Some Conservatives Already Advocating Limiting the Filibuster

[dank69]

http://news.yahoo.com/frustrated-republicans-taste-limits-majority-control-082819388--politics.html

The predicament is so frustrating to House Republicans that some conservatives have begun advocating changing Senate rules to limit the use of the filibuster, an idea several Senate Republicans have already dismissed.

Who wants to bet that some of these same people cried when the Dems eliminated the filibuster option for appointments?

I also really like this line:

"I suppose elections have consequences except in the United States Senate," complained GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, summing up the frustration for many House Republicans.

I guess Mulvaney is pretending the last 6-8 years didn't happen.

 

[thraashman]

http://news.yahoo.com/frustrated-republicans-taste-limits-majority-control-082819388--politics.html



Who wants to bet that some of these same people cried when the Dems eliminated the filibuster option for appointments?

I also really like this line:

I guess Mulvaney is pretending the last 6-8 years didn't happen.

Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

 

[PokerGuy]

Whoever has the majority always whines about the minority party using the filibuster. I personally disagree with trying to reduce the filibuster regardless of who has the majority, it's an excellent tool to keep extremist things from passing the senate.

Republicans whined when the dems used filibusters, they talked about the "nuclear option", then the dems whine about the gop and they implement the nuclear option (at least partially), now the gop whines about the dems again. The more things change......

 

[Jaskalas]

Whoever has the majority always whines about the minority party using the filibuster. I personally disagree with trying to reduce the filibuster regardless of who has the majority, it's an excellent tool to keep extremist things from passing the senate.

I oppose the filibuster. It prevents the President from using his veto.

 

[HomerJS]

Whoever has the majority always whines about the minority party using the filibuster. I personally disagree with trying to reduce the filibuster regardless of who has the majority, it's an excellent tool to keep extremist things from passing the senate.

Republicans whined when the dems used filibusters, they talked about the "nuclear option", then the dems whine about the gop and they implement the nuclear option (at least partially), now the gop whines about the dems again. The more things change......

+1

Actually I would keel it but make them filibuster the old fashioned way, stand up and talk. We made it easy for those guys to object and hide.

 

[fskimospy]

+1

Actually I would keel it but make them filibuster the old fashioned way, stand up and talk. We made it easy for those guys to object and hide.

The filibuster was never intended to be part of the Senate. It turns an already undemocratic institution into a super-undemocratic institution. Our system of government was designed with 3 veto points to prevent bad legislation from getting through: the House, the Senate, and the President. The filibuster just adds a fourth.

Despite the naked opportunism of the Republicans' newfound distaste for the filibuster, I fully support their effort to eliminate it in its entirety.

 

[PokerGuy]

+1

Actually I would keel it but make them filibuster the old fashioned way, stand up and talk. We made it easy for those guys to object and hide.

I agree with you on that. I look at the filibuster as a good "last resort" mechanism, not just something that should be tossed around like "hey, I don't like that bill so I'm filibustering. done. "

 

[PokerGuy]

Our system of government was designed with 3 veto points to prevent bad legislation from getting through: the House, the Senate, and the President. The filibuster just adds a fourth.

In theory you're right, but in practice, power those 3 checks are often correlated. I personally am glad for that 4th 'check' to prevent unchecked stupidity when one party gets swept into power. I'm also not just saying that now, I've consistently said the same thing, even when the gop was in power early in the Bush years. I was one of those saying "no, don't do it" when the gop was complaining about democrat "obstruction" and considering getting rid of the filibuster at that point.

 

[PokerGuy]

Despite the naked opportunism of the Republicans' newfound distaste for the filibuster, I fully support their effort to eliminate it in its entirety.

Easy to say that when you know you have nice presidential veto in your back pocket that you know can't be overridden. Not so easy when one party (and I honestly don't care which one, it's bad either way if they hold all the power) can do stupid things unchecked.

 

[fskimospy]

Easy to say that when you know you have nice presidential veto in your back pocket that you know can't be overridden. Not so easy when one party (and I honestly don't care which one, it's bad either way if they hold all the power) can do stupid things unchecked.

No, I'm comfortable with eliminating it even if the Republicans were to win the presidency and keep the Senate in 2016.

The only way that a party can do things 'unchecked' is if they have a large enough and sustained enough electoral success that they end up controlling 3 different parts of government that are all elected differently. At some point we have to accept an electoral mandate, but with the filibuster we ensure that such an electoral mandate is effectively impossible. I don't think that's a good idea.

The way the Senate is currently structured in theory states representing only 11-12% of the US population could stop almost all legislation from going forward. The way it works now, traditionally Republican states that represent about 1/3 of the nation's population can accomplish the same. That's just not a realistic pattern for governance.

 

[PokerGuy]

No, I'm comfortable with eliminating it even if the Republicans were to win the presidency and keep the Senate in 2016.

The only way that a party can do things 'unchecked' is if they have a large enough and sustained enough electoral success that they end up controlling 3 different parts of government that are all elected differently.

That's not so unusual of a situation. The both the repubs and democrats have had that situation in the last 15 years.

Personally, even though I think one party sucks less than the other one, I'm not comfortable with either one being able to push through garbage with effectively no checks at all.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think having the extra check in place is a good thing, even if I don't like the results all the time.

The way the Senate is currently structured in theory states representing only 11-12% of the US population could stop almost all legislation from going forward.

Why is that a bad thing? Population #'s are not the end all be all. People in Wyoming shouldn't be subjected to the whims of the desires of people elsewhere just because there are more people there. Our system of government strikes a balance as opposed to just a pure democracy based on total number of votes, and I think having the (as you put it) 4th "check" in place is actually a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is that a bad thing? Population #'s are not the end all be all. People in Wyoming shouldn't be subjected to the whims of the desires of people elsewhere just because there are more people there. Our system of government strikes a balance as opposed to just a pure democracy based on total number of votes, and I think having the (as you put it) 4th "check" in place is actually a good thing.

Our system did strike a balance, that's the whole point of the Senate. The balance it attempted to strike then was nowhere even remotely close to where it is now. In the end, people can be and should be subjected to the whims and desires of people elsewhere if enough people voted for it. That's the whole point of our system.

First, of course the system was never designed to include the filibuster to begin with.

Second, and maybe more importantly, when the Senate was designed the difference between the largest state and the smallest state was 11-1. It is now about 66-1. If you think it's ok for 11% of the population to block most legislation, where do you draw the line? 5%? 2%?

 

[PokerGuy]

Our system did strike a balance, that's the whole point of the Senate. The balance it attempted to strike then was nowhere even remotely close to where it is now. In the end, people can be and should be subjected to the whims and desires of people elsewhere if enough people voted for it. That's the whole point of our system.

The key part is "if enough people voted for it". That hasn't changed, but the possibility of the filibuster just changes the threshold of what "enough people" means. So yes, people in Wyoming will ultimately be subject to the whims of people elsewhere, but this way the threshold for that happening is a little higher.

Second, and maybe more importantly, when the Senate was designed the difference between the largest state and the smallest state was 11-1. It is now about 66-1. If you think it's ok for 11% of the population to block most legislation, where do you draw the line? 5%? 2%?

I find it remarkable that the system set up then still works today. I don't have a problem with any line (11%, 5%, 2% etc), because that's just not how it works. If a small fraction is against something (lets say 2%), and their senators decide to filibuster, then it should be fairly easy for the rest of the senators (both in the opposition - majority - party and their own) to overcome the filibuster.

The only way those senators from the less populated states can effectively filibuster anything is if they have support from a lot of other senators.

 

[fskimospy]

The key part is "if enough people voted for it". That hasn't changed, but the possibility of the filibuster just changes the threshold of what "enough people" means. So yes, people in Wyoming will ultimately be subject to the whims of people elsewhere, but this way the threshold for that happening is a little higher.

I find it remarkable that the system set up then still works today. I don't have a problem with any line (11%, 5%, 2% etc), because that's just not how it works. If a small fraction is against something (lets say 2%), and their senators decide to filibuster, then it should be fairly easy for the rest of the senators (both in the opposition - majority - party and their own) to overcome the filibuster.

The only way those senators from the less populated states can effectively filibuster anything is if they have support from a lot of other senators.

I think you're missing the point. As it exists today the smallest 21 states represent about 11% of the population. That means that is how it works, you wouldn't need any support from other senators, as you will have the 41 votes necessary.

Originally, breaking a filibuster was impossible. So technically even about 1% of the US population had a total veto on all legislation. That was then changed to 66%, which in today's terms means that 6-7% of the population could have blocked all legislation. Later it was changed to 60%. Which one of those, if any, was right? Was 1% too much? Was 7% too much? Why is 11% right?

They were all changed because small groups of people were grinding the nation to a halt. Small states are already massively overrepresented in electoral terms as it is. I see no reason to further advantage them through a parliamentary rule that came to be only by accident anyway.

 

[Sonikku]

They have a point; The Democrats won't be responsible with it like the Republicans were the past 6 years.

 

[dank69]

Some names:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232635-house-conservatives-push-mcconnell-to-gut-filibuster

A growing number of House GOP conservatives are pressuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday to invoke the "nuclear option" and change the chamber's rules to pass a bill defunding President Obama's executive actions on immigration.

Reps. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) and Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said McConnell should change Senate rules, so the House-passed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, which includes language to revoke Obama's immigration-related actions, can bypass a Democratic filibuster in the upper chamber.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) also endorsed the idea at a Thursday news conference. He said there’s a “way to change the rules to allow us to move forward” and “take away the ability to filibuster.”
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) was the first House Republican to advocate such a rules change Wednesday evening, arguing that now-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had established a precedent during his time in the majority.

 

[Jaskalas]

A person must be insane to not see that the Filibuster hurt the Obama Presidency by not allowing a Majority in both houses to work with the President to achieve the goals the people elected them for.

Filibuster means our government does not function. At all.
That needs to change.

 

[PokerGuy]

I think you're missing the point. As it exists today the smallest 21 states represent about 11% of the population. That means that is how it works, you wouldn't need any support from other senators, as you will have the 41 votes necessary.

You're assuming the senators from those smallest 21 states are in lockstep unison on an issue and at the same time in disagreement with the senators from the remaining states. That's just not a realistic scenario.

Originally, breaking a filibuster was impossible. So technically even about 1% of the US population had a total veto on all legislation. That was then changed to 66%, which in today's terms means that 6-7% of the population could have blocked all legislation. Later it was changed to 60%. Which one of those, if any, was right? Was 1% too much? Was 7% too much? Why is 11% right?

I didn't say 11% was right, I said I don't really care what the percentage is, the mechanism is what matters, not the theoretical percentage because in practice that theoretical situation doesn't happen.

They were all changed because small groups of people were grinding the nation to a halt. Small states are already massively overrepresented in electoral terms as it is. I see no reason to further advantage them through a parliamentary rule that came to be only by accident anyway.

Just as I believe in individual rights over collective rights, I believe in the rights of the less populated states to not be run over by other states just because of population. The majority should be able to impose it's will over the objection of the minority, but with a pretty high threshold. The balance seems better to me this way, but that's just me.

 

[glenn1]

I think you're missing the point. As it exists today the smallest 21 states represent about 11% of the population. That means that is how it works, you wouldn't need any support from other senators, as you will have the 41 votes necessary.

Originally, breaking a filibuster was impossible. So technically even about 1% of the US population had a total veto on all legislation. That was then changed to 66%, which in today's terms means that 6-7% of the population could have blocked all legislation. Later it was changed to 60%. Which one of those, if any, was right? Was 1% too much? Was 7% too much? Why is 11% right?

They were all changed because small groups of people were grinding the nation to a halt. Small states are already massively overrepresented in electoral terms as it is. I see no reason to further advantage them through a parliamentary rule that came to be only by accident anyway.

Or you can take advantange of our federal system the way it wasn intended and pass whatever the fvck you want up in New York and leave the rest of us alone, and vice versa.

Or your alternative is to go with your plan and put up with whatever popular but stupid ideas the majority likes and deal with the fallout. I'm sure you'd love being under things like the Balanced Budget Amendment which 74% of Americans favor and would a permanent end to your Keynesian "Stimulus" stupidity. Or the majority of people that favor repeal of Obamacare. Hell, your entire agenda would be at risk because "conservative" policies enjoy more favorable polling in both social issues and economics.

 

[emperus]

I think the Filibuster needs to be reformed. If someone filibusters, it should stop all work in the Senate (nothing else should be voted on) and the person has to stand/sit on the floor of the Senate and speak as long as they want to filibuster.

These gentleman filibuster agreements are what's killing it.

 

[K1052]

I think the Filibuster needs to be reformed. If someone filibusters, it should stop all work in the Senate (nothing else should be voted on) and the person has to stand/sit on the floor of the Senate and speak as long as they want to filibuster.

These gentleman filibuster agreements are what's killing it.

I'm pretty much good with this. If you want to hold something up you must be on the floor talking. The opposition gets their point across but legislative progress isn't impeded unduly like it is now.

 

[fskimospy]

Or you can take advantange of our federal system the way it wasn intended and pass whatever the fvck you want up in New York and leave the rest of us alone, and vice versa.

That's funny, because I'm saying that we should use the federal system the way it was intended. You're the one who supports the filibuster, which, as discussed, was never intended to be part of the system.

Or your alternative is to go with your plan and put up with whatever popular but stupid ideas the majority likes and deal with the fallout. I'm sure you'd love being under things like the Balanced Budget Amendment which 74% of Americans favor and would a permanent end to your Keynesian "Stimulus" stupidity.

Speaking of stupidity, constitutional amendments already require a majority (2/3rds) that is greater than what the filibuster requires as written in the Constitution. lol, you're so goddamn stupid.

Looks like you're stuck with my 'Keynesian stimulus stupidity' for the forseeable future. We will just have to keep rescuing you from your own bad economic ideas with you throwing a temper tantrum the whole way. How fun for us both!

Or the majority of people that favor repeal of Obamacare.

No they don't. When asked if people would like to keep, amend, or repeal the ACA a solid majority come down on keep or amend. Repeal is a small majority, comprised mostly of people who watch the same media you do, I imagine, haha.

Hell, your entire agenda would be at risk because "conservative" policies enjoy more favorable polling in both social issues and economics.

I feel very, very comfortable with this arrangement. If you think that a conservative/liberal poll like that indicates impending policy victory for you then join me in wanting the filibuster to be repealed!

Just letting you know now that you'll be very sad with the results. (hint: look at polls on actual issues that come up to a vote)

 

[Moonbeam]

You're assuming the senators from those smallest 21 states are in lockstep unison on an issue and at the same time in disagreement with the senators from the remaining states. That's just not a realistic scenario.



I didn't say 11% was right, I said I don't really care what the percentage is, the mechanism is what matters, not the theoretical percentage because in practice that theoretical situation doesn't happen.



Just as I believe in individual rights over collective rights, I believe in the rights of the less populated states to not be run over by other states just because of population. The majority should be able to impose it's will over the objection of the minority, but with a pretty high threshold. The balance seems better to me this way, but that's just me.

You have a gut feeling you are right. You believe correctly that there is something which corresponds to the good which produces a visceral feeling of pain when violated, You just don't know that your actual feelings as to what that good is have been fucked over by programming. You have attached feelings of pain with imaginative delusions. These maladaptive associations are nearly impossible to break. The were formed before you were able to reason and think logically. Every time one of these moral sensitivities or buttons is pushed it initiates a feeling of impending doom. The reaction is to fight or flee, but senselessly. The point of psychotherapy is to remember the formation of these connections by re-experiencing them. Then, your adult mind, having relived and survived the original pain can understand and transcend it. Grief for oneself brings healing. Grief brings life back to a closed down mechanical system. It brings back trust and love.

 

[glenn1]

That's funny, because I'm saying that we should use the federal system the way it was intended. You're the one who supports the filibuster, which, as discussed, was never intended to be part of the system.

No, I support not getting the federal government involved in things it was never intended to be part of the system. If it takes the filibuster to rein that in, so be it.

Speaking of stupidity, constitutional amendments already require a majority (2/3rds) that is greater than what the filibuster requires as written in the Constitution. lol, you're so goddamn stupid.

Protip - 74% is more than two-thirds. Basically you want majority rule when it suits your purposes and no other time, else you'd enthusiastically support Balanced Budget Amendment under your own philosophy of "majority rules."

Looks like you're stuck with my 'Keynesian stimulus stupidity' for the forseeable future. We will just have to keep rescuing you from your own bad economic ideas with you throwing a temper tantrum the whole way. How fun for us both!

Your ideas not only won't be "stuck with us for the foreseeable future," they didn't even last until the next election cycle when Congress reverted back to GOP control. It not only ended stimulus but brought things like Sequester. Big majorities agreed that the Obama stimulus was a huge failure and mistake, 61% oppose it in the last poll I saw. Your ideas suck and the American people agree.

No they don't. When asked if people would like to keep, amend, or repeal the ACA a solid majority come down on keep or amend. Repeal is a small majority, comprised mostly of people who watch the same media you do, I imagine, haha.

Repeal the fillbuster and see what happens to the ACA when GOP is in control next go-around.

I feel very, very comfortable with this arrangement. If you think that a conservative/liberal poll like that indicates impending policy victory for you then join me in wanting the filibuster to be repealed!

Just letting you know now that you'll be very sad with the results. (hint: look at polls on actual issues that come up to a vote)

You are an idiot. I support the filibuster because I want the stupid ideas from both sides squashed. You're so myopic that you can't see beyond your own narrow wants that you think will be possible if it's repealed. For every law passed that you would like (say Climate Change legislation) I can guarantee there's be dozens you hated.

 

[cubby1223]

Also expect the Democrats to want to expand the filibuster.