Filibuster

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
There was a lot of rambling about the Democrats filibustering Republican bills about a year ago. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, I am asking if those who were raging against filibusters still oppose the practice. I don't mean this as a "I told you so" I am just curious if this practice should be allowed to continue at all.

I think it's silly that someone can rant and rave for 24 hours (Strom Thurmond on the Civil Rights Bill ~1957) just to kill a bill they personally or their one district opposes. It in the end I guess can be used to prevent a tyranny of the majority, however, it just doesn't seem very democratic.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
I'm completely and utterly against filibusters. I think it's one of the worst practices in congress.

To be fair though, Republicans won't need to filibuster anything because they still have Bush in power with a veto in his back pocket.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: ntdz
I'm completely and utterly against filibusters. I think it's one of the worst practices in congress.

To be fair though, Republicans won't need to filibuster anything because they still have Bush in power with a veto in his back pocket.

True enough. I have to go back and crack open my civics 101 book.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
I'm completely and utterly against filibusters. I think it's one of the worst practices in congress.

To be fair though, Republicans won't need to filibuster anything because they still have Bush in power with a veto in his back pocket.

Don't need to veto when you have signing statements right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,398
136
Well, it depends on what you want democracy to be. If you want to be really fundamentalist then democracy should be a tyrrany of the majority. I think provisions for minority rights are what keep people engaged in our system of government, and keep the majority party from going comepletely bat$hit crazy... and so it's pretty important to have.

That all being said, I fully expect the democrats to start whining about the filibuster in relatively short order. The republicans have actually already come out a few times with some fond mentions of the value of that old parlimentary maneuver that they so wanted to kill a year or so ago. It's just whoever is the majority party doesn't like it. In fact the democrats are the ones that reduced it from 67 votes (67 I think?) needed to overcome it to 60.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Yeah it's something I see both ends of, so I asked to see what you guys thought. And yes I expect the Democrats to start whining about it in short order too.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I fully support its use in warranted situations. There is a reason it was put into our governing structure and it is a good one....tyranny of the majority.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I fully support its use in warranted situations. There is a reason it was put into our governing structure and it is a good one....tyranny of the majority.

Unfortunately it's rarely used that way. It's usually pulled when a very small minority just doesn't like the legislation in question.

I would love to see the filibuster go away. It's misued and abused by both sides.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
There's nothing wrong with filibusters except that they need to go back to the old way of actually having someone up there speak for hours on end, instead of just threatening to like they do now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,398
136
Actually Whooz that's not right. It can't be used by a very small minority. It has to be at least 41 senators that support something in order to filibuster. Not a majority.. but I think 41% is a pretty sizeable minority.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing wrong with filibusters except that they need to go back to the old way of actually having someone up there speak for hours on end, instead of just threatening to like they do now.

Thank you.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually Whooz that's not right. It can't be used by a very small minority. It has to be at least 41 senators that support something in order to filibuster. Not a majority.. but I think 41% is a pretty sizeable minority.

Meh... Then you get into toeing the party line and having people who would otherwise vote for the legislation, stand in defense of the filibuster. It happened with some of Dubbya's judicial noms. Guys who said they would vote for a nom if it came to the floor for a vote would not vote for cloture to bring the nom to the floor.

And Vic is right... If you're going to call a filibuster you should have to pur everyone (including yourself) through the pain and suffering of a real filibuster. Break out the cots!
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing wrong with filibusters except that they need to go back to the old way of actually having someone up there speak for hours on end, instead of just threatening to like they do now.

:thumbsup:
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,452
1
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: ntdz
I'm completely and utterly against filibusters. I think it's one of the worst practices in congress.

To be fair though, Republicans won't need to filibuster anything because they still have Bush in power with a veto in his back pocket.

Don't need to veto when you have signing statements right?

There ya go.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,449
9,834
136
Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing wrong with filibusters except that they need to go back to the old way of actually having someone up there speak for hours on end, instead of just threatening to like they do now.

Completely agree
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,378
7,443
136
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Vic
There's nothing wrong with filibusters except that they need to go back to the old way of actually having someone up there speak for hours on end, instead of just threatening to like they do now.

:thumbsup:

They need to do something worth those thousands we pay them. :thumbsup:
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Modern filibuster rules were enacted to allow the Senate to get on with other business, not have to resort to listening to the phonebook being recited ad infinitum.

As it is, a sizeable minority is required to prevent cloture, meaning that the measure is shelved, allowing for some behind the scenes work to arrive at a suitable compromise. Problem is, recent repub leadership hasn't been willing to really do so... following Whitehouse guidance.

And they're likely to put the embarassment off onto GWB, anyway, attempting to distance themselves from the Admin in preparation for the next election... all things considered, their willingness to compromise should be much improved...

And I doubt that Dems will force them into a position where they'll feel the need to resort to filibuster, either. They did great as bullies, now they'll seek to avoid the kind of punishment they were so eager to dish out...
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Modern filibuster rules were enacted to allow the Senate to get on with other business, not have to resort to listening to the phonebook being recited ad infinitum.

As it is, a sizeable minority is required to prevent cloture, meaning that the measure is shelved, allowing for some behind the scenes work to arrive at a suitable compromise. Problem is, recent repub leadership hasn't been willing to really do so... following Whitehouse guidance.

And they're likely to put the embarassment off onto GWB, anyway, attempting to distance themselves from the Admin in preparation for the next election... all things considered, their willingness to compromise should be much improved...

And I doubt that Dems will force them into a position where they'll feel the need to resort to filibuster, either. They did great as bullies, now they'll seek to avoid the kind of punishment they were so eager to dish out...

I was thinking along similar lines on this question.

Will the Repubicans have to resort to filibuster?
I doubt it. The Democrats do not have that large of a majority, two or three Democrats in the Senate voting with the Republicans and GWB's veto will negate the need for a filibuster.

Do the Republicans want to be seen as obstructionists?

Depends on how you read last month's election results. Were the voters rejecting the Republican agenda or just expressing their displeasure with GWB and his policies. The Republicans running took the hit.

Right now, I think last month's elections results had more to do with smacking GWB than a repudiation of all Republicans.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have maybe 12 to 15 months to show the voter they can govern effectively. This means compromise and getting things done. If they do not more people in Congress will lose their jobs in the next election cycle.