• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dem Senator Joe Manchin open to altering the filibuster back to the old days where Senators had to speak continuously for hrs on the floor

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
27,191
1,305
126

He remained adamant on Sunday that he would not vote to outright abolish the 60-vote supermajority threshold.
“... I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”
but he's willing to "make the filibuster a little bit more painful."


hm.. bringing back the “talking filibuster.”
ever since that was eliminated, the number of filibusters have risen sharply.

that's a start, i guess.
make the repubs earn their filibuster by continuously speaking on the Senate floor.
Longest one on record is 25hrs :eek:
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,937
596
126
All this talk about the filibuster has been making me wonder... is it broken that we should ever have to rely upon a tool that is nothing more than an obstruction?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,569
23,628
136
All this talk about the filibuster has been making me wonder... is it broken that we should ever have to rely upon a tool that is nothing more than an obstruction?
Yes, the filibuster was never envisioned as part of how our government would function. It exists solely because of an oversight and has been primarily used over the years to protect segregation and other evil things like that.

There's a reason why no other bicameral body in the world has a supermajority requirement for its upper chamber - everyone else on earth knows the idea is dumb.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,276
1,354
136

He remained adamant on Sunday that he would not vote to outright abolish the 60-vote supermajority threshold.
“... I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”
but he's willing to "make the filibuster a little bit more painful."


hm.. bringing back the “talking filibuster.”
ever since that was eliminated, the number of filibusters have risen sharply.

that's a start, i guess.
make the repubs earn their filibuster by continuously speaking on the Senate floor.
Longest one on record is 25hrs :eek:
The idea that the filibuster is required to give the minority party a roll in politics is another demonstration of how republicans have completely lost their platform. As the minority party, they are still welcome to bring ideas to the table. They don't need the filibuster to contribute. They can still be involved in promoting good legislation. The problem is Republicans have no desire to do that. They only want to sabotage.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,937
596
126
Yes, the filibuster was never envisioned as part of how our government would function. It exists solely because of an oversight and has been primarily used over the years to protect segregation and other evil things like that.

There's a reason why no other bicameral body in the world has a supermajority requirement for its upper chamber - everyone else on earth knows the idea is dumb.
What bugs me is that it seems like our political atmosphere has degraded so much that people see the filibuster as the only way to have the "little man" be heard. (To be fair, it is an issue that 51 people can regularly rule over 49.) It seems like this has been a problem largely manufactured by the actions of the Republican party. Now, I know some will see that and think "Oh, typical lefty attacking the right!" However, I think it is worth pointing out the difference in political rhetoric between the two parties. Sure, they both regularly oppose each other, and in some cases, may negatively address a fellow Congress member (Marjorie Taylor Greene being a good example); however, the Republican party has a bad habit of treating their "political enemies" as enemies of the people and/or country, and worst of all, outright calling them that to the public. (How many times have we heard that AOC hates America?) They've essentially used the political tool of "demonizing an enemy", which has been used for ages as a means to solidify your base, and instead of pointing to outside folks as "the enemy", they started pointing at other Americans.

Ultimately, in our political climate, it doesn't matter if a Republican Congressman actually agrees with a Democrat-backed bill, that's a bill from "the enemy". I mentioned earlier how it is problematic that a simple majority can rule over the minority, but that might not be as problematic if people could viably work together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

Saylick

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2012
1,011
869
136
The idea that the filibuster is required to give the minority party a roll in politics is another demonstration of how republicans have completely lost their platform. As the minority party, they are still welcome to bring ideas to the table. They don't need the filibuster to contribute. They can still be involved in promoting good legislation. The problem is Republicans have no desire to do that. They only want to sabotage.
This goes hand in hand with their desire to impose restrictions on access to voting, citing that it will harm them as a party. However, instead of changing their platform to make their party more appealing, they would rather bend the rules to ensure their survival. They whine that their party would cease to exist if it was easier for people to vote, and yet they frame themselves as victims in a changing society. They have this belief that their status as a minority party with an unpopular platform needs to be protected at all costs or something, as if they have a God given right to exist or that the Constitution inherently has language that mandates their existence as a party. We all know no such thing exists, and they will keep stubbornly refusing to get with the program.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,470
3,470
136
Do other countries have filibusters?
Pretty sure we have them here. But only in certain contexts. I think it only happens with "private members bills", i.e. where a bill isn't supported by the government but is just being put forward by an MP on their own initiative. For government bills the government can force a vote. And I believe they do require people to actually stand and make speeches for hours.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,569
23,628
136
What bugs me is that it seems like our political atmosphere has degraded so much that people see the filibuster as the only way to have the "little man" be heard. (To be fair, it is an issue that 51 people can regularly rule over 49.) It seems like this has been a problem largely manufactured by the actions of the Republican party. Now, I know some will see that and think "Oh, typical lefty attacking the right!" However, I think it is worth pointing out the difference in political rhetoric between the two parties. Sure, they both regularly oppose each other, and in some cases, may negatively address a fellow Congress member (Marjorie Taylor Greene being a good example); however, the Republican party has a bad habit of treating their "political enemies" as enemies of the people and/or country, and worst of all, outright calling them that to the public. (How many times have we heard that AOC hates America?) They've essentially used the political tool of "demonizing an enemy", which has been used for ages as a means to solidify your base, and instead of pointing to outside folks as "the enemy", they started pointing at other Americans.

Ultimately, in our political climate, it doesn't matter if a Republican Congressman actually agrees with a Democrat-backed bill, that's a bill from "the enemy". I mentioned earlier how it is problematic that a simple majority can rule over the minority, but that might not be as problematic if people could viably work together.
The whole point of the senate is to make it so the little man is heard. As it exists today Republican senators only represent 43% of the population yet they have an equal number of senators. Had Trump won re-election you would have had the 43% controlling the 57%.

Once you add in the filibuster you get into a situation where as little as like 20% of the US population could stop everything. It’s an anti-democracy disaster.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,937
596
126
The whole point of the senate is to make it so the little man is heard. As it exists today Republican senators only represent 43% of the population yet they have an equal number of senators. Had Trump won re-election you would have had the 43% controlling the 57%.

Once you add in the filibuster you get into a situation where as little as like 20% of the US population could stop everything. It’s an anti-democracy disaster.
What I'm trying to suggest is that people like Machin saying that the filibuster serves as a way for the minority to not be shut out are technically not wrong. However, I think what they're (willfully?) ignoring is that it's an awful tool for the job. It's akin to trying to hammer in a nail using the handle of a screwdriver. Sure, it might work in the end, but at best, it would still be an inefficient mess. So, I wanted to point to how our broken system created through excessive political divide (mostly created through the Republican party's rheotric) makes cooperation an incredibly rarity and instead pushes obstruction. People see the filibuster as the only viable tool because that's what our political climate has fostered.

To be clear, I do think that the filibuster needs to go. It's an awful tool that ruins the entire concept of lawmaking, which should be about discourse between all involved parties. It may not seem like I agree with some of my remarks, but I think that's because I like to look for the root cause, which I've talked about above.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,733
2,579
126
I say get rid of it completely. Let whichever party has the majority run the countries legislation. Dems can pass what they want. When/if GOP ever gets power they can do the same. Wont take but one cycle for the country to denounce the GOP policies and party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thump553 and nickqt

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,102
3,636
126
All this talk about the filibuster has been making me wonder... is it broken that we should ever have to rely upon a tool that is nothing more than an obstruction?
The role of a minority party should not be to prevent the function and existence of our government. Our elections / peaceful transfers of power mean nothing if the will of the people cannot be enacted following an election. If anything, they should be able to force some votes, hold some hearings, and generally have the tools available to force transparency and accountability. To act as a check on the majority, but not an insurmountable obstacle.

America's form of government is broken.
 
Feb 4, 2009
30,389
10,896
136
Personally I’d prefer it gone and I don’t fear what happens when the other side controls Congress, I look at it as accountability. Let’s pretend the Republican Congress dismantled the ACA and never replaced it or replaced it with something shitty plus passed enormous tax breaks the 85% of the benefit went to $300k plus earners.
Then COVID hits and the medical bills pile up, hospitals don’t get reimbursed for treatment and now the Government has to spend a shit ton of cash that they don’t have.
There would be consequences for this. There would be change that lasts without all the bitching and moaning from the usuals.

I’ve said it on these forums, barring eliminating the filibuster I am all for it being changed to old school Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Want to filibuster then stand the fuck up and start talking why you think holding up work is a great idea. Keep doing it until you pass out and all the Congress people fall asleep at their desks. This should be an expected work requirement of Congress.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,190
3,506
136
One of the most significant ways that hampers the will of the people is the fact that there are very powerful people and business interests in control of many of our politicians whereby these few unelected power brokers are writing national policies through their lackeys in Congress that favor themselves to the detriment of the middle class and the poor.

Roughly half of the people we elect to represent the interests of the working class (of whom are the vast majority of the nation) actually do not, yet they say they do in order to garner enough votes to stay in business. Of course, it's obvious I'm referring to our Republican legislators given their legislative track records, especially so after Reagan took power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,276
1,354
136
The whole point of the senate is to make it so the little man is heard. As it exists today Republican senators only represent 43% of the population yet they have an equal number of senators. Had Trump won re-election you would have had the 43% controlling the 57%.

Once you add in the filibuster you get into a situation where as little as like 20% of the US population could stop everything. It’s an anti-democracy disaster.
In theory, it could even be as little as I believe 6%. This is of course only theoretical, and assumes the smallest states all went to one party with that party winning 50% of the vote plus 1, and the other party winning 100% of the votes in the most populous states. Even so, just the fact that we have a system that could be controlled, even theoretically, by such a small portion of the population is insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,637
671
126
In theory, it could even be as little as I believe 6%. This is of course only theoretical, and assumes the smallest states all went to one party with that party winning 50% of the vote plus 1, and the other party winning 100% of the votes in the most populous states. Even so, just the fact that we have a system that could be controlled, even theoretically, by such a small portion of the population is insane.
But really don't get why Americans are so much against a Parliamentary system. Sure Canadians in the western provinces are usually pissed off our federal elections get decided by Ontario and Quebec. But it's not like the tiny Atlantic provinces have same impact like low population flyover states
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,655
7,044
136
It's a step in the right direction to make people have to work for the filibuster but it won't change anything. The Republicans are 100% evil, racist and corrupt enough to filibuster anything that might stop them from suppressing poorer minority voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,763
5,560
136
That's fine, someone can filibuster and delay the inevitable by wasting their time and every American's time, until they can no longer speak, then someone can do the same, etc, until the minority has obstructed as long as they can.

Then it goes to a vote, 50+1 passing, 50+1 failing.

The entire "you need 60 votes to pass anything" rule is just one more reason the Senate should be abolished and its powers given to a vastly expanded House.
 
Feb 4, 2009
30,389
10,896
136
Good. Also make it a crime to offer water to a Senator while he's filibustering, like GOP wants to make it a crime to give water to someone waiting in line to vote.
No force them to drink 8 ounces of water every 30 minutes and watch them hold the pee in.
Some moron would likely wear a catheter bag but that would be awesomely funny.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY