Who favours ending the filibuster?

i wish we had the GOP filibuster

If someone is going to filibuster make them actually do it rather than just threaten too. Problem solved. Sometimes its good just like sex but when its abused its not good.

The filibuster can only be used for a period of one year after a bill is passed by the house or submitted by the senate leader. After one year, if the senate leader submits the bill for a vote, it must be on simple majority vote.

I'll concede it's worked for Dems as well as against them. That said, it contributes heavily to gridlock.

If you want to gum up the works, strap on a catheter and read War and Peace. None of this "we could filibuster, so don't make us" crap they use now.

Meant to include it since it's my preferred option too but, call it a brainfart, it slipped my mind.

The filibuster was designed as a delaying tool. It's been turned into a veto.

Delaying a vote to buy time is one thing. Obstructing any vote is very different.

This is the option I would go for.
Let them spend 20 hours or more talking in one session. I hate the way legislation stops just because of the "Threat of a Filibuster".

A lot of them don't have the stamina for that.

If they want it, make them work for it.

If they want to obstruct something, make them have their face identified with it on a continuing basis. I can see a situation where I'd want a filibuster imposed but in that case, like in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, make it an issue on which you're in the right and are prepared to go all out.

the big problem with it as it is today is it is too easy for them to use. They never have to give a reason for blocking legislation. Forcing them onto the floor and forcing them to state their reasons why they refuse to allow voting on a bill would do wonders for explaining to the American people why certain legislation sits with no action. If you don't have the guts to talk on the floor of congress as to why you stand opposed then you shouldn't be there in the first place.

Make any filibuster be a real one.

End of minority rule nonsense.

However, Democrats ending the filibuster on a frequent basis would not in the best interests of the 1%. So the myth of the filibuster is perpetuated.

Hem, haw. "Waaaa! We can't do anything because republicans are filibustering!"

It's BS to protect the interests of the 1%.

Really?

I'm freakin' SHOCKED, I tellya.

selectively not publicly expressing the inconvenient truth.

I bet Harry got totally reamed by the PTB for nuking that filibuster

.. I read the excuse that "we can't do ___________________________ because we don't have 60 ( or more) votes in the Senate and the evil Republicans won't even let us talk about it, we are just plain powerless to do what we PROMISED when we hit you up for campaign contributions. Sorry, those things that matter to you will just have to wait to be addressed till we get 110 Dem Senators, 445 Dem Reps, and hold the White House for 5 terms." (and yes, that was hyperbole)

The media now says that 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate, as if they never had a Civics class. But then, maybe they didn't. This is just more disgusting abuse of government by the Republicans and reported in the media as normal business.

everything. That's the way it is in the House. The Senate was suppose to be a brake on the House. That said, I think that 60 is too high, but the real problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to work with Democrats in finding the type of compromises that used to get 60 or even more votes. It really is not Democrats forcing party loyalty and putting up highly ideological bills.

In 2009, we briefly - for about 4 months - had a super majority, the Presidency and the House. From the Republican point of view, this led to us passing highly partisan bills that Republicans had no say in. This was not true - as witness the fact that the Senate lost about 3 months with the committee of 6 working to get a bill that could have Republican support.

Eliminating the filibuster - which the Republicans terrified Democrats with in 2005, when we did not have the Presidency, the Senate, or the House would benefit the Republicans more than us. The reason is that we want to build government programs, which is very hard and takes a huge amount of effort to get something that enough people want. They want to repeal Democratic programs - which is conceptually easy - just schedule a vote. (If they have the Presidency, the House and the Senate - and there is no filibuster, which they can enact, how long does the ACA last? After all McConnell was recently honest in saying they really were less interested in replacing it.

Then consider that they will cut taxes - while arguing the deficit needs to be cut and the military needs more money. Result - serious shredding of the already weak safety net. The filibuster is the only real tool the minority has. Hard as it is when we are in power, maybe it SHOULD take at least 60% of the Senate to make major policy change. (Maybe they could find a way to prohib its use on routine - always going to pass votes where it is used just to obstruct.)

The first time a vote is brought before the Senate, it needs 60 votes for cloture.

If blocked, a second time around it will need only 57.

If blocked again, a third time will need only 54.

And if blocked again a simple majority (51) will do it.

a filibuster is ANY delaying or obstructionist tactic. the denying cloture is just one of many forms.

forcing roll call votes, forcing bills to be read in their entirety, proposing hundreds of pointless amendments, etc. are all forms of filibuster.


so if the cloture rule were revised so as to remove or radically reduce filibuster potential there, republicans would only merely switch to other forms of delay. that would likely be an improvement over the present situation, but it wouldn't be the "end" of "the" filibuster.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't impose it on themselves.

I say keep it. It serves both sides.

and the rights of all Americans from the tyranny of the majority... when the Democrats are in charge. Otherwise, it's evil and should be done away with.

When they last changed the filibuster rules to require 60 votes instead of 67 votes, I think they were on to something good, because at the time, there were exactly 60 Dems in the Senate.

Let the chips fall where they may. We currently don't have a government because of it.