Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Vox)   The filibuster wrench has been thrown into the Senate's gears creating a terrible way to legislate. This is not how it's supposed to work   ( vox.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, reconciliation, United States Senate, budget reconciliation, Senate, reconciliation process, Byrd Rule, budget reconciliation process, health care  
•       •       •

2406 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2017 at 2:36 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-29 01:54:53 PM  
Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.


You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

img.fark.net

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.
 
2017-09-29 02:00:59 PM  
The result is that important bills in American politics are compromised and defective from the start

No, the bills are "compromised and defective" because they're written by lobbyists.
 
2017-09-29 02:02:49 PM  
This article is bullshiat in its both-sides-are-bad explanation.

The Democrats were forced to use filibusters because, despite the fact that they reached out to Republicans for ideas and amendments, Republicans were entrenched to all voting against it, simply because it was a Democratic bill.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are using the Hastert Rule, which means that they won't advance a bill unless it can pass ONLY by Republican support.

Democrats tried to reach across the aisle and were rebuffed. Republicans will rather set a bill on fire than to seek cross-aisle support.

F*ck you, Ezra Klein. This bothsiderism crap is wrong.
 
2017-09-29 02:03:29 PM  
This was on display in the recent health care fight, and we're seeing it again in the tax reform effort. In both cases, the GOP is trying to write massive, sweeping legislation under the budget reconciliation rules - a process that protects the result from death by filibuster but also hamstrings what the bills can actually do

If you're writing massive, sweeping legislation without any regard for the other party, you'd best have 60 votes to do it.
 
2017-09-29 02:04:01 PM  

RexTalionis: F*ck you, Ezra Klein


^ And this.
 
2017-09-29 02:04:30 PM  
According to Robert Caro, the Senate is precisely where shiat goes to get farked up.
 
2017-09-29 02:05:26 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The result is that important bills in American politics are compromised and defective from the start

No, the bills are "compromised and defective" because they're written by lobbyists.


Bingo!

Getting a good bill passed requires two things.

1)  A good bill.
2)  Senators that are willing to break party ranks and vote yes for a good bill.

The majority of legislation since February hasn't passed the criteria of being a good bill so nobody should be expected to vote yes for it.
 
2017-09-29 02:08:19 PM  
The problem isn't that the filibuster exists, the problem is that senators are abusing it as a way of stymieing the opposition party and not because the proposed legislation or nominees have significant problems that should require a supermajority.  It's like trying to use your parking break while you drive.  Yes, the parking/emergency brake has a purpose and it's necessary to have it when you need it, but you don't farking use it in day to day driving.

Same thing.
 
2017-09-29 02:08:41 PM  
So the problem isn't a refusal to compromise or the GOP introducing insane legislation or McConnell trying to force through bills without any discussion or involving the Democrats or the Hastert rule no, no, no, the problem is the fillibuster.
 
2017-09-29 02:10:03 PM  
The author seems to confuse votes to end filibusters with filibusters themselves. Until recently, you didn't see many cloture votes because they wouldn't get much support--even Senators who opposed the politics behind a filibuster in question wouldn't vote for cloture because Senate tradition of debate was honored (i.e. the same reason the rules still allow for the filibuster).
 
2017-09-29 02:12:42 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: According to Robert Caro, the Senate is precisely where shiat goes to get farked up.


I still point people to the first hundred pages of Master of the Senate for the most perfect Senate history (up to the 1940s) ever written.

To be fair though (and Caro acknowledges this), sometimes shiat needs to get farked up. In those cases--thanks, Senate.
 
2017-09-29 02:12:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: This was on display in the recent health care fight, and we're seeing it again in the tax reform effort. In both cases, the GOP is trying to write massive, sweeping legislation under the budget reconciliation rules - a process that protects the result from death by filibuster but also hamstrings what the bills can actually do

If you're writing massive, sweeping legislation without any regard for the other party, you'd best have 60 votes to do it.


So it is tyranny of the minority to use the filibuster, but tyranny of the majority if they have the votes.  Sure would be nice if there was compromise instead of trying to screw the other party harder just because they believe different things differently.  Then again, this is not about legislating but rather staying in power.
 
2017-09-29 02:25:39 PM  
A body's rules are really only as good as their members' personal willingness to abide by them.
 
2017-09-29 02:30:18 PM  
God, our government is such a mess.
 
2017-09-29 02:36:41 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.


They didn't use the filibuster to block Garland.
 
2017-09-29 02:36:57 PM  
 
2017-09-29 02:37:26 PM  

kevlar51: I still point people to the first hundred pages of Master of the Senate for the most perfect Senate history (up to the 1940s) ever written.

To be fair though (and Caro acknowledges this), sometimes shiat needs to get farked up. In those cases--thanks, Senate.


I'm knee deep into that volume right now. The whole series has been a great read even if he did over do it a bit with his lionization of Coke Stevenson.
 
2017-09-29 02:42:33 PM  

qorkfiend: Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.

They didn't use the filibuster to block Garland.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2017-09-29 02:42:59 PM  

qorkfiend: Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.

They didn't use the filibuster to block Garland.


Wrong by letter, correct in spirit.
 
2017-09-29 02:44:39 PM  
Well...when one party views the other with complete disdain and refused to even acknowledge that they exist, they're gonna do everything they can to push legislature through.   That being said, I cannot believe Ezra is pushing the Both Sides are Bad narrative.
 
2017-09-29 02:46:01 PM  
The Senate became paralyzed by Republican's fear of black people starting to have a no trivial amount of political power in this country. Their biggest fear of every Republican is having the injustices they have foisted upon others hurled back on themselves in kind
 
2017-09-29 02:46:19 PM  
The GOP Budget has language in there that repeals the need for a CBO score before legislation can be passed.

https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/913832880819851264

Bothsiderism is crap. One side is determined to burn it all down, and the other is trying to save it.
 
2017-09-29 02:47:19 PM  

raerae1980: Well...when one party views the other with complete disdain and refused to even acknowledge that they exist, they're gonna do everything they can to push legislature through.   That being said, I cannot believe Ezra is pushing the Both Sides are Bad narrative.


Why? He's about as much of an inside-the-beltway naval gazer as you will find outside of Politico staff or Chris Ciliza
 
2017-09-29 02:47:27 PM  

RexTalionis: F*ck you, Ezra Klein. This bothsiderism crap is wrong.


If you want a dumb take on something, Ezra can provide.
 
2017-09-29 02:47:29 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: kevlar51: I still point people to the first hundred pages of Master of the Senate for the most perfect Senate history (up to the 1940s) ever written.

To be fair though (and Caro acknowledges this), sometimes shiat needs to get farked up. In those cases--thanks, Senate.

I'm knee deep into that volume right now. The whole series has been a great read even if he did over do it a bit with his lionization of Coke Stevenson.


Master of the Senate was my favorite, but also the first of the series that I read. Caro single-handedly turned me off of fiction for a few years. Power Broker is worth picking up too.

All I know of Stevenson I learned from Caro. But yeah, my understanding is he's unfairly given a "pass" on quite a bit. Though I do apply Stevenson's blurb on a chaotic legislature to the present day: "so long as they aren't passing laws, they aren't doing any harm."
 
2017-09-29 02:52:29 PM  

Lost Thought 00: raerae1980: Well...when one party views the other with complete disdain and refused to even acknowledge that they exist, they're gonna do everything they can to push legislature through.   That being said, I cannot believe Ezra is pushing the Both Sides are Bad narrative.

Why? He's about as much of an inside-the-beltway naval gazer as you will find outside of Politico staff or Chris Ciliza


Because it's not accurate or factual.
 
2017-09-29 02:54:25 PM  
This was on display in the recent health care fight

No, it wasn't.  The filibuster had nothing to do with Obamacare repeal failing.  Republicans couldn't get enough of even just their own members to support it.  And if they hadn't been forced to use reconciliation and could do a total and complete repeal, they would have gotten even less votes because it would have harmed even more people.
 
2017-09-29 02:55:18 PM  

RexTalionis: This article is bullshiat in its both-sides-are-bad explanation.

The Democrats were forced to use filibusters because, despite the fact that they reached out to Republicans for ideas and amendments, Republicans were entrenched to all voting against it, simply because it was a Democratic bill.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are using the Hastert Rule, which means that they won't advance a bill unless it can pass ONLY by Republican support.

Democrats tried to reach across the aisle and were rebuffed. Republicans will rather set a bill on fire than to seek cross-aisle support.

F*ck you, Ezra Klein. This bothsiderism crap is wrong.


This basically what I came here to say.

This isn't a case of "both sides are bad"

The democrats actively tried to work with the republicans for 8 years. They included them in the process. When it came time to vote, they almost all voted NO because of the blah guy in office.

Now the republicans have the power. So what do they do? Instead of reaching across the aisle and working with democrats to sway a few votes, they work EXCLUSIVELY on the bill, attempt NO bi-partisanship and then point at the democrats for not helping.

IT IS INSANE.
 
2017-09-29 02:59:37 PM  

Nadie_AZ: You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.


Your graphs are kind of irrelevant.  The correct response is that the Democrats have been in the minority for 7 years so WTF is TFA babbling about?  Also throw in the fact that the ACA could have but didn't use reconciliation.
 
2017-09-29 03:02:43 PM  
The problem is that loyalty to the party is more important to them than loyalty to the country.  Yelling at the filibuster straw man won't fix that.
 
2017-09-29 03:04:20 PM  
Article accurately describes the existence of a problem and then shiats the bed on its analysis of WHY.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature.  If you can't get 60 senators to agree that this is a good idea then you shouldn't have that law passed because a good solid chunk of the country and its elected leadership disagrees.

Extremism is the cause of the problem.  If R's want to eliminate the EPA entirely, and the D's don't, and the R's have the majority in both houses and the presidency, then a compromise would be a reduction in budget or authority for the EPA.  That's compromise, and they could probably get a handful of D's to go along with appropriate concessions on other bills.  But extremism leads to "my way or nothing" and that's how 60 votes in the Senate becomes difficult.

Also, there is no such thing as the radical left in US politics (not in Congress anyway). So the compromise position isn't in the middle, it's in the middle of the Right.
 
2017-09-29 03:05:14 PM  
All this bullshiat rests squarely on the shell of one man, and one man only.
 
2017-09-29 03:08:45 PM  

RexTalionis: This article is bullshiat in its both-sides-are-bad explanation.

The Democrats were forced to use filibusters because, despite the fact that they reached out to Republicans for ideas and amendments, Republicans were entrenched to all voting against it, simply because it was a Democratic bill.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are using the Hastert Rule, which means that they won't advance a bill unless it can pass ONLY by Republican support.

Democrats tried to reach across the aisle and were rebuffed. Republicans will rather set a bill on fire than to seek cross-aisle support.

F*ck you, Ezra Klein. This bothsiderism crap is wrong.


Thank you. I have grown tired of explaining that point over and over again.
 
2017-09-29 03:12:52 PM  
Oh, NOW it's a problem. Right.
 
2017-09-29 03:15:01 PM  

Gyrfalcon: All this bullshiat rests squarely on the shell of one man, and one man only.


Khan?
 
2017-09-29 03:17:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: All this bullshiat rests squarely on the shell of one man, and one man only.


Thanks, Obama?
 
2017-09-29 03:20:22 PM  

Gyrfalcon: All this bullshiat rests squarely on the shell of one man, and one man only.


McConnell

What do I win?
 
2017-09-29 03:24:57 PM  
Ok. Let's say we end the filibuster. Bills are passed without debate and without compromise. Then Congress becomes an endless game of tennis with the new party in power repealing bills of the previous party in power. There would still be gridlock in Washington.
Now, if you want a government that never compromises and never changes, I hear China is nice. Bring your own gas mask though.
 
2017-09-29 03:41:41 PM  

qorkfiend: Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.

They didn't use the filibuster to block Garland.


Correct, his nomination was never brought to the floor.

If Obama had balls he would have just seated Garland citing the Senate's inaction as waiving their right to vote on him. That would have been a big melt down.
 
2017-09-29 03:43:02 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.


They didn't us r the he filibuster for that they had control.

The biggest problem right now is that one side will not even accept input from the other, let alone actually work with them in significant legislation.
 
2017-09-29 03:48:33 PM  

madgonad: If Obama had balls he would have just seated Garland citing the Senate's inaction as waiving their right to vote on him. That would have been a big melt down.


i.imgflip.com
 
2017-09-29 03:53:03 PM  
I see the calling bullshiat on the BSAB has been done, but the article ALSO makes it out that this is somehow new. Obama couldn't fill federal positions because the filibuster was used to keep judge seats and other appointees closed. McConnell filibustered his own goddamn bill for fark's sake.

It's less "zomg the system is now broken" and more like "the filibuster is the new normal and now they're anticipating it and working around it".
 
2017-09-29 03:57:10 PM  
Came in for the Filibuster Wench. Kind of disappointed, yet relieved.
 
2017-09-29 04:09:56 PM  

Ginnungagap42: Came in for the Filibuster Wench. Kind of disappointed, yet relieved.


Every thread is a good thread for free booty freebooting.
 
2017-09-29 04:13:32 PM  

RexTalionis: The GOP Budget has language in there that repeals the need for a CBO score before legislation can be passed.

https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/913832880819851264

Bothsiderism is crap. One side is determined to burn it all down, and the other is trying to save it.


Unfortunately I'm starting to think that the burn it down side is going to win. Since land matters more than people soon we will have 70% of the senate controlled by 30% of the population due to concentrations of people in big blue states. Even if gerrymandering rules are fixed by the SCOTUS (doubtful) the house will probably maintain a rightward lean due to the prevalence of republican legislators and governors in rural states disenfranchising minorities. We will also probably continue to see republican presidents winning by electoral vote, not popular vote. So other than winning the presidency every once in a while liberals will be shut out of power. The country will start to look more and more like Kansas. I think that's just something we're going to have to get used to.
 
2017-09-29 04:16:45 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.


Hey now, only 3/5s of Obama's second term counted. It's right there in the constitution.
 
2017-09-29 04:21:09 PM  
Is that really what you got from the article and recent events, subby? That the filibuster is the problem? That 200-year-old rule just leapt up out of the grass and broke the Senate?

The problem is that for the past couple decades one party has been approaching governance as a battle, and using increasingly scorched-earth tactics to fight it -- including but not limited to deliberately abusing senate rules.

Yes, the other party has been forced to fight back (even if the Democrats wanted to concede the fight and hand the country to the GOP, Republicans have no idea how to govern; they are purely a party of resentment and anti-government hysteria this point), using some of the same tactics at times. But that's been a reactionary survival response, and not a comfortable fit.

The rules aren't the problem.
 
2017-09-29 05:46:30 PM  

madgonad: qorkfiend: Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait wait.

Paralyzed by the filibuster, the Senate has found a terrible way to legislate.
...
This isn't just a Republican problem. Democrats have been using reconciliation more and more brazenly, and while Republicans have pushed it further than ever before under Trump, it's likely that Democrats will follow in their footsteps when they retake power.

You know, I'm not buying the whole "both sides bad" here.

[img.fark.net image 630x413]

Also, any Senate that uses a filibuster to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from evening being considered- for almost an entire year, in order to get one that one party wants, slams the door on how awful one side is. Gorsich's presence in the SCOTUS is a perversion of the rule of law.

They didn't use the filibuster to block Garland.

Correct, his nomination was never brought to the floor.

If Obama had balls he would have just seated Garland citing the Senate's inaction as waiving their right to vote on him. That would have been a big melt down.


Yeah, that's not how it works.
 
2017-09-29 05:59:10 PM  

DubyaHater: Ok. Let's say we end the filibuster. Bills are passed without debate and without compromise. Then Congress becomes an endless game of tennis with the new party in power repealing bills of the previous party in power.


Because that is the story of American politics before 1974 when budget reconciliation was introduced? Everything that passed in one term got knocked down in the next?
 
2017-09-29 09:20:41 PM  
The whole concept of the filibuster sounds like what would go on if a bunch of 5th graders ran things,
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report