing.

Simply stomping your feet and declaring no movement on any issue unless ridiculous demands are met is not governing. Threatening to shut down the government is ridiculous.


Don't expect any argument from me. Both parties are getting so extreme that the folks in the middle are getting mighty lonely.
 
2012-11-26 11:56:38 AM

Serious Black: Galloping Galoshes: Serious Black: Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.

Probably unconstitutional. The Senate's "advice and consent" is required.

But the Constitution doesn't say HOW advice and consent should be given. Right now, we assume consent is not given without an up-or-down vote. Why would it be unconstitutional to instead presume it IS given unless they say no? That would still require seeking their advice and consent on nominees.


Congress tried to set up similar mechanisms for things like line-item vetoes. SCOTUS said no, positive requirements are positive requirements.
 
2012-11-26 11:56:47 AM

Galloping Galoshes: bulldg4life: It seemingly worked when people were remotely interested in governing.

Simply stomping your feet and declaring no movement on any issue unless ridiculous demands are met is not governing. Threatening to shut down the government is ridiculous.

Don't expect any argument from me. Both parties are getting so extreme that the folks in the middle are getting mighty lonely.



You can't be serious. What's the last "extreme" thing the DNC has proposed?
 
2012-11-26 11:56:56 AM

ltdanman44: instead of 60 votes to end a filibuster, 40 should be required to maintain it.

I like this one the best


It would be nice a reason was also provided instead of "we are tying to make Obama look bad". The measure of a filibuster should be preventing unusual/unprecedented legislation that would cause irrevocable harm to the State of the Union in some way.
 
2012-11-26 11:57:05 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Both parties are getting so extreme that the folks in the middle are getting mighty lonely.


That's just silly. One party is becoming too extreme that it is dragging the other party along with them.

Saying both sides are getting extreme doesn't remotely gel with reality.
 
2012-11-26 11:58:29 AM

Galloping Galoshes: bulldg4life: It seemingly worked when people were remotely interested in governing.

Simply stomping your feet and declaring no movement on any issue unless ridiculous demands are met is not governing. Threatening to shut down the government is ridiculous.

Don't expect any argument from me. Both parties are getting so extreme that the folks in the middle are getting mighty lonely.


lolwut
 
2012-11-26 11:58:44 AM

Galloping Galoshes: Both parties are getting so extreme that the folks in the middle are getting mighty lonely.


Examples from the Dem side, please? You can fill a library with examples from the Republicans going hard right, but show me the Dems becoming "extreme" please?
 
2012-11-26 11:59:15 AM

Serious Black: Filibustering a motion to proceed is ludicrous. Toss that out, but leave the full filibuster.

I like Merkley's idea too. Five senators need to be on the floor to sustain a filibuster for the first 24 hours, then ten for the next 24 hours, then twenty after that. I'd personally say change it to twenty for the next 24 hours, and all forty after that. They don't necessarily need to be talking, but there needs to be a price for holding up legislation.

Also, we should presume consent is given to executive nominees if there is no up-or-down vote on their nomination within 90 days.


*subscribes to your newsletter*
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report