• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting proposal for the filibuster

Link doesn’t work.
I have changed my opinion on the filibuster. They have been waaaay over used and the way it works now stuff can be filibustered essentially anonymously.
I say kill the filibuster and I agree there will be times where it sucks that it is gone but it moves accountability.
Imagine if the 2 years ago Republican House & Senate killed ACA. Imagine them having to explain why it was a good thing in 2018 and now in 2020 when those corona hospital bills pile up.
Imagine a mud hut turd Senator explaining why he repealed the Federal Minimum wage.
Removing the filibuster moves accountability and that is a good thing.
 
uclaLabrat said:
Modify the rules for the filibuster
And make the minority party own it. Also make it easier to invoke cloture by the majority party so the tool remains but is not a bludgeon to stop all progress in the chamber.
Click to expand...
I still think it’s best to eliminate the filibuster entirely, no exceptions. The senate is already extremely anti-majoritarian, the filibuster in any form just takes this and makes it worse.
 
Meh. I don't believe that slight tweak will be enough to prevent abuse and the Senate being hobbled again, and it's too important to risk. Too many crazy traitors on the right, we need a stronger remedy. The filibuster needs to go away completely, just like the EC.
 
Forcing all 40 to be present to vote to continue the filibuster is a pretty compelling tactic though. Im ok with complete abolition, however that will produce wild swings in policy.
 
uclaLabrat said:
Forcing all 40 to be present to vote to continue the filibuster is a pretty compelling tactic though. Im ok with complete abolition, however that will produce wild swings in policy.
Click to expand...
Will it really though? I sincerely doubt this. What I think it mostly does is prevent popular, progressive policy from being implemented.

The ACA is a great example - it took 60 votes to get it over the line and despite majorities we haven’t seen in decades it barely limped over the line.

The Republicans had a chance to eliminate large swaths of it in 2017 with a simple majority vote, and they couldn’t even manage that. The only thing the filibuster did with the ACA was make it harder to pass.
 
uclaLabrat said:
Forcing all 40 to be present to vote to continue the filibuster is a pretty compelling tactic though. Im ok with complete abolition, however that will produce wild swings in policy.
Click to expand...
fskimospy said:
Will it really though? I sincerely doubt this. What I think it mostly does is prevent popular, progressive policy from being implemented.

The ACA is a great example - it took 60 votes to get it over the line and despite majorities we haven’t seen in decades it barely limped over the line.

The Republicans had a chance to eliminate large swaths of it in 2017 with a simple majority vote, and they couldn’t even manage that. The only thing the filibuster did with the ACA was make it harder to pass.
Click to expand...

I’m somewhere in the middle. I can imagine more small legislation being tossed or modified, I can imagine weird pet projects being perpetually shifted but I do think voters and legislators would smarten up after some time.
Again can you imagine the shit storm if ACA was repealed with a tie breaking VP vote. There would have been an enormous 2018 shit storm and an even larger shit storm today.
Filibuster removes all accountability.
 
HomerJS said:
I think it could work. No way you could keep those codgers going 24x7 to keep debate going.
Click to expand...

I’m okay with a Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster.
As in it works like we all thought it worked like until 2005(ish)
Senator needs to stand (or sit) and talk on topic as to why the vote is a bad vote.
Shit I’m okay with brief bathroom breaks and I’d be okay with 3 Senators teaming up to handle it.
But they must keep talking. Nothing else happens until they are done.
In the above scenario it brings accountability and that’s what I want with Thisbe stuff.
You want something over turned or you want something new? Good do it and own it.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I’m okay with a Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster.
As in it works like we all thought it worked like until 2005(ish)
Senator needs to stand (or sit) and talk on topic as to why the vote is a bad vote.
Shit I’m okay with brief bathroom breaks and I’d be okay with 3 Senators teaming up to handle it.
But they must keep talking. Nothing else happens until they are done.
In the above scenario it brings accountability and that’s what I want with Thisbe stuff.
You want something over turned or you want something new? Good do it and own it.
Click to expand...
Nah. Just get rid of the filibuster altogether. The Senate already favors the minority of the country thanks to its makeup of being state-based instead of population-based.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I’m okay with a Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster.
As in it works like we all thought it worked like until 2005(ish)
Senator needs to stand (or sit) and talk on topic as to why the vote is a bad vote.
Shit I’m okay with brief bathroom breaks and I’d be okay with 3 Senators teaming up to handle it.
But they must keep talking. Nothing else happens until they are done.
In the above scenario it brings accountability and that’s what I want with Thisbe stuff.
You want something over turned or you want something new? Good do it and own it.
Click to expand...
You really think the government should be run with that kind of shit?

Hold a vote.

Count the fucking votes.

51 wins.
 
I really can't stand the filibuster as it exists now. But I don't think removing it entirely is the right course either. I think that a senator should only be able to filibuster for at most two work days during each year, and they must speak during any time they are filibustering. So a minority party could disrupt legislation for at most 98 days. Cloture should remain as it is. The problem, as identified in the article, is that one senator can act as a roadblock, completely shielding the rest of his party from taking responsibility.

If the filibuster is a limited resource then you can let senators take a stand against things they find objectionable, or the party can create a coordinated response to some individual bill. But gone will be the days of the 'party of obstruction' where everything can be blocked by a minority party with few repercussions.
 
uclaLabrat said:
Forcing all 40 to be present to vote to continue the filibuster is a pretty compelling tactic though. Im ok with complete abolition, however that will produce wild swings in policy.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. The filibuster mainly benefits the party that doesn't want Congress to pass any legislation, unless it is to repeal legislation passed by the party who passed legislation. Which means it benefits the GOP right now nearly 100%. It's yet another structural advantage for the GOP, along with the EC and gerrymandering.

The reason I'm not sure it will produce wild policiy swings is because it will take some time before the GOP can regain the White House and both houses of Congress. If done straight off next year, that will be 4 years at a bare minimum. That is time for dem policies to take affect and for the public to assess how much they like these policies. If the policies are popular, it's going to be politically difficult to repeal them. The GOP raged over Social Security and Medicare for years, claiming they were "communist" and "socialist." But today they wouldn't dare attempt to repeal them. They hardly even criticize them any more.

If OTOH the dem policies are unpopular, or some of them are, well this is, after all, a democracy, so maybe it's OK that they get repealed.
 
I’ve got a crazy idea - why don’t we let our elected representatives pass the policies they want and if we don’t like what they do, remove them? The filibuster helps make sure nobody ever passes anything and therefore nobody is responsible.
 
fskimospy said:
I’ve got a crazy idea - why don’t we let our elected representatives pass the policies they want and if we don’t like what they do, remove them? The filibuster helps make sure nobody ever passes anything and therefore nobody is responsible.
Click to expand...
Well said and that is my point.
Same with my earlier point of if the filibuster worked in a Mr. Smith goes to Washington sort of way that would work too.
Imagine some nut reading the Bible for two days straight to prevent a vote on the ACA, Imagine some deplorable reading the constitution why holding up a vote on renewing the voter rights act. That’s accountability too.
Imagine a Covid relief bill being stalled for days because some Senator from a mid hut district wants to stand at the podium and talk for days.
Imagine a bill to repeal banking regulation being held up for a week by Senators who take to the podium and say what will happen with less oversight, months later it all becomes true.
Either way is fine by me because both ways have accountability built into them.
 
hardhat said:
I really can't stand the filibuster as it exists now. But I don't think removing it entirely is the right course either. I think that a senator should only be able to filibuster for at most two work days during each year, and they must speak during any time they are filibustering. So a minority party could disrupt legislation for at most 98 days. Cloture should remain as it is. The problem, as identified in the article, is that one senator can act as a roadblock, completely shielding the rest of his party from taking responsibility.
Click to expand...
There is no functional difference between the modern filibuster and the cloture vote. The 60-vote hurdle is the cloture vote
 
fskimospy said:
I’ve got a crazy idea - why don’t we let our elected representatives pass the policies they want and if we don’t like what they do, remove them? The filibuster helps make sure nobody ever passes anything and therefore nobody is responsible.
Click to expand...

R's know that's another nail in their coffin, so they be like:

9L1rA2i.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top