How goes the filibuster?Follow

Elinda,

You're kidding right? Every time the GOP filibusters this tax and spend president they gain more independent votes. The best thing for the GOP is for the Democrats to keep going further left.

And no filibusters are not being overused. If anything they aren't being used enough. Don't get your panties in a bunch because now the GOP have the means to slow down the Dems and might be willing to use it.

Actually, the best thing for the GOP would be to actually be fiscally conservative and probably, to back off a little on the extreme social conservatism.

I would be happy to see some reform happen to the filibuster process knowing full well that it would affect the Democrats' ability to use it later. I've had this position for years. I vocalized my distaste for the filibuster back when the Democrats were the minority.

The best reform idea I've heard has been to put a diminishing return on the filibuster based on how long it's been going on. So you would need 60 votes to break a filibuster for the first 72 hours, 58 votes after 96 hours, 56 votes after six days, etc until you reached the point of needing a simple majority to pass the bill. This would allow more than ample time to "debate" the issue without allowing the filibuster to be a simple obstructionist tool used when there's no actual desire to debate at all.

I know this isn't likely to happen because both parties are too invested in keeping the tools they have as a minority. So instead I'll sit and wait for the Democrats to have a minority in the Senate and wait for the Republicans to cry that every single bill now requires a 60 vote margin to pass. Then I'll shrug and they'll all call me a hypocrite. Given that I don't expect another 60 vote bloc in the Senate for a long, long time (and it's mathematically impossible for the GOP until 2012 at the earliest) I predict some fun times.

I believe in the use of the filibuster to protect the rights of the minority in the Senate on legislation. I believe it should be kept in place as it is now with no changes for legislation. I believe that the use of the filibuster to block the confirmation of presidential appointees is inappropriate and should be eliminated altogether, with the exception of lifetime appointees, in which case a nominees should be selected that can pass the 60 vote threshold to limit the number of hard core ideologues (on both sides) that make it to the bench.

Jophed,



You won't have long to wait.




No you wouldn't. You say this every time we talk about this but we both know you're being untruthful. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care for the rights of the minority while the GOP is in the minority. H*ll you said yourself that you don't care if your own politicians get voted out of office so long as they pass what YOU want. The only reason we're talking about this now is the Democrats have to push through everything they can in the next 5 months because they're going to lose badly this november.

So let's put this debate on hold until the GOP has 60 votes in the senate and then see what you people have to say about the filibuster.

So if the GOP ends up with 59 votes and the Democrats end up filibustering everything the GOP attempts to do, you're going to be content with it because

Right? Or are you going to turn around and ***** and moan that the Dems are stalling the political process for purely partisan reasons?

*Shrug* Says you.


Huh? Why on earth would I want elected officials who sit on their hands and don't try to advance the platform they were elected on?


The reason I'm talking about it now is because Elinda started a thread about it.


Probably the same thing I was saying (on this forum even) the last time the Democrats were the Senate minority.

Yeah, Varus keeps trying to throw that at me as some damning sentiment. I guess he likes politicians who prefer political career safety over having some spine and ideals.

Jophed,



Generally politicians who are doing what they ran on don't have to worry about job security. That's not the case this year. Many democrats voted against the wishes of their constituents and we're seeing them jump off the sinking ship that is the Dem party as fast as they can. Look at how many of them were up for re-election but are convienently deciding not to run again.

When you're acting against the will of the taxpaying citizen you know you can't win. This is why the Democrats are in such trouble.

I think that if they're going to filibuster, they should actually have to debate about it, non-stop, until they either kill the bill, or they vote. You know, like a real filibuster.

There's been an equal number of retirements on both sides of the aisle in the House. Haven't bothered to check the Senate.

That said, I'm still confused about why you'd rather an elected official who dodges tough calls because he's worried about re-election over one who shows some spine. This must be why you always cry about the Democrats not letting the GOP do this or that.

Some would argue that's precisely how it's being used by the GOP right now. A perception which is helped along by liberals saying things like "Obama should take this opportunity to nominate some real left-wing extremist for SCJ, as the pubbies would be looking pretty crimson faced if they had to filibuster....again."

You're basically stating in your own post that you think that the Dems should push the farthest left agenda possible so as to force the GOP to use the filibuster, but then want to blame the GOP when they do so? Does that make any sense to you?

You want bipartisan conversation, but then propose this? I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again: The reason we're seeing so many filibusters (really holds on bills, which are just potential filibusters) is because the Dems are doing exactly what you are proposing. They are pushing far left agenda items and nominations, forcing the GOP to oppose them with a filibuster and then crying about the use of the filibuster. You must get this is a tactic. You suggested it yourself! Why then pretend that this isn't what's going on already?


I think the problem with the filibuster is the other way around. They should require more votes to break. Not fewer. The idea being that if you can't break a filibuster, you have to bring legislation that the other party will agree to so that a filibuster doesn't happen. If you agree with the principle of true bi-partisanship, you'll see how this makes a lot of sense. It's when the filibuster number is low, and it's within reach of one party that the legislation becomes more partisan, and the filibuster ends out getting used more often, not less.

Raise the number for cloture back to 2/3rds, or even 3/4ths and you'll see the use of the filibuster drop to nearly nothing. You'll also see a lot less partisanship in Washington. Force the legislatures to work together and they will. Give them a way to make their farthest right or left constituents really happy, and the opposite will happen.



If a filibuster is used just to halt the process, and the process is something the American public wants, then public pressure alone will prevent its use. Also, if the legislation itself is reasonable, the leaders in both parties will pressure their members to not filibuster. Why do you suppose that as we've lowered the numbers needed to end a filibuster the number of filibusters has gone *up* not down? Think about it...



He may not. But I can. It's not as partisan a thing as you might think.

I agree. This is how you get around it. Interestingly enough, that's what the GOP did with the court nominations. They made big hay about it in the media and then gave the Dems the floor. After a few days, they ran out of interesting stuff to say and support for the filibuster died.

What's happening is that the Dems aren't doing this. In some cases, it's likely just a matter of time involved versus the importance of the issue itself. I suspect that on a handful of major issues, it's been because they know that public perception will only be worse for their side the longer a debate goes on, not better. A filibuster is always a risk. If the public sees what you're doing as wasting time, it will cost the party using it dearly. If the public sees it as you protecting them from bad legislation, you'll gain significantly by using it.


It speaks volumes not just about what bills have holds put on them, but what the majority party decides to do with those holds. The Dems pull the issue pretty much every time, but want to still play on the "OMG! The GOP is filibustering it" argument. IMO that's pretty cheap.