Elinda wrote:
That's just the thing; historically the filibuster has been a bit of a loophole tool that was only used in the most dire of circumstances and as a last resort for a minority senate.
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.
Quote:
I hope to make this discussion non-partisan, so for you Varus, I want you to try as hard as you can and imagine if the tables were turned. If minority dems were using filibusters constantly to simply 'halt' the political process, would you still feel this way?
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...
Quote:
Honestly i don't think you'll be able to see things from both sides, but still...try.
He may not. But I can. It's not as partisan a thing as you might think.