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 28
    More: Interesting, majority party, Strom Thurmond, filibusters, Goes to Washington, public laws, American Law, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

3800 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-26 11:34:57 AM  
8 votes:
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 11:32:08 AM  
5 votes:
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 12:02:39 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:58:44 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:56:56 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:53:36 AM  
2 votes:
instead of 60 votes to end a filibuster, 40 should be required to maintain it.



I like this one the best
2012-11-26 11:44:15 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:24:16 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:09:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:15:39 PM  
1 votes:
Save Gridlock!!

vote 'no' on filibuster reform.
2012-11-26 12:16:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:14:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:58:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:57:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:56:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:52:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:51:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:51:38 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:47:42 AM  
1 votes:
thebluehighway.com
2012-11-26 11:44:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:42:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:42:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:40:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:31:36 AM  
1 votes:
i1079.photobucket.com
RIP
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report