It's time to abolish the Senate filibuster.

[backscatter712]

Or at least knock it down to 55 votes for cloture.

In my experience, there's little good use for a filibuster. For every time the filibuster has been used by the good guys to block atrocious legislation or appointments, there's at least ten occasions where corrupt assholes use it to obstruct good and necessary legislation.

The Rethugs blocked EFCA. They're blocking health care reform. They're blocking banking regulation and financial regulation. They're blocking Sebelius and other Obama nominations. They blocked civil rights legislation for decades before the Civil Rights Act was arm-twisted through.

The Rethugs don't care if the country falls apart around them, just so long as they can exploit the catastrophe for political gain, so they'll block anything and everything they can just to keep the wheels of government stalled.

Allowing a sole 41% minority to blockade everything that 59% votes for is fundamentally unfair. Abolish the filibuster. Make the Senate operate purely on majority rules. Maybe then, something useful would get done.

[virginia mountainman]

1. A few years ago, we where gratefull for the filibuster...

When we where the minority.

Now we want to get rid of it when we are the majority??????????

What if we get rid of it, and one day the Rethugs get a slight majority back?? What then???????????

[KamaAina]

2. Of course, we rarely used it when we had the majority

not even, say, on (In)Justice Alito. :eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

3. All I am saying is..

The Knife cuts both ways....

[onenote]

13. we actually used it quite a bit.

When the repubs controlled the Senate, we used filibusters to block the estate tax bill, ANWR drilling, same sex marriage amendment, a bad immigration bill, to name a few. Also, several judicial nominations were blocked (yes, the deal cut by the gang of 14 allowed some of those nominees to be confirmed, but some, like Estrada and Pickering, never were confirmed). There were more than a dozen cloture votes defeated in 2002 and, in 2003, the Democrats blocked cloture 21 out of 22 times. The numbers dropped back to around a dozen blocked cloture votes in 2004 and less than that in 2005 before goting back up to around a dozen in 2006. After the Democrats regained a majority in the Senate in 2007 and 2008, the repubs were more active in seeking cloture -- but not by a huge margin: 21 times in 2007 (same as the Democrats in 2003) and around 15 times in 2008. Notably -- and something people seem to overlook -- is that even after the Democrats were in the majority they used the filibuster/cloture strategy to block repub initiatives: four times in 2007 and a couple of times in 2008.

[KamaAina]

16. Well, perhaps, but the obstructionist repukes are using it *weekly*.

:eyes:

[Joanne98]

4. YES

[Malikshah]

5. Keep it. Make them Filibuster. The Media will cover it like flies on sh*&

Let them own up to their utter hatred for the average American.
Make them defend the indefensible.
Shine the light on them and make them deal with the public outrage.

Why this hasn't been done yet is beyond me.

If you have what is best for the people on your side, why are you hiding from those who wish to tear you down?

[JonLP24]

6. I'm for it

I recall reading they fillibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. IMO, with that example fillibuster is a bad idea.

[zipplewrath]

7. The problem is representation

The basic concept behind a fillabuster is fine. Slim majorities shouldn't be able to run rough shod over minorities. The problem is that we have a senate where each state gets 2 senators regardless of population. The end result is roughly 12% of the population in effect can control the congress. That's not "2/3rds" that's more like "8/9ths". Your 55 vote idea is one way of adjusting this. Another would be some resorting of senatorial representation (which ain't probably gonna happen). The senate could change the rule to have regional features (must have a certain distribution across the country to block). But as it is now, it's pretty severe.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. I agree it's a problem of representation but not in the way that you mean

The allocation of the Senate was one of the compromises that made the Constitution -- and with it, the country -- possible in the first place. Smaller states wanted to be certain that they weren't over-run by larger ones.

Where I see the problem in representation is in whom our Senators are actually representing. The majority of Americans are working people. And yet far too many Senators are treating large corporations as their constituents instead. Why else would so many of them oppose the EFCA?

[zipplewrath]

28. Virginia vs Rhode Island

It was a compromise set up when there were 13 states and the largest was Virginia and the smallest was what Rhode island or something. Now we have 50 states and the largest is California. The imbalance is way outta whack.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. I disagree. I think it's time to refine it

There's no question that the filibuster has been overused in recent years but the idea that a minority can thwart the will of the majority has precedence in American government. That, after all, is one of the themes underlying the Bill of Rights.

I think the abuse of the filibuster is but a symptom of dysfunctional government and probably points to much deeper problems. Simply abolishing the filibuster will not sufficiently address these problems.

[JonLP24]

9. I agree reforms need to be made.

[Romulox]

11. It's completely undemocratic. If we don't believe in majority rule, what DO we believe in?

Rule by the wealthy?

[onenote]

14. so you aren't glad we were able to filibuster ANWR drilling and a same sex marriage ban?

After all, those bills had the suppoort of a majority in the Senate.

[Romulox]

18. Nope. I would've preferred a democratic process decide the matter.

"After all, those bills had the suppoort of a majority in the Senate. "

And the Senate is massively undemocratic. If we are engaging in "King for a day" type daydreaming, the Senate is based on proportional representation in my daydream.

[JonLP24]

20. You put it that way it's hard way to be against it

It's easy to be against it when you find out the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was fillibustered for 54 days. It does serve a purpose but I feel some kind of reforms need to be made. Though I don't know what kind but getting rid of completely could be a bad idea.

Off topic. I think proposed amendments that restrict rather then expand civil rights should be unconstitutional.

[onenote]

23. I don't think amendments to the constitution can be unconsitutional.

[JonLP24]

26. You're right, I was over the top

I just don't like the idea of people proposing amendments that restrict civil rights. However they should be allowed to put forth whatever amendment they have in mind.

[Still Sensible]

22. Actually majority rule, coupled with minority rights, is the

foundation of our system. If we were strictly majority rule, without things likes the filibuster to protect those minority rights, the amount and kind of legislation that would have been passed in the last 20 years would be mind boggling. As bad as it has been legislatively, it would have been worse IMO.

[onenote]

24. Sensibly put. n/t

[Romulox]

31. No, you're wrong. Neither majority rule or minority rights is the basis of the Senate

"the amount and kind of legislation that would have been passed in the last 20 years would be mind boggling."

Right. Things like an end to never-ending war, and Universal Healthcare would be possible if a coalition of sparsely populated states with disproportionate influence weren't able to stymie all progress.

You can't really believe that giving states like Montana, South Dakota, Alabama, etc. each as many votes in the Senate as California, Michigan, and New York makes us a more liberal nation. I KNOW you can't believe that. :hi:

[tritsofme]

12. The 109th Congress had 55 Republicans. It was the threat of filibuster

that kept many extremist judges off the federal bench, defeated Social Security privatization, ect.

Don't change the rules unless you are comfortable operating under them in the minority.

[depakid]

17. What extremist judges got kept off the bench?

[tritsofme]

27. Henry Saad and Miguel Estrada jump to mind.

[onenote]

30. also Charles Pickering, William Myers, and Carolyn Kuhl

All blocked from confirmation by Democratic filibusters. And a good thing too.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Just an FYI, Social Security was not privatized because we had the filibuster

[TheCoxwain]

19. I know how to make the knife cut our way ...change the Filibuster criteria from 60 votes to 60%

representation.


Dems represent 88% of the population.... and even if we are in minority - ( I doubt we will fall below 40% rep) we will be safe

[DefenseLawyer]

21. No, we should abolish giving weight to a "threatened" Republican filibuster.

That would solve the problem 99% of the time. Make them put up or shut up.

[Codeine]

25. We won't always have the majority.

Best not to discard tools we've used in the past to good effect.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Yes, we were all saying exactly that back when the GOP was trying to get rid of it.

[MadHound]

32. Leave the Constitution alone

There are mighty damn good reasons to have the filibuster, and just because Democrats didn't have the cajones to use it when they were in the minority doesn't means that we won't need it in the future. We will, so just leave it be.

[groundloop]

33. Let them read from the phone book for weeks at a time

The "threat" of a fillibuster by the Greedy Obstructionist Party should be viewed as nothing more than a spoiled child pitching a hissy fit in the department store checkout lane. One of these days their bluff needs to be called.