So what's the point of a filibuster?

[Fenixgoon]

It seems like it's just a waste of everyone's time (and our taxpayer money).

 

[Craig234]

It seems like it's just a waste of everyone's time (and our taxpayer money).

THe Senate was designed to be the more cautious body. It's had a culture of purpoted mutual respect among the members. They like to pretenda lot of things have consensus.

I don't recall the origin of the filibuster - which is a Sentate rule they agreed to, not something from the constitution, but the basic intent seems to have been to let a Senator who feels especially passionate on an issue say so in a manner that the bill stops its progress not only until a majority are ready to pass it but until a super-majority say the debate is over.

Over time the super majority has decreased down to the current 60. It's been abused; southernracists were infamous for filbustering civil rights.

Today, it bears little if any resemblance to its intended purpose. As I mentioned before, filibustering including the threat has gone from about 8% of legislation in the 60's to an unprecedented 70% since 2006.

Republicans filibuster almost everything simply on the basis of not liking that they lost the elections and are willing to abuse the rule to try to prevent Democrats from passing much of anything.

Every time it's been abused in history, I assume the questin has been raised why not get rid of it, it's a traditin and might be useful someday when the current radicals are not in the Senate.

 

[cubby1223]

Republicans filibuster almost everything simply on the basis of not liking that they lost the elections and are willing to abuse the rule to try to prevent Democrats from passing much of anything.

Seriously, who are you?

It's more that obvious you have some greater agenda here than just your own personal feelings. No rational person is as cynical as you are.

 

[Sinsear]

Lol. Craig is such a tool.

 

[fskimospy]

the filibuster is meant to act as a protector of minority rights. Well, at least it was. Filibusters have increased exponentially since the 70's or so, leading to increased dysfunction in the senate by both parties. Its function has definitely changed from a measure of last resort to a routine function though, that's probably going to be a problem.

 

[Lemon law]

Seriously, who are you?

It's more that obvious you have some greater agenda here than just your own personal feelings. No rational person is as cynical as you are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cubby, but you are wrong on the recent historical record.

As the Republican party has set new recent world records on the use of filibusters, not just on a few issues but on all issues.

Its now takes a super majority to pass any legislation and when what ever the dems are for the GOP tries to knee jerk block.

Maybe the filibuster was other wise smart because it prevented the tyranny of a small majority in the Senate, but when its replaced by the tyranny of a small minority overused, we must all questions the wisdom of the filibuster continued overuse abuse by the new clueless GOP.

That is not democratic bias you are hearing cubby, those are hard historical facts.

 

[werepossum]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cubby, but you are wrong on the recent historical record.

As the Republican party has set new recent world records on the use of filibusters, not just on a few issues but on all issues.

Its now takes a super majority to pass any legislation and when what ever the dems are for the GOP tries to knee jerk block.

Maybe the filibuster was other wise smart because it prevented the tyranny of a small majority in the Senate, but when its replaced by the tyranny of a small minority overused, we must all questions the wisdom of the filibuster continued overuse abuse by the new clueless GOP.

That is not democratic bias you are hearing cubby, those are hard historical facts.

But when the Democrats filibustered federal judges, that was okay, of course, because it was Democrats. Seriously, you guys should just post "Republicans are evil" or something similar and let people assume you are idiots rather than attempting to rationalize your response and thus removing all doubt.

Fenix, the original intent was to slow down legislation with which one or a few senators had big problems. The idea was that the dissenting Senator(s) would continue to argue his case and therefore might sway the rest of the Senate. Either the Senate would grow tired and remove or modify the onerous provisions, or the Senator(s) would grow too tired to continue and the bill would continue as is. Originally one had to actually continue the debate. (Those of us who followed politics in the 70s remembered Robert Byrd, the king of pork and filibusters, reading phone books, recipe books, and such on the Senate floor, until he got added to the bill the next Robert Byrd federal train station or Robert Byrd federal bird dropping museum or whatever self-named pork his fertile little mind could conceive.) If the bill was being filibustered by only one Senator, that Senator had to stay on the floor continuously as long as the Senate was in session, sometimes requiring the Senator's aids to set up a chamber pot and privacy partitions to allow him or her to continue speaking while "taking care of business". Somewhere along the line the filibuster became broader (including federal judges) and more civil (requiring the Senator not to actually continue the debate, but merely to indicate he or she was unwilling to end the debate) - both I think are mistakes, as the first is a constitutional duty (advice and consent) and the second has resulted in the filibuster (which now takes little effort or sacrifice on the Senator's part) now being used much more often.

 

[Lemon law]

Werepossim notes, "But when the Democrats filibustered federal judges, that was okay, of course, because it was Democrats."

And I say onto you bullshit in terms of recent history. The democrats used the Filibuster rarely and reached out to like minded GOP senators. Maybe the fight to block the nomination of John Bolton for UN ambassador is a classic example, it took two GOP senators to kill it, later on GWB snuck Bolton in on a recess appointment anyway, and Bolton proved to be a total ineffectual idiot the UN was thrilled to get rid of.

Get em clue werepossim, the filibuster is not a tool to be over used. Or good governance suffers. And for that matter, the GOP got voted out of power simply because they failed to deliver good governance, so ergo, changes are needed, when the filibuster is simply used as a tool to perpetuate the bad policies of the past and block better governance, we must all ask how to stop the overuse of the filibuster.

Maybe it should be rationed to X hours per senator per legislative session, go over and you lose the ability to censor other legislation. But unlike that blast from the past GOP Senate majority leader, I can't endorse the total elimination of the filibuster even if its being over used now.

 

[Jaskalas]

Seriously, who are you?

It's more that obvious you have some greater agenda here than just your own personal feelings. No rational person is as cynical as you are.

Oh please, our partisan party lines are more than enough to create paltry squabble amongst the populace. Hell, add enough fuel and we'd find violence.

 

[XZeroII]

Werepossim notes, "But when the Democrats filibustered federal judges, that was okay, of course, because it was Democrats."

And I say onto you bullshit in terms of recent history. The democrats used the Filibuster rarely and reached out to like minded GOP senators. Maybe the fight to block the nomination of John Bolton for UN ambassador is a classic example, it took two GOP senators to kill it, later on GWB snuck Bolton in on a recess appointment anyway, and Bolton proved to be a total ineffectual idiot the UN was thrilled to get rid of.

Get em clue werepossim, the filibuster is not a tool to be over used. Or good governance suffers. And for that matter, the GOP got voted out of power simply because they failed to deliver good governance, so ergo, changes are needed, when the filibuster is simply used as a tool to perpetuate the bad policies of the past and block better governance, we must all ask how to stop the overuse of the filibuster.

Maybe it should be rationed to X hours per senator per legislative session, go over and you lose the ability to censor other legislation. But unlike that blast from the past GOP Senate majority leader, I can't endorse the total elimination of the filibuster even if its being over used now.

HAHAHAHAHA. Your recent memory must be pretty short if you really believe that. Democrats were filibustering and holding up bills all the time as well. There was NO attempt at cooporation at all when Bush was in office.

You know, it's really sad how one sided some people are. You think democrats can't do wrong and republicans are evil when in truth they are exactly the same. They just differ on a few points. Both parties suck hard. Once you take your blinders off you'll see it.

 

[fskimospy]

HAHAHAHAHA. Your recent memory must be pretty short if you really believe that. Democrats were filibustering and holding up bills all the time as well. There was NO attempt at cooporation at all when Bush was in office.

You know, it's really sad how one sided some people are. You think democrats can't do wrong and republicans are evil when in truth they are exactly the same. They just differ on a few points. Both parties suck hard. Once you take your blinders off you'll see it.

While I agree that both parties use the filibuster when they are in the minority, the use of the filibuster by the Republicans since 2006 has no precedent in all of US history. In one term of Congress they not only beat the record for filibusters in a single Congressional term, they DOUBLED it. (the previous record was held by the Democrats however) That's the sign of a problem for everyone. So while the Democrats most certainly did use the filibuster frequently when in the minority, the Republicans since 2006 have left them in the dust along with every other US Congress that has ever existed.

For people who follow the US government the Senate is generally thought of as the weak link. If the American government ever breaks down, it will be the Senate that breaks. The entire principle of that body is that Senators treat each other with respect, and that it is a friendly atmosphere. Back in the day a filibuster would only happen in extreme circumstances, and even things that a Senator did not agree with, he would let pass. Now we don't do that. I'm not sure how to fix this problem so that we can protect the rights of the minority while still allowing the majority party to govern.

 

[Robor]

GOP = Great Obstruction Party

 

[Genx87]

the filibuster is meant to act as a protector of minority rights. Well, at least it was. Filibusters have increased exponentially since the 70's or so, leading to increased dysfunction in the senate by both parties. Its function has definitely changed from a measure of last resort to a routine function though, that's probably going to be a problem.

It makes sense its use has raised since the 70s as Democrats lowered the requirement back then from 2/3rd to 3/5ths. It is easier to Filibuster.

 

[Genx87]

While I agree that both parties use the filibuster when they are in the minority, the use of the filibuster by the Republicans since 2006 has no precedent in all of US history. In one term of Congress they not only beat the record for filibusters in a single Congressional term, they DOUBLED it. (the previous record was held by the Democrats however) That's the sign of a problem for everyone. So while the Democrats most certainly did use the filibuster frequently when in the minority, the Republicans since 2006 have left them in the dust along with every other US Congress that has ever existed.

For people who follow the US government the Senate is generally thought of as the weak link. If the American government ever breaks down, it will be the Senate that breaks. The entire principle of that body is that Senators treat each other with respect, and that it is a friendly atmosphere. Back in the day a filibuster would only happen in extreme circumstances, and even things that a Senator did not agree with, he would let pass. Now we don't do that. I'm not sure how to fix this problem so that we can protect the rights of the minority while still allowing the majority party to govern.

I would argue its use it most likely increased when a party is severly in the minority like the Pubs have been since 2006. During the Bush years minus 04-06 Democrats held a large voting block as a minority and even split the houses. Republicans were forced to work with Democrats as they had no chance of overcoming a filibuster. Today Republicans hold no such power and to stop any legislation they filibuster and hope Blue Dogs dont vote with their party.

 

[fskimospy]

I would argue its use it most likely increased when a party is severly in the minority like the Pubs have been since 2006. During the Bush years minus 04-06 Democrats held a large voting block as a minority and even split the houses. Republicans were forced to work with Democrats as they had no chance of overcoming a filibuster. Today Republicans hold no such power and to stop any legislation they filibuster and hope Blue Dogs dont vote with their party.

But the Republicans actually shattered this filibuster record during the 2006-2008 Congress when the Democrats held the slimmest majority possible, 51-49. In addition to that Republicans also controlled the White House. I don't see how you can say they were 'severely in the minority' or anything approaching that.

 

[fskimospy]

It makes sense its use has raised since the 70s as Democrats lowered the requirement back then from 2/3rd to 3/5ths. It is easier to Filibuster.

Filibuster use increased pretty hugely even when measuring between years where the same number of votes were required for cloture. There's definitely something more at work there. (polarization in my opinion)

 

[Aegeon]

It makes sense its use has raised since the 70s as Democrats lowered the requirement back then from 2/3rd to 3/5ths. It is easier to Filibuster.

This is actually exactly wrong.

Its actually the opposite where it used to take 2/3rds of the Senators to break a filibuster while now it only takes a lower number of only 3/5th of the US Senate to break a filibuster. (In other words, ordinarily 60 Senators while before it actually ordinarily took 67 Senators to break a filibuster.)

The issue is that a filibuster at least was understood for most of the period with the higher number requirement for the US Senate to be something reserved for really extreme circumstances and almost never used, while its become something close to a matter of routine for any relevant bill today.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think it should be used to block judges since the constitution is pretty clear on that issue.

Otherwise I see no problem with the way it is used. Especially now when the Democrats have the 60 votes needed to get things done. The fact that Republicans are able to use it at all shows just how messed up the Democrats are currently.

ie. they are pushing through bills that don't even make all the members of their own party happy.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think it should be used to block judges since the constitution is pretty clear on that issue.

Otherwise I see no problem with the way it is used. Especially now when the Democrats have the 60 votes needed to get things done. The fact that Republicans are able to use it at all shows just how messed up the Democrats are currently.

ie. they are pushing through bills that don't even make all the members of their own party happy.

The Constitution makes no statement as to the filibuster at all, and it is up to the Senate to make its own rules as to what constitutes its 'consent'. Saying that 'the Constitution is pretty clear on that issue' to imply that the Constitution rejects the use of a filibuster on judicial nominees is a complete falsehood. You should know better.

This is old news. The party out of power loves the filibuster and the party in power hates it. Something will probably be done about it sooner or later as the abuse of it is reaching epic proportions, but I'm not really sure what that would be right now. And yes, I imagine the Democrats will return the filibustering favor to the Republicans whenever the R's regain control of the Senate. I fully expect shrieking and crying about the undemocratic nature of the filibuster to resume from the right and cease from the left at that point.

 

[ProfJohn]

The Constitution makes no statement as to the filibuster at all, and it is up to the Senate to make its own rules as to what constitutes its 'consent'. Saying that 'the Constitution is pretty clear on that issue' to imply that the Constitution rejects the use of a filibuster on judicial nominees is a complete falsehood. You should know better.

The term 'consent' would imply that the congress votes yes or no on a judicial appointment. But the filibuster was used to prevent such votes from happening and thus they were not providing 'consent' nor were they rejecting the appointments either.

 

[fskimospy]

The term 'consent' would imply that the congress votes yes or no on a judicial appointment. But the filibuster was used to prevent such votes from happening and thus they were not providing 'consent' nor were they rejecting the appointments either.

No the term 'consent' implies that the Senate must give its consent. The Senate determines the means by which it gives consent as per the Constitution, and currently that includes the filibuster. This interpretation is supported by the precedent set by the US Senate throughout all of US history.

So once again, no.

 

[Schadenfroh]

the Democrats filibustered federal judges

Ahh, memories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Pickering

With no way to stop his confirmation, the Senate Democrats chose to filibuster Pickering in order to prevent him from receiving a straight up-or-down confirmation vote.

Pickering's nomination was supported by several past leaders of the NAACP in Mississippi. One of his strongest supporters was Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers.

Frustrated with the obstruction of the Senate Democrats, on January 16, 2004, President George W. Bush gave Judge Pickering a recess appointment to the Fifth Circuit.

I do dislike his son and those related to him running for office using The Pickering Name™.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It seems like it's just a waste of everyone's time (and our taxpayer money).

The same point as a child's tantrum, to get their way.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The same point as a child's tantrum, to get their way.

from reading the thread, it sounds like it originally was implemented with the honest intention of helping senators who strongly supported a cause.

of course, in order to achieve their own goals, people have abused it and used it not in line with the original intentions of its creators.

 

[cubby1223]

Look, "the left" just likes to crap on the filibuster because it's the Republicans who are currently doing it.

Just think of it like this, to pass anything in the Senate you must have 60 votes. Them's the rules. If you have 60 votes then it passes. If you don't have 60 votes then it doesn't pass.

Frankly, it's a way force the idiots in Washington to not play partisan populist politics. Read through the Federalist Papers for more perspective on why the Senate was specifically designed to slow down politics in Washington.