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  
•       •       •

3798 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
 
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*
 
2012-11-26 11:59:53 AM

Dr Dreidel: 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.


They waited out the clock on Bernie Sanders talking for eight hours, so I think waiting out the clock on forty people staying on the floor the whole time is just fine. And if the filibustering senators want to start wearing adult diapers, putting in catheters, ordering Chinese takeout to the Senate floor, and injecting themselves with caffeine to extend their filibuster, well, that's their prerogative.
 
2012-11-26 11:59:58 AM
You gut it now, then you will whine to no end the next time the opposing party is in the minority.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.
 
2012-11-26 12:02:39 PM

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


You look at the Democrats and think "they're getting so extreme"? What color is the sky in your world?
 
2012-11-26 12:02:50 PM

Geotpf: 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).


You're speaking of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and you are incorrect. Rule V specifically states "No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules."

The second paragraph states that the rules remain in effect from one Congress to the next unless changed as provided in the rules.
 
2012-11-26 12:03:30 PM

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


Oh, you're one of those people.
 
2012-11-26 12:04:00 PM

mrshowrules: 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 image 500x396]


Too easily abused. Make it a percentage of bills that reach the Senate floor, to prevent a majority party just throwing out garbage at the beginning of a new Senate to wipe out the available filibusters.
 
2012-11-26 12:04:42 PM
The filibuster was meant to be an extreme measure that was used sparingly. The current 60-vote supermajority needed to pass anything is unconstitutional. That said, a complete repeal of the filibuster would take away a valuable tool of the minority party to protect against the excesses of the party in power.

The best suggestion I've heard is to do away with the ability to block a bill by threatening a filibuster. Force the senators seeking to block a bill to spend hours upon hours reading Campbell's soup recipes in front of cameras, like they did in the old days. You can filibuster if you wish, but be prepared to look like a fool and give future opponents tons of footage to use against you.
 
2012-11-26 12:06:02 PM

bulldg4life: 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.


Curse my lack of refreshing!
 
2012-11-26 12:07:10 PM

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.


This. Must be too simple or something.
 
2012-11-26 12:09:23 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Oh, you're one of those people.


Mighty happy, too.

DarnoKonrad: You can't be serious. What's the last "extreme" thing the DNC has proposed?


And to all the others that jumped on me, I wasn't speaking of proposals, I was recalling the overheated, vitriolic rhetoric filling the airwaves. Demonizing the other side and avoiding thoughtful discussion of issues. Running for office 24/7, to the point that hard problems aren't dealt with and that every decision is colored by "what the other side might do with it."

HeartBurnKid: What color is the sky in your world?


Blue, with a tinge of brown near the horizon. Not terribly healthy, I'm afraid.
 
2012-11-26 12:09:39 PM

Klivian: mrshowrules: 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 image 500x396]

Too easily abused. Make it a percentage of bills that reach the Senate floor, to prevent a majority party just throwing out garbage at the beginning of a new Senate to wipe out the available filibusters.


Percentages are messing. If the measure is a 3/5ths majority for cloture. The minority should only be allowed to filibuster 2 bills of every 5.
 
2012-11-26 12:10:14 PM

dwrash: You gut it now, then you will whine to no end the next time the opposing party is in the minority.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.


So the best government is the one that is too slow and ponderous to react to change?
 
2012-11-26 12:11:19 PM

imontheinternet: The current 60-vote supermajority needed to pass anything is unconstitutional.


The constitution allows both the House and Senate to make their own rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Therefore, you are wrong.
 
2012-11-26 12:14:39 PM

odinsposse: dwrash: You gut it now, then you will whine to no end the next time the opposing party is in the minority.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.

So the best government is the one that is too slow and ponderous to react to change?


Absolutely... no legislation is preferably to the pork laden, massive loopholed, exempted pieces of crap they pass these days.
 
2012-11-26 12:14:44 PM

Mugato: 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.


Given the average age of a Senator, that would sound like a bowl of Rice Krispies.
 
2012-11-26 12:15:30 PM
The three reforms proposed in the linked article are logical and reasonable.

Which means they'll never be instituted.
 
2012-11-26 12:15:57 PM

mrshowrules: Klivian: mrshowrules: 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 image 500x396]

Too easily abused. Make it a percentage of bills that reach the Senate floor, to prevent a majority party just throwing out garbage at the beginning of a new Senate to wipe out the available filibusters.

Percentages are messing. If the measure is a 3/5ths majority for cloture. The minority should only be allowed to filibuster 2 bills of every 5.


That doesn't work. The minority party could just flood the inbox with a bunch of post office renamings.
 
2012-11-26 12:16:05 PM

Serious Black: Dr Dreidel: 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.

They waited out the clock on Bernie Sanders talking for eight hours, so I think waiting out the clock on forty people staying on the floor the whole time is just fine. And if the filibustering senators want to start wearing adult diapers, putting in catheters, ordering Chinese takeout to the Senate floor, and injecting themselves with caffeine to extend their filibuster, well, that's their prerogative.


What I mean is that a rule which says: "A filibuster - X Senators voting against bringing a bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote - shall only be allowed within X days of the bill's first debate" is basically begging the majority to hold the bill for that long plus one day to break the filibuster. I guess so long as the voting threshhold never breaks 40 people and the filibuster window has a parallel "if it's not taken up after the same number of days, it dies" clause, I'm OK.
 
2012-11-26 12:16:22 PM
Don't remove the filibuster, just enforce it. Make them stand there and read the phone book.

That way supporters know who they are and the rest of the country knows who to blame. No more secret holds, no more threats.

Obstruct in public or shut up.
 
2012-11-26 12:19:44 PM

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: The current 60-vote supermajority needed to pass anything is unconstitutional.

The constitution allows both the House and Senate to make their own rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Therefore, you are wrong.


The Constitution gives specific examples where supermajorities are needed to pass bills, and those exceptions are very limited. Congress was designed to be run by majority rule except in those instances. The filibuster evolved as a means for a senator to take extreme action against a bill he or she thought was especially bad for the country.

The fact that the House and Senate can establish their own procedures does not mean that they can alter their basic constitutional structure. If the House and Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, do you think that would be constitutional as well? What about a rule that said the Supreme Court had to ratify each bill as constitutional before a vote could be called?
 
2012-11-26 12:20:21 PM

historycat: Don't remove the filibuster, just enforce it. Make them stand there and read the phone book.

That way supporters know who they are and the rest of the country knows who to blame. No more secret holds, no more threats.

Obstruct in public or shut up.


Standing around spouting off bullshiat in order to fark up a vote on something doesn't sound very democratic or even representative republic. Congress is full of farking over paid corrupt children. It's farking pathetic.
 
2012-11-26 12:24:06 PM

historycat: Don't remove the filibuster, just enforce it. Make them stand there and read the phone book.

That way supporters know who they are and the rest of the country knows who to blame. No more secret holds, no more threats.

Obstruct in public or shut up.


I'll add:

Committees can only consider any issue or nomination for 90 days, then must send it to the Senate floor, regardless of "holds".

But other than that, yeah. If the minority is actually willing to read soup can labels and the phone book to stop legislation, it might be a good idea to reconsider it.
 
2012-11-26 12:24:10 PM

imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: The current 60-vote supermajority needed to pass anything is unconstitutional.

The constitution allows both the House and Senate to make their own rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Therefore, you are wrong.

The Constitution gives specific examples where supermajorities are needed to pass bills, and those exceptions are very limited. Congress was designed to be run by majority rule except in those instances. The filibuster evolved as a means for a senator to take extreme action against a bill he or she thought was especially bad for the country.

The fact that the House and Senate can establish their own procedures does not mean that they can alter their basic constitutional structure. If the House and Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, do you think that would be constitutional as well? What about a rule that said the Supreme Court had to ratify each bill as constitutional before a vote could be called?


If the Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, that would probably be constitutional. However, requiring another branch to act, or even the other house, would not be, as that falls outside the "rules of its proceedings."
 
2012-11-26 12:25:46 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: If the minority is actually willing to read soup can labels and the phone book to stop legislation, it might be a good idea to reconsider it.


Disagree with this. Just look at recent history...Senate GOPers woud block all sorts of things the Dems proposed, solely to frustrate Obama's ability to accomplish something.
 
2012-11-26 12:26:10 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Committees can only consider any issue or nomination for 90 days, then must send it to the Senate floor, regardless of "holds".


The entire house can pull something out of committee. But the majority party controls the committees, and committee votes are determined by simple majority. If something gets stuck in committee, at least some members of the majority party are involved in keeping it there.
 
2012-11-26 12:27:34 PM

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.


Don't like your latter proposal. I can imagine a GOP president nominating a horse for a judgeship and having the GOP-led senate hem and haw on purpose for three months to get that nag on the bench. I wouldn't doubt they would exploit and abuse that rule if it came down to having such a rule.

The GOP are masters at exploiting rules. It's as if rules were made to be tested to their utmost limits by the GOP.
 
2012-11-26 12:31:14 PM

dericwater: The GOP are masters at exploiting rules. It's as if rules were made to be tested to their utmost limits by the GOP.


Really. I give you Robert Byrd, acknowledged premier expert on the Senate rules, who was... a Democrat. I recall one time he very carefully filled the amendment tree for a bill, ensuring that President Clinton's proposal would get an up or down vote in the end. Unfortunately, a lot of Senate Democrats wanted to amend it, and he pissed them off as well, and Clinton's bill lost.
 
2012-11-26 12:32:11 PM

dericwater: The GOP are masters at exploiting rules. It's as if rules were made to be tested to their utmost limits by the GOP.


My experience is that all congressmen and staffers are experts at exploiting rules, regardless of party affiliation.
 
2012-11-26 12:33:07 PM

Mugato: historycat: Don't remove the filibuster, just enforce it. Make them stand there and read the phone book.

That way supporters know who they are and the rest of the country knows who to blame. No more secret holds, no more threats.

Obstruct in public or shut up.

Standing around spouting off bullshiat in order to fark up a vote on something doesn't sound very democratic or even representative republic. Congress is full of farking over paid corrupt children. It's farking pathetic.


So put the spot light on the guy doing it and the issue he's railing against. If he's up there long enough, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC will catch wind and start airing it and the public will judge him, for better or worse.

I think this would add a bit more democracy into the process than legislation and nominations quietly dying at the hands of a couple senators and scantly documented by the media.
 
2012-11-26 12:36:44 PM
"I'm sure we can come to some arrangement," said Ford. "Excuse me!"
he shouted.
Mr. Prosser (who was arguing with a spokesman for the bulldozer drivers
about whether or not Arthur Dent constituted a mental health hazard, and
how much they should get paid if he did) looked around. He was surprised
and slightly alarmed to find that Arthur had company.
"Yes? Hello?" he called. "Has Mr. Dent come to his senses yet?"
"Can we for the moment," called Ford, "assume that he hasn't?"
"Well?" sighed Mr. Prosser.
"And can we also assume," said Ford, "that he's going to be staying here
all day?"
"So?"
"So all your men are going to be standing around all day doing nothing?"
"Could be, could be ..."
"Well, if you're resigned to doing that anyway, you don't actually need
him to lie here all the time do you?"
"What?"
"You don't," said Ford patiently, "actually need him here."
Mr. Prosser thought about this.
"Well no, not as such ...", he said, "not exactly need ..."
Prosser was worried. He thought that one of them wasn't making a lot
of sense.
Ford said, "So if you would just like to take it as read that he's actually
here, then he and I could slip off down to the pub for half an hour. How does
that sound?"
Mr. Prosser thought it sounded perfectly potty.
"That sounds perfectly reasonable," he said in a reassuring tone of voice,
wondering who he was trying to reassure.
"And if you want to pop off for a quick one yourself later on," said Ford,
"we can always cover up for you in return."
"Thank you very much," said Mr. Prosser who no longer knew how to
play this at all, "thank you very much, yes, that's very kind ..." He frowned,
then smiled, then tried to do both at once, failed, grasped hold of his fur hat
and rolled it fitfully round the top of his head. He could only assume that
he had just won.
"So," continued Ford Prefect, "if you would just like to come over here
and lie down ..."
"What?" said Mr. Prosser.
"Ah, I'm sorry," said Ford, "perhaps I hadn't made myself fully clear.
Somebody's got to lie in front of the bulldozers haven't they? Or there won't
be anything to stop them driving into Mr. Dent's house will there?"
"What?" said Mr. Prosser again.
"It's very simple," said Ford, "my client, Mr. Dent, says that he will stop
lying here in the mud on the sole condition that you come and take over from
him."
"What are you talking about?" said Arthur, but Ford nudged him with
his shoe to be quiet.
"You want me," said Mr. Prosser, spelling out this new thought to him-
self, "to come and lie there ..."
"Yes."
"In front of the bulldozer?"
"Yes."
"Instead of Mr. Dent."
"Yes."
"In the mud."
"In, as you say it, the mud."
"In return for which you will take Mr. Dent with you down to the pub?"
"That's it," said Ford. "That's it exactly."
Mr. Prosser took a few nervous steps forward and stopped.
"Promise?" he said.
"Promise," said Ford. He turned to Arthur.

/always reminded of this scene when the topic of the filibuster (as it is currently) comes up
//if this quote needs cited then this site is farked
 
2012-11-26 12:37:32 PM

Trivia Jockey: The Jami Turman Fan Club: If the minority is actually willing to read soup can labels and the phone book to stop legislation, it might be a good idea to reconsider it.

Disagree with this. Just look at recent history...Senate GOPers woud block all sorts of things the Dems proposed, solely to frustrate Obama's ability to accomplish something.


As it stands now, they can block anything they like, for as long as they like outside of the public view. Forcing them to stand and speak in chamber puts the obstruction in full view of the public eye. That can't be anything but a good thing. If your senator is consistently in the press, doing nothing but reading soup labels and the sports pages, you might consider electing someone that will actually work for you, rather than complain about a faceless "do-nothing" legislature. Obstruction as a tactic is not always bad, but put a face on it.
 
2012-11-26 12:37:41 PM
The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party

Only if that party has a super-majority.

The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.
 
2012-11-26 12:38:26 PM

Nuclear Monk: So put the spot light on the guy doing it and the issue he's railing against. If he's up there long enough, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC will catch wind and start airing it and the public will judge him, for better or worse.


Except the public doesn't watch, understand or care about any of that.
 
2012-11-26 12:40:54 PM
Ever notice how the folks insisting that X, Y, or Z violates the letter and spirit of the constitution seem to have no problem with their party using the filibuster - which is found nowhere in the constitution - to force the Senate to impose a 60 vote supermajority requirement instead of the constitutionally mandated majority?

Senate rule reform is needed. Right now those rules vest far too much power in the hands of the minority party or, in many cases, a single senator.
 
2012-11-26 12:41:08 PM

dwrash: odinsposse: dwrash: You gut it now, then you will whine to no end the next time the opposing party is in the minority.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.

So the best government is the one that is too slow and ponderous to react to change?

Absolutely... no legislation is preferably to the pork laden, massive loopholed, exempted pieces of crap they pass these days.


wrong. the harder you make it to pass the more people you have to give a handout to to get their vote. that would result in even more pork.
 
2012-11-26 12:42:04 PM
Reform could happen and Elizabeth Warren is going to help. Enjoy having her in the Senate Republicans.
 
2012-11-26 12:42:32 PM

dwrash: You gut it now, then you will whine to no end the next time the opposing party is in the minority.

Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.


How does that make any sense at all?
 
2012-11-26 12:44:17 PM
They should enforce old school filibusters, where you are on the floor, reading from a book, wearing a diaper.
 
2012-11-26 12:46:02 PM

lilbjorn: The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party

Only if that party has a super-majority.

The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.



This. At a minimum, they need to restore the whole point of the rule in the first place - that once a senator is recognized and has the floor, he/she will not be cut off from speaking. The filibuster rule has transformed from a legislative debate rule to a de facto supermajority requirement. Either return it to its true roots or get rid of it.
 
2012-11-26 12:46:17 PM
The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party

But they won't do it. This discussion happens as often as the electoral college debate. Neither are going away. The Senate isn't going to dispose of a key political tool, and a Constitutional amendment beridding us of the EC won't pass (And this is a joke and will never f*cking happen, stop linking to it.).
 
2012-11-26 12:46:32 PM

Galloping Galoshes: If the Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, that would probably be constitutional.


There's a term in interpreting the law called "expressio unius." It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.
 
2012-11-26 12:48:21 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: As it stands now, they can block anything they like, for as long as they like outside of the public view.


Yup, that's why I fully support filibuster reform.
 
2012-11-26 12:50:38 PM
I don't know, I admit I don't know everything about politics but it all sounds like playground bullshiat only it's performed by old white guys.
 
2012-11-26 12:51:18 PM

lilbjorn: The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.


This sentiment has been expressed about a dozen times in this thread alone. It's also misinformed.
This change to the Constitution was not the result of, say, a formal amendment, but a procedural rule adopted in 1975: a revision of Senate Rule 22, which was the old cloture rule. Before 1975, it took two-thirds of the Senate to end a filibuster, but it was the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" filibuster: if senators wanted to stop a vote, they had to bring in the cots and the coffee and read from Grandma's recipe for chicken soup until, unshaven, they keeled over from their own rhetorical exhaust.

For the record, nothing like Senate Rule 22 appears in the Constitution, nor was there unlimited debate until Vice President Aaron Burr presided over the Senate in the early 180os. In 1917, after a century of chaos, the Senate put in the old Rule 22 to stop unlimited filibusters. Because it was about stopping real, often distressing, floor debate, one might have been able to defend that rule under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which says, "Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings."

As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.
 
2012-11-26 12:56:23 PM

Mugato: I don't know, I admit I don't know everything about politics but it all sounds like playground bullshiat only it's performed by old white guys.


It does have striking similarities to people defecating in sandboxes. You know what other species does that? Turtles.

usr.audioasylum.com
 
2012-11-26 12:56:42 PM

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.


They took care of that with the war powers act didn't they? If you can commit war for 90 days why not fill a job?
 
JFC
2012-11-26 12:56:52 PM
Reforming the filibuster doesn't come up in the Whitehouse petition site search.
Someone ought to make one.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (pops out)
 
2012-11-26 12:57:05 PM

DarnoKonrad: You can't be serious. What's the last "extreme" thing the DNC has proposed?


Feeding poor people.
 
2012-11-26 01:00:37 PM

coeyagi: Mugato: I don't know, I admit I don't know everything about politics but it all sounds like playground bullshiat only it's performed by old white guys.

It does have striking similarities to people defecating in sandboxes. You know what other species does that? Turtles.


...and they're always talking about gay marriage leading to marrying turtles. Wishful thinking perhaps.
 
2012-11-26 01:01:53 PM

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: The current 60-vote supermajority needed to pass anything is unconstitutional.

The constitution allows both the House and Senate to make their own rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Therefore, you are wrong.

The Constitution gives specific examples where supermajorities are needed to pass bills, and those exceptions are very limited. Congress was designed to be run by majority rule except in those instances. The filibuster evolved as a means for a senator to take extreme action against a bill he or she thought was especially bad for the country.

The fact that the House and Senate can establish their own procedures does not mean that they can alter their basic constitutional structure. If the House and Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, do you think that would be constitutional as well? What about a rule that said the Supreme Court had to ratify each bill as constitutional before a vote could be called?

If the Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, that would probably be constitutional. However, requiring another branch to act, or even the other house, would not be, as that falls outside the "rules of its proceedings."


Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing excludes all others. There are a number of specific cases in the Constitution where more than a majority vote is required, i.e. treaties. This is a common legal notion in contracts, and it was mentioned by many of the people who were part of the Constitutional Convention. That would suggest that any rule requiring more than a majority vote by either chamber is unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-26 01:03:16 PM
The filibuster needs to go. People who worry about their side being out-of-power need to stop being pussies and accept that elections have consequences.
 
2012-11-26 01:04:28 PM

imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.
 
2012-11-26 01:07:42 PM
The filibuster doesn't need to go, Senators need to grow balls and actually call the minorities bluff every once in a while. In the last session of Congress, there was only one filibuster. One. Carried out by that ultra-Conservative n0bama fanatic Bernie Sanders. The right only ever threatened a filibuster, but never actually did one.

Now, if you want to get rid of anonymous holds on nominees, be my guest.
 
2012-11-26 01:09:31 PM

imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.
 
2012-11-26 01:10:39 PM
It can be, but only if that party is starting to believe its own fantasies about a permanent majority: a sure sign that it needs to be removed from power.
 
2012-11-26 01:11:29 PM

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.


Just out of curiosity, where did you get your GED in law?
 
2012-11-26 01:15:39 PM
Save Gridlock!!

vote 'no' on filibuster reform.
 
2012-11-26 01:15:49 PM

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.


We're not talking about deadlines for committee assignments. A unanimity rule would usurp the founding principles of the country at the most basic level. No branch or agency of government is permitted to use its own procedural rulemaking authority to completely rewrite its role under the Constitution.
 
2012-11-26 01:17:25 PM

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.


I'm not sure I understand this. People all seem to agree though that procedural filibuster = bad, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster = good.

For the record... it goes:
Bill put up for a vote.
Senator X declares a filibuster
61 Senator majority required to reach "Cloture" which opens the bill back up for debate.

That's how it's used today.

Making somebody talk implies a *completely different procedure* is being used than is actually being used. So Senator X now talks for 15 hours and sits down and the bill goes back to the floor? Why would anybody DO that? The only reason for something like that to exist is to guarantee that enough time be allotted to make the case against a bill's passage. You should be allowed to request indefinite speaking time, lest you be forced to yield the floor. That's obvious. But "making them talk" (I'd love to see how that gets spelled out in the procedures, btw) wouldn't facilitate the same role that the filibuster has today.

It WOULD be hilarious though.
 
2012-11-26 01:18:38 PM

Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

One other flaw: Senate rules require a supermajority for internal discussion of a measure, NOT for final passage. This is an important point, and one that assuredly SCOTUS would avail itself. The Constitution says that each house may determine the rules of their proceedings. Accepting your point, either the constitution contains a potential contradiction, or a Senate rule calling for a supermajority to permit debate is not the same as a bill calling for a supermajority. The two things you are trying to compare are not equal.


Actually, I just realized I was arguing a different point than the one you were making. You were speaking to the idea of a rule requiring passage of a bill be unanimous, and I was still speaking to the idea that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-26 01:19:15 PM

imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: imontheinternet: the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.

Please show me an example of the Supreme Court's willingness to opine on the operating rules of either the House or Senate, within the last 100 years or so.

Go on.

We're not talking about deadlines for committee assignments. A unanimity rule would usurp the founding principles of the country at the most basic level. No branch or agency of government is permitted to use its own procedural rulemaking authority to completely rewrite its role under the Constitution.


I realized I was speaking to a different point. I concede the point.
 
2012-11-26 01:20:33 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DarnoKonrad: You can't be serious. What's the last "extreme" thing the DNC has proposed?

Feeding poor people.


"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." -Hélder Câmara

// for a bit of ironic fun, he was a Roman Catholic priest
// so it's assumed he added "unless they're gay or have had an abortion. Fark those heathen sinners with a Jesus-less cross"
 
2012-11-26 01:21:34 PM

Chummer45: the filibuster - which is found nowhere in the constitution


Found it.

Article 1, Section 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
 
2012-11-26 01:26:27 PM

JFC: Reforming the filibuster doesn't come up in the Whitehouse petition site search.
Someone ought to make one.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (pops out)


Why would we petition the executive branch to enact rule reform in the legislature?
 
2012-11-26 01:26:34 PM

russlar: The filibuster doesn't need to go, Senators need to grow balls and actually call the minorities bluff every once in a while. In the last session of Congress, there was only one filibuster. One. Carried out by that ultra-Conservative n0bama fanatic Bernie Sanders. The right only ever threatened a filibuster, but never actually did one.

Now, if you want to get rid of anonymous holds on nominees, be my guest.


Again, they DO NOT HAVE TO "actually do one".

When a senator "filibusters", or requests permission to filibuster, a vote for cloture is *required* to continue debate. There is no bluff to be called. It is their procedure. That's it.

I mean, maybe we should call it something else to avoid confusion?

"Supermajority Interest Checkpoint"?

Senator A: I invoke a supermajority interest checkpoint.
Senate Majority Leader: God damnit. Fine. Vote to establish adequate interest in the proposed bill has been invoked. Let's vote and get this shiat over with.
Senate: 48 senators agree. 52 senators disagree.
Senate Majority Leader: Well fark. That bill is tabled until adequate interest can be confirmed. Everyone go home.

Americans: ... But... that was a bill to fund schools with this pile of magic reproducing money we found in Barack's washing machine... Y U NO Liek free monay?
 
2012-11-26 01:28:50 PM

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.


The only filibuster I've seen in this record era of filibusters was Bernie Sanders, and it was actually a good speech. Well, the 20 minutes or so I watched. I can certainly handle 5 minutes of that man any day.
 
2012-11-26 01:33:15 PM
I would like to see some idiot stand up there for a couple of days and explain why he is blocking progress as well, but I do think there is one good aspect of the procedural filibuster. In a "traditional" filibuster, no other business can take place until it is over. At least the modern version allows Congress to move on to something they can act on. This idea falls apart, however, when the minority filibusters everything on the agenda.
 
2012-11-26 01:39:22 PM
Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.
 
2012-11-26 01:49:07 PM
Part of me wants to believe that McCain has been making his threats to force the Dems to eliminate the Filibuster so Congress can get back to some semblance of normalcy.
 
2012-11-26 01:52:14 PM

JFC: Reforming the filibuster doesn't come up in the Whitehouse petition site search.
Someone ought to make one.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (pops out)


How would the white house reform the filibuster?
 
2012-11-26 01:54:20 PM
someday i hope a senator snaps and just filibusters and puts holds on EVERYTHING... then see reform happen...
 
2012-11-26 02:06:15 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: lilbjorn: The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.
...
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.


That's some rule, that Rule 22.
 
2012-11-26 02:06:45 PM
img2-3.timeinc.net

I'm in favor of a Mr. Smith style filibuster.

It should exist, but it should be hard. It should take hard work to derail the will of the majority. Right now you can just wave your hand and say the magic word and the senate shuts down. Why would you ever compromise?
 
2012-11-26 02:09:01 PM
Filibuster reform is going to happen. It won't be eliminated, but it will be diminished. I wrote Senator McCaskill to urge her to vote for filibuster reform. Here is the reply her office sent:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Senate filibuster and efforts to reform the Senate rules. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

The United States Senate, known as the world's greatest deliberative body, allows for each of its 100 members to debate legislation, treaties, nominees, and other pending business for a virtually unlimited amount of time. Unlike the House of Representatives, Senate Rules grant ample flexibility to individual members and extend significant influence to the minority party. The Senate filibuster, the parliamentary procedure where an individual Senator employs his or her own privilege to unlimited debate, can be used by Senators of both parties to delay consideration of official business.

The filibuster has a long history in the U.S. Senate. In 1917, recognizing the deadlock prompted by President Wilson's call to enter World War I, the Senate adopted Rule 22, which allows the Senate to end debate and effectively cut off a filibuster with a supermajority "cloture" vote. Today, this rule requires 60 favorable votes to limit debate.

While I am sometimes disappointed that the Senate cannot proceed more decisively on legislation that I support, I recognize the importance of the filibuster to the Senate as a deliberative institution as well as the right of the minority party, or individual members of either party, to use this tool to express objections to legislation. The Senate was intended to be a forum of thoughtful and thorough debate. In fact, the filibuster, as originally conceived, was intended as a mechanism to allow members to fully express their concerns on the Senate floor, in the full view of the people they represent.

Unfortunately, over the past 4 years, the current Senate minority has badly exploited this debate privilege. Since I joined the Senate in 2007, there have been over 350 filibusters--more than any other previous period in Senate history -- and virtually none have been accompanied by actual full debate on the Senate floor. Instead the privilege has been exercised silently and often secretly, stopping the legislative process but offering the American people no explanation nor the Senate body any chance for real debate.

As a result of the unprecedented increase in the number of Senate filibusters several Senators have proposed reforming the rules to make the filibuster process more transparent and to restore full debate in the Senate. Senate Resolution 10 (S. Res. 10), introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, would, if enacted, require continuous debate on any matter that fails to receive 60 favorable votes. In sum, this requirement would enable Senators to filibuster by continuously speaking on the Senate floor, as was once the Senate's tradition. Once Senators carrying out a filibuster fail to continue to speak, the filibuster would end and the item being debated would be subject to a majority vote. Importantly, S. Res. 10 would not eliminate the filibuster or the 60-vote "cloture" threshold for ending debate (in other words, if filibustering Senators continue to hold the floor and speak against a measure, their debate could only be ended with 60 votes). Therefore, at its core, S. Res. 10 requires Senators to state their objections to pending business in full view of the American people and provides a path to a majority vote on pending legislation when those who object to it refuse to come forth and debate it.

I voted in favor of S. Res. 10 because I believe it would increase transparency and accountability in the Senate, however, it only received 44 votes, falling 23 votes short of the 67 required to change the Rules of the Senate. It is important to note that the sponsors of this legislation did not seek to pass their resolution using what has often been referred to as the "constitutional" or "nuclear" option, which would have lowered the required vote threshold to a simple majority, or 50 votes, for passage.

Though the resolution did not pass, I am pleased that the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, subsequently arrived at an informal bipartisan agreement to reduce the frequency of filibusters. I believe this is a good first step towards acheiving a more cooperative and productive legislative body. I applaud the two leaders for their efforts.

In addition to the filibuster reforms proposed in January, 2011, the Senate also considered and adopted Senate Resolution 28 (S. Res. 28), which permanently eliminates secret holds, the process where senators anonymously block legislation and nominations from consideration by the full Senate. I have lead efforts in the Senate to do away with secret holds and was proud to co-sponsor and support S. Res. 28 along with my colleagues, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. This new rule will bring transparency to Senate process by requiring each Senator to disclose their objection to a bill or nomination in the congressional record. I am also pleased that S. Res. 28 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 92-4.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
 
2012-11-26 02:14:28 PM
Simple fix: Allow actual filibusters (i.e. using your time to read the phone book or something so that everyone sees you making a stand and nothing can move forward until you shut up), but forbid procedural filibusters (just saying "I'm filibustering", then going out for coffee, and no one is allowed to proceed until you rescind your claim).

If that's too extreme, do not allow anonymous filibusters. Make a filibuster a full, official technique in the record with a name attached to it. Ban members from having more than one active filibuster "in play" at a time.

Both of these fix the problem of arbitrary obstrucitonism without depriving the minority party of the ability to stand against things it really, strenuously objects to.
 
2012-11-26 02:28:34 PM

GAT_00: 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.


yes
both sides did it, so it is bad
so let's get rid of it ...
or at least make them EARN IT

the house does the same thing with not letting bills come to the house for a vote.
where they KNOW the bill will pass, or they will look BAD if they vote against it ....
LOL

time to change the rules about how the rules get made in these two houses.
no more secret holds
no more preventing the bill from leaving committee
 
2012-11-26 02:28:40 PM

Mugato: 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.


Political Dance 260! Tag your man! Tag your man!

/God I miss that show.
 
2012-11-26 02:38:33 PM

Galloping Galoshes: That doesn't work. The minority party could just flood the inbox with a bunch of post office renamings.


Only count bills that make it out of committee.
 
2012-11-26 02:39:47 PM

mtx1234: TofuTheAlmighty: lilbjorn: The best thing that could be done right now is to make Senators who threaten to filibuster actually do it. That would cut out 95% of that bullshiat right away.
...
As revised in 1975, Senate Rule 22 seemed to be an improvement: it required 60 senators, not 67, to stop floor debate. But there also came a significant change in de facto Senate practice: to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking. Nowadays, they don't even have to start; they just say they will, and that's enough. Senators need not be on the floor at all. They can be at home watching Jimmy Stewart on cable. Senate Rule 22 now exists to cut off what are ghost filibusters, disembodied debates.

That's some rule, that Rule 22.


It's the best there is.
 
2012-11-26 02:40:20 PM
They can either reform it or get rid of it as far as I'm concerned. It wasn't intended by the founders and while there is a case for it, the case against it is much stronger. Our government already has enough checks and balances to prevent work from getting done as it is, we really didn't need to invent more, especially with the modern, easy version of the filibuster.
 
2012-11-26 02:40:58 PM

Mugato: Nuclear Monk: So put the spot light on the guy doing it and the issue he's railing against. If he's up there long enough, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC will catch wind and start airing it and the public will judge him, for better or worse.

Except the public doesn't watch, understand or care about any of that.


I watched when Sanders did it. If it were my Senator I'd probably hear about it. In the current scheme of things I definitely don't hear about my rep's behavior.
 
2012-11-26 02:41:00 PM

dwrash: Personally, I think EVERYTHING should take a 2/3rd majority to pass.


California did that with budget and tax matters. The result was that tax bills never got passed, the budget was always incredibly late, and ridiculous deals would get cut to get the last couple of holdouts to vote for something.

One third of the Senate holding anything up means the representatives of, oh, about 6% of the population could keep something from happening. No thanks.
 
2012-11-26 02:43:21 PM

imontheinternet: Galloping Galoshes: If the Senate passed a rule that every vote had to be unanimous, that would probably be constitutional.

There's a term in interpreting the law called "expressio unius." It means that when specific exceptions are given to the regular rule, one should interpret those examples as being an exhaustive list. The Constitution provides such a list of bills that require a supermajority, and everything else was placed under majority rule. If the House or Senate sought to usurp the Constitution by replacing majority rule with unanimity, the Supreme Court would strike it down, even under an extreme original intent or textualist view.


The problem with this as an argument is that majority voting for the Article I branch of government is not within the text of the constitution. Thus there is no normal against which to base an expressio unius style argument. Given that the Constitution actually states that congress can draft its own rules, and that at the time of the framers the parliament had multiple rules requiring more or less than a majority for certain votes there is a colorable argument that all the super majority clauses of the constitution require is that congress cannot change the voting rules on these specific types of votes. All else is fair game.

All i am saying is that citing cannons of stat. interp. are not 100% winners here, since alas, the constitution is not helping.
 
2012-11-26 02:55:32 PM

If you care about Senate rules and procedure, Sens. Reid and McConnell are currently debating rules changes on the Senate floor.

- Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) November 26, 2012
 
2012-11-26 03:09:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: If you care about Senate rules and procedure, Sens. Reid and McConnell are currently debating rules changes on the Senate floor.- Adam Jentleson (@AJentleson) November 26, 2012


I am sure this will be as useful as Dick Butkis and Bob Uecker arguing "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling".
 
2012-11-26 03:36:25 PM

TheOther: Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.


What's the vested interest on the Majority side, exactly?
 
2012-11-26 03:42:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: TheOther: Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.

What's the vested interest on the Majority side, exactly?


The worry that they won't always be in the majority.
 
2012-11-26 03:49:47 PM

Geotpf: 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.


Yeah....remember how that whole permanent majority thing worked out for republicans?
 
2012-11-26 04:09:05 PM

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.


This is the now-classic and really stupid argument against reforming or eliminating the filibuster. Fun fact: the next Senate can do what they want to with the Senate rules, regardless. So, reform at will. The next guys probably will too.
 
2012-11-26 04:11:29 PM

lilbjorn: The filibuster can be eliminated by the majority party

Only if that party has a super-majority.


This is wrong too. 50 plus your Biden would be plenty.
 
2012-11-26 04:15:08 PM

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.


Probably, not overtly voting "No" could be construed as "consent." You only have to decide that the default condition absent an actual vote is consent, not rejection.
 
2012-11-26 05:21:36 PM
 
2012-11-26 05:48:08 PM
And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative and only want to put on a show of advancing a true liberal agenda, while using "Sorry! Filibuster!" as an excuse.
 
2012-11-26 06:19:10 PM
They should do it just to show what a bunch of pussies the Republicans are for not doing it when they had a chance. Too bad the Democrats are a bunch of parasitic lowlife scum that needs to be purged from the country because I like the cut of their jib. Well, compared to the Republican jib, anyway.
 
2012-11-26 06:21:06 PM

Tommy Moo: And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative


"Blue Dog Democrat" mean anything to you?

Also, there was only 2 months between when Franken was finally confirmed, and Ted Kennedy died.
 
2012-11-26 06:43:23 PM

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?


I'm against the line item veto and the filibuster. No one has ever used the filibuster like the Republicans have in the past few years, but however it is used it is stupid.
 
2012-11-26 07:06:46 PM

Noam Chimpsky: They should do it just to show what a bunch of pussies the Republicans are for not doing it when they had a chance. Too bad the Democrats are a bunch of parasitic lowlife scum that needs to be purged from the country because I like the cut of their jib. Well, compared to the Republican jib, anyway.


0/10. You sound tired, chimp.
 
2012-11-26 08:27:01 PM
I'm all for keeping the filibuster rules as currently written...with one caveat. A Senator who filibusters, even on a procedural vote, must immediately resign his or her seat leaving a vacancy that is not filled until the next election as soon as the filibuster ends.

A Congressperson should be fully capable to block a particular piece of legislation if they feel strongly enough about it to give up their seat.
 
2012-11-26 09:13:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: I'm all for keeping the filibuster rules as currently written...with one caveat. A Senator who filibusters, even on a procedural vote, must immediately resign his or her seat leaving a vacancy that is not filled until the next election as soon as the filibuster ends.

A Congressperson should be fully capable to block a particular piece of legislation if they feel strongly enough about it to give up their seat.


Then you might as well shut the government down after every election until the new senators are seated because nothing would get done in the "lame duck" sessions.
 
2012-11-26 09:14:03 PM

Tommy Moo: And with this in mind, the only logical conclusion from the first two years of Obama's first administration is that Democrats didn't actually want a public option; that many of them are secretly conservative and only want to put on a show of advancing a true liberal agenda, while using "Sorry! Filibuster!" as an excuse.


Yes, exactly. It was a very telling period.
 
2012-11-26 09:19:08 PM

Fail in Human Form: that bosnian sniper: I'm all for keeping the filibuster rules as currently written...with one caveat. A Senator who filibusters, even on a procedural vote, must immediately resign his or her seat leaving a vacancy that is not filled until the next election as soon as the filibuster ends.

A Congressperson should be fully capable to block a particular piece of legislation if they feel strongly enough about it to give up their seat.

Then you might as well shut the government down after every election until the new senators are seated because nothing would get done in the "lame duck" sessions.


Kind of like business as usual?

\the senate: the world's most distinguished navel-gazing institution.
\\where ideas go to die, and senators to wait to die.
\\\mini mac keyboard forwardslashless, for your protection.
 
2012-11-26 09:31:47 PM

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.


Meh, I offer only one fix for the filibuster: the item is about to be voted on (literally up for a vote), and THEN you have the option to filibuster ON LIVE TV and that's it. Keep talking too, because when the talking stops, the vote happens.
 
2012-11-26 10:09:19 PM

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.


And they should all be forced to stand... while covered in bees.
 
2012-11-26 10:19:40 PM

r1chard3: [img2-3.timeinc.net image 400x300]

I'm in favor of a Mr. Smith style filibuster.

It should exist, but it should be hard. It should take hard work to derail the will of the majority. Right now you can just wave your hand and say the magic word and the senate shuts down. Why would you ever compromise?


That's great in theory. The only problem is the Senate can't do anything else while you're doing the Mr. Smith-style filibuster. This way, you can get on with the next thing.

IMO the Democrats know they'll be the minority party at some point and will want the filibuster then. Plus, all the senators like the personal power it gives them. It ain't going anywhere.
 
2012-11-26 11:40:53 PM

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.


I agree. The problem is, I feel that in the current atmosphere, the moment the Republicans get Senate majority, they'll do it anyway, whether or not the Dems do it first.
 
2012-11-27 04:40:02 AM

impaler: there was only 2 months between when Franken was finally confirmed, and Ted Kennedy died.


This is one of my favorite STFU lines when teabaggers run their pie holes about dems controlling congress. The fact that they don't know this, or think I don't, angers me.
 
2012-11-27 08:17:22 AM

Notabunny: 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.

And they should all be forced to stand... while covered in bees.


www.hellotravel.com
 
2012-11-27 08:44:49 AM
They should be given just six filibusters per year. Use them wisely, like time-outs in football, 'cause when they're gone, they're gone. No more of this filibustering everydamthing that the other side proposes. Instead, the minority party would be forced to work with the majority to arrive at a compromise.
 
2012-11-27 04:51:09 PM

ricewater_stool: cameroncrazy1984: TheOther: Never happen. Too many vested interests on 'both' sides.

What's the vested interest on the Majority side, exactly?

The worry that they won't always be in the majority.


They are all Senators first, with R or D or I coming in a distant second.
 
Displayed 159 of 159 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report