HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » How do you reform the fil...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:08 AM

How do you reform the filibuster?

I hear a lot of calls to reform the filibuster, but not a lot of concrete ideas on how to actually do it.

Do you make them actually get out on the senate floor & read from the phone book? Do you limit each senator to a certain amount per year or per session? What other options are there?

THanks

14 replies, 1051 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:12 AM

1. Actually make them talk.....thats what it is about..

it will stop the BS if they actually have to work at their objections they way it was originally intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:13 AM

3. Yep, make them talk. Then play their incoherent rantings on TV. The public is sick of their ....

... obstructionism and public opinion will turn even further away from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:13 AM

2. reduce the number of votes it takes to stop a fillibuster from 60 to 55 would be a good start

or put a hard cap on the number of fillibusters per year to like, 20.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:25 AM

4. No more.....

Stop the ability to unanimously block votes...All Senators must be accountable. Make every Senator who wants to filibuster, stand and speak for 55 out of 60 min. Limit the amount of votes needed to stop a filibuster 55 instead of 60...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rtracey (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:04 AM

5. I'm for limiting the number of filibusters to zero. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:08 AM

6. iI'm not sure

but I have read that the easiest way is when congress is convening. That is when they adopt the rules under which to operate for the session.Reid could adopt rules from senate session 123, when the filibuster meant a person had to stand and read the phonebook for 30 hours.

here is a link that delves into the history of the filibuster. It also has a section on how the filibuster and cloture was broken.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:28 AM

7. Limit the number of concurrent filibusters

That would be one reform among several. I don't know what a good limit is. Five maybe? But a minority party would have to pick and choose when and where it wanted to assert itself, assess its priorities instead of being able to block the majority on anything and everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:51 AM

8. that would mean

Republicans would have to play it smart, which they seem incapable of doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:58 AM

9. Force *Real* Filibusters....

Make those wanting to filibuster to talk endlessly. If a group are against it, they have to have someone at the podium constantly talking about it (or reading the phone book or sports page or romance novels or whatever) until sufficient votes available to end it.

Mr. Reid needs to change the senate rules too. 51% *OF MEMBERS PRESENT* sounds like a fair figure to end a filibuster. That would force the filibustering side to maintain members in the room to keep the filibuster going.

Makes votes on orders of business AND passage of bills and amendments a simple majority again. No governing body in the world can function with the current super-majority rules. That is just plain stoopid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:05 PM

10. 1) eliminate it; 2) make the threatening party actually talk; 3) vote for cloture.

 

It may go down in history that Bernie Sanders, (Independent, Vermont) was the last Senator to actually perform a filibuster. The mere threat is not good enough. Put up or shut up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 06:42 PM

11. many different ways. Originally it had 66 Senators and was changed to 60 about 100 years ago.



You could make it 55 Senators


or you could give a time limit. 30 days after the question is called for by a majority the vote has to be taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:18 PM

12. like all your ideas maybe we should be the senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 08:40 PM

13. You don't. You get rid of it.

I can dream...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:23 PM

14. People keep talking about the 'talking' part of the filibuster, and that's important-


The intention behind the filibuster was to give the minority in the Senate power, but also to put them in a physical situation where they would engage and work through to a result. It was also a way that strained the minority party, they could block something and exert a lot of power and control, but they could also be waited out and eventually broken down. It was meant to operate like that, it was intended to be that way for a purpose because it facilitated the process of 'getting things done'. We need to return to that model, absolutely- that's all the reform we need I think. In this 24/7 media age it would certainly put a fire under lawmakers asses to fix something and get off camera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread