Some Conservatives Already Advocating Limiting the Filibuster

[Jaskalas]

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.

I likely echoed that sentiment a few times in the past 6 years. The notion of supporting the dysfunction of the Federal government, to allow States the opportunity to take charge.

I'm not sure that works out favorably in the end - trying to bypass a national referendum on State's rights by sabotaging our Union.
Our Democracy is fragile... using the filibuster to assault it may have dire consequences.

 

[kage69]

I have to say, the last couple weeks of republican irony, amnesia and dissonance has been nothing short of hilarious.

Listening to Turtle or Boehner try to sound like victimized hard workers is epic comedy for anyone able to recall the last six years of Congress.

 

[theeedude]

I am OK with Republicans getting rid of the filibuster once and for all, if that's the way they want to go. Obama is still going to veto their turd bills.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Your ideas of what it was 'intended' to be involved with are amusing and self serving I'm sure.

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."

Protip - eliminating the filibuster has nothing to do with the constitutional amendment process and clearly 74% support for something doesn't translate into an amendment. Eliminating the filibuster doesn't change that in any way, shape, or form.

Unless you can point me to a place where I said that the constitution should be amended by majority rule, your statement was stupid.

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.

Well the science says differently and those who make policy agree. Next time there's a big recession, say hello to more stimulus! You know it, and I know it.

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

I'm willing to do it and find out! I think you'd be surprised at how little would change. For a hint go look at their current 'repeal' plan. It's quite similar to the ACA.

I'm confident that someday the Republicans will control enough to 'repeal' the ACA in some way. What they will call 'repeal' will be very, very disappointing to you.

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.

I'm quite sure there wouldn't be, and I'm willing to take that chance. It's a more functional government without the filibuster.

You actually support the filibuster precisely because of your own narrow wants. You likely think that the ability to block progressive legislation is more important than the ability to implement conservative legislation. This isn't necessarily wrong, as progressive legislation tends to become quite popular after being enacted.

 

[Jhhnn]

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......

Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that Repubs have egregiously abused the filibuster over the last 6 years. They claim govt is incompetent & then make it so.

Now, they're whining over an immigration bill designed to be vetoed. It's called posturing in lieu of honest effort.

 

[theeedude]

BTW, this is Senate election map for 2016:

Dems don't have 6 vulnerable seats coming up, so they could even let vulnerable members vote for cloture on sensitive matters and still maintain the filibuster. Quite a pickle for turtle boy and orange man there.

 

[glenn1]

Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that Repubs have egregiously abused the filibuster over the last 6 years. They claim govt is incompetent & then make it so.

Now, they're whining over an immigration bill designed to be vetoed. It's called posturing in lieu of honest effort.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html


Key Takeaway:

What do these calculations reveal? First, over the past two decades or so, the senators who successfully filibustered something represented about 46 percent of Americans on average. Yes, that is a minority—but it is a far cry from the nightmare scenarios sometimes deployed by opponents of the filibuster, who worry that as little as 11 percent or 12 percent of the country could obstruct popular legislation. Since 1991, in fact, there have been only four filibusters—3 percent of the total—that thwarted senators representing more than 65 percent of the American people.*


What's most striking, though, are the many cases in which the filibustering Senate minority has actually represented a majority of Americans. In fact, in 40 percent of the filibusters since 1991, the senators making up the "obstructionist" minority represented more people than the majority they defeated.

This example is typical of a more general partisan pattern. When Republicans have been in the majority, the filibustering minority has actually represented the majority of Americans 64 percent of the time. When Democrats have been in the majority, that figure plummets to 3 percent.

 

[theeedude]

When Republicans have been in the majority, the filibustering minority has actually represented the majority of Americans 64 percent of the time. When Democrats have been in the majority, that figure plummets to 3 percent.

So Democrats actually represent majority of Americans when they filibuster 64% of the time, and Republicans only do so 3% of the time.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/02/let_the_majority_rule.html

Key Takeaway:

What do these calculations reveal? First, over the past two decades or so, the senators who successfully filibustered something represented about 46 percent of Americans on average. Yes, that is a minority—but it is a far cry from the nightmare scenarios sometimes deployed by opponents of the filibuster, who worry that as little as 11 percent or 12 percent of the country could obstruct popular legislation. Since 1991, in fact, there have been only four filibusters—3 percent of the total—that thwarted senators representing more than 65 percent of the American people.*

What's most striking, though, are the many cases in which the filibustering Senate minority has actually represented a majority of Americans. In fact, in 40 percent of the filibusters since 1991, the senators making up the "obstructionist" minority represented more people than the majority they defeated.

This example is typical of a more general partisan pattern. When Republicans have been in the majority, the filibustering minority has actually represented the majority of Americans 64 percent of the time. When Democrats have been in the majority, that figure plummets to 3 percent.

1. It treats all cloture votes equally. Bad idea.

2. Is hopelessly out of date considering that in the last 5 years a huge percentage of the overall cloture votes ever in US history have been filed and his analysis was written in 2010.

3. The nature and use of the filibuster has dramatically changed since 2006/2008.

4. Doesn't even take into account the large percentage of items that are simply never advanced due to threatened filibusters.

Yes, the filibuster can sometimes act as a counterweight to the undemocratic nature of the Senate. On the whole it does not. It makes the institution non-functional.

 

[dank69]

So Democrats actually represent majority of Americans when they filibuster 64% of the time, and Republicans only do so 3% of the time.

But but but ... both parties are the same!

 

[Jaskalas]

1. It treats all cloture votes equally. Bad idea.

2. Is hopelessly out of date considering that in the last 5 years a huge percentage of the overall cloture votes ever in US history have been filed and his analysis was written in 2010.

3. The nature and use of the filibuster has dramatically changed since 2006/2008.

4. Doesn't even take into account the large percentage of items that are simply never advanced due to threatened filibusters.

Yes, the filibuster can sometimes act as a counterweight to the undemocratic nature of the Senate. On the whole it does not. It makes the institution non-functional.

A second topic in as many weeks where I agree with Eskimospy.

 

[fskimospy]

A second topic in as many weeks where I agree with Eskimospy.

Maybe we should make a friendship ring!

 

[dphantom]

An excerpt from Federalist Paper 62 that is pertinent here regarding the Senate.

"Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

 

[fskimospy]

An excerpt from Federalist Paper 62 that is pertinent here regarding the Senate.

"Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

That's talking about why the Senate should be structured to give equal representation to states regardless of population. What does that have to do with the filibuster?

 

[First]

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.

lol. Your posts are amazingly awful. You realize there are more self-identified Dems/liberals/progressives than there are Repubs/conservatives/libertarians, yes? Or that far more want to fix parts of ACA than repeal it, yes?

Nah, course you don't.

 

[glenn1]

So Democrats actually represent majority of Americans when they filibuster 64% of the time, and Republicans only do so 3% of the time.

Yes, it is typically more "beneficial" to Democrats representing majority opinion than vice versa. I already said in an earlier post that I support it to help squash bad ideas from both parties and don't care about the party split. If it makes you feel better I'll even stipulate that the GOP has more bad ideas then the Democrats, hell even huge amounts more if that's what you want to hear. It's kinda like the whole "we'd rather let 100 guilty men go free, than execute one innocent man."

We don't have a Westminster system of government I would strongly oppose it if proposed. Laws passed by Congress should be broadly acceptable bipartisan compromises and any divisive issues left to individual states to adopt as they see fit.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I guess if they succeeded in this they would then be shocked to learn the president has this thing called veto power.

 

[dphantom]

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

I was responding to this specifically to the above but did not make that clear.

As for the filibuster, the Senate as the House can make up their own rules on how to manage their business. I have no problem with the filibuster in general. like the make up of the Senate, it puts a check on preventing the majority for pushing its agenda onto an unwilling minority without their input or consent.

 

[fskimospy]

I was responding to this specifically to the above but did not make that clear.

As for the filibuster, the Senate as the House can make up their own rules on how to manage their business. I have no problem with the filibuster in general. like the make up of the Senate, it puts a check on preventing the majority for pushing its agenda onto an unwilling minority without their input or consent.

I just don't think it serves a valid purpose. The Senate already exists as a check on the majority, the filibuster just makes that check more extreme.

While it's true that each chamber can make its own rules, the existence of the filibuster is due entirely to an accident while making the rules one time back in the day. It has been slowly but surely cut down over time, but I think it's long past due that we eliminate it entirely.

 

[Ken g6]

How about a compromise? They can remove the filibuster if they can find a way to ensure that gerrymandering doesn't happen when redistricting.

 

[master_shake_]

that's fucking rich.

 

[Jaskalas]

I guess if they succeeded in this they would then be shocked to learn the president has this thing called veto power.

And the country would be better off for it. Next election the Dems and Reps could fight over each veto... telling the voters what sort of results they'd get when they elect a President. Instead of electing a President, not seeing the results, and then getting mad at him for doing nothing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How about a compromise? They can remove the filibuster if they can find a way to ensure that gerrymandering doesn't happen when redistricting.

Perhaps Republicans should compromise just as much as Democrats did when they limited the filibuster rules during their season of Senate control.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps Republicans should compromise just as much as Democrats did when they limited the filibuster rules during their season of Senate control.

And perhaps the Democrats should use the filibuster as judiciously as the Republicans did, no?

I hope the Republicans are totally uncompromising and simply remove it altogether.

 

[dank69]

Perhaps Republicans should compromise just as much as Democrats did when they limited the filibuster rules during their season of Senate control.

Compromise on appointees? The GOP didn't even have any objections to the appointees.