Some Conservatives Already Advocating Limiting the Filibuster

[glenn1]

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.

They should remove it for nominations. Obama and other Presidents deserve to have their personnel in place without lengthy delays and not be "Borked" for simple partisan reasons. Legislation is another story.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

And what does that have to do with what I said? My point was about Democrat's complete unwillingness to compromise when they unilaterally changed Senate rules in 2013 (despite many promises they wouldn't) and revoked Republican ability to filibuster appointees. Should they not be treated in like kind?

 

[fskimospy]

And what does that have to do with what I said? My point was about Democrat's complete unwillingness to compromise when they unilaterally changed Senate rules in 2013 (despite many promises they wouldn't) and revoked Republican ability to filibuster appointees. Should they not be treated in like kind?

What kind of compromise would you have advocated for the nominees in question?

For example, the Republicans refused to appoint a head for the CFPB or people to the NLRB. Not because of an objection to the nominee, but because they didn't like the agencies themselves. Should we have enshrined a policy of holding the leadership of federal agencies hostage to get policy concessions you can't get through legislation? I mean does that sound like a good idea to you?

Another example: the Republicans decided to filibuster Obama's nominees to the DC Circuit. Not because they had a problem with them, but because they didn't want the court to tilt Democratic. They were deliberately preventing the judiciary from being staffed. There should be no compromise on that. Blocking them was completely wrong. If you have a problem with the nominee at least I understand. Blocking nominees because you simply don't want the position ever filled is irresponsible.

 

[fskimospy]

They should remove it for nominations. Obama and other Presidents deserve to have their personnel in place without lengthy delays and not be "Borked" for simple partisan reasons. Legislation is another story.

While I obviously disagree about legislation I do agree that if the next president is a Republican that they should be able to staff their agencies as they see fit. I do agree that Robert Bork's nomination was the start down a pretty sad path.

 

[Fern]

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%?

That was part of the bargain to get the original colonies to form a union. The smaller states were quite adamant. They were concerned about getting pushed around by larger and more populous states. It was part of the deal when the newer states joint.

I see no good reason the Senate should morph into a House#2 and also be representative of population.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What kind of compromise would you have advocated for the nominees in question?

For example, the Republicans refused to appoint a head for the CFPB or people to the NLRB. Not because of an objection to the nominee, but because they didn't like the agencies themselves. Should we have enshrined a policy of holding the leadership of federal agencies hostage to get policy concessions you can't get through legislation? I mean does that sound like a good idea to you?

Another example: the Republicans decided to filibuster Obama's nominees to the DC Circuit. Not because they had a problem with them, but because they didn't want the court to tilt Democratic. They were deliberately preventing the judiciary from being staffed. There should be no compromise on that. Blocking them was completely wrong. If you have a problem with the nominee at least I understand. Blocking nominees because you simply don't want the position ever filled is irresponsible.

My point appears to be less than clear. I was talking about the lack of compromise in relation to the rule changes regarding filibuster. It seems odd to me that Democrats would expect different treatment in this regard now that the shoe is on the other foot. I'm sure that you think Democrats were justified...you always do it seems. However, I hope that Republicans don't stoop to that level. Anyway, appointments are now going through in a reasonable manner and Democrats are now able ask for amendments...much more so than what they allowed under their leadership. This change in leadership is welcome imo.

 

[fskimospy]

My point appears to be less than clear. I was talking about the lack of compromise in relation to the rule changes regarding filibuster. It seems odd to me that Democrats would expect different treatment in this regard now that the shoe is on the other foot. I'm sure that you think Democrats were justified...you always do it seems. However, I hope that Republicans don't stoop to that level. Anyway, appointments are now going through in a reasonable manner and Democrats are now able ask for amendments...much more so than what they allowed under their leadership. This change in leadership is welcome imo.

What would the compromise have been?

 

[Jhhnn]

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

It never would have come to that had Repubs been willing to compromise in the first place. they've intended to obstruct entirely, grind the workings of the Senate to a halt. They've accomplished that from both ends- with filibuster & by attempting to flood the agenda with measures that the majority obviously wouldn't approve, whining about how Reid wouldn't bring them up for debate. Of course he wouldn't- Repubs took up too much Senate time in bloviation anyway.

Even in the majority, they're still taking hostages, like attaching an absurd immigration measure to DHS appropriations.

 

[Jhhnn]

My point appears to be less than clear. I was talking about the lack of compromise in relation to the rule changes regarding filibuster. It seems odd to me that Democrats would expect different treatment in this regard now that the shoe is on the other foot. I'm sure that you think Democrats were justified...you always do it seems. However, I hope that Republicans don't stoop to that level. Anyway, appointments are now going through in a reasonable manner and Democrats are now able ask for amendments...much more so than what they allowed under their leadership. This change in leadership is welcome imo.

How quickly we forget. Repubs threatened the nuclear option in 2005 over 8 judicial nominees. 8 years later, they screamed like stuck pigs when Reid actually did so in response to hundreds of their own filibusters.

 

[glenn1]

How quickly we forget. Repubs threatened the nuclear option in 2005 over 8 judicial nominees. 8 years later, they screamed like stuck pigs when Reid actually did so in response to hundreds of their own filibusters.

Would probably work better if we just moved to a negative consent for nominees - they're presumed confirmed after 90 days unless specifically declined or the Senate votes to extend the time for consideration.

 

[werepossum]

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......

Yep.

+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.

Yep. I fully support the filibuster, but Congress needs three rings like any good circus. Move filibusters to a side ring and let them talk to their hearts' content. Maybe someone will even listen. But you gotta do it standing up, and you gotta have someone to take over for your breaks.

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.

Of course you do. As PokerGuy points out, it's an excellent tool to stop extremist legislation even when one party has a strong upper hand. As an extremist, the filibuster is squarely in your way.

Personally I think we already have far too many laws and regulations. The only new ones should have a very broad mandate, not simply a unified party willing to fall on their collective political swords to advance the party agenda.

 

[kage69]

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.

I don't always agree with you glenn, but credit where credit is due. Well said. Kudos for elaborating a point I can respect as well as gain perspective from. I do think that historical factoid says more about the GOP then it just having bad ideas though, but that's another topic...

 

[Engineer]

I remember the talk the last time the GOP was in power about going the nuclear option. They, after losing power, were very happy to have not done so.

Be careful what you wish for because if you get it, the effects if you lose power will be not pretty. But it could help eliminate the biggest of the filibuster parties...

 

[werepossum]

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.

Well said, sir, and with your later-noted exceptions of nominees and required spending bills I agree completely. I would quibble a bit with that last bit though. In our system of government, human rights are granted by G-d (or if you prefer, inherent to humans) and merely protected by the federal government. With that understanding, I think that we should have the same rights in every state, regardless of whether something is divisive. Gay marriage bans and slavery were hugely divisive issues, yet overcoming each is necessary if we're to reach our stated reason for existence as a nation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How quickly we forget. Repubs threatened the nuclear option in 2005 over 8 judicial nominees. 8 years later, they screamed like stuck pigs when Reid actually did so in response to hundreds of their own filibusters.

Perhaps it's Democrat's time to scream like stuffed pigs...no?

 

[Zorba]

Would probably work better if we just moved to a negative consent for nominees - they're presumed confirmed after 90 days unless specifically declined or the Senate votes to extend the time for consideration.

:thumbsup: This. I have no idea how Obama will get any appointments through at this point.

 

[Zorba]

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......

I agree the filibuster should stay, but there needs to be some kind of limits. Not sure the guy should have to stand and talk the whole time, but you also shouldn't be able to filibuster everything just to be an obstructionist. I am not exactly sure the best way to accomplish this, but I am sure there is some method.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps it's Democrat's time to scream like stuffed pigs...no?

Please. Prior to the 2007 session, filibusters were used with much less frequency. When Repubs lost the Senate, they ramped up filibusters enormously. 2 years later, after Dems took the Whitehouse, they ramped up to obscene levels. Mitch McConnell even filibustered his own bill moments after introducing it. They set out to hobble the govt simply for the reason that they weren't running it. They raised partisanship to a new level, made a travesty of the normal processes of the Senate.

That's the truth. Deal with it.

 

[glenn1]

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.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say not only the filibuster was removed but any checks whatsoever on majority rule. If given that kind of power would you, Eskimospy, use that power to implement your policies on the entire country? You could impose the political policies and laws of NYC, SF, a European country, or whatever you see as your political idea upon every citizen of the country even down to the most troglodyte citizens of the reddest of red states. From gay marriage to gun control, abortion to Keynesian stimulus, you could impose your preferred solution on them without constraint due to your "majority" status. Would you?

 

[fskimospy]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say not only the filibuster was removed but any checks whatsoever on majority rule. If given that kind of power would you, Eskimospy, use that power to implement your policies on the entire country? You could impose the political policies and laws of NYC, SF, a European country, or whatever you see as your political idea upon every citizen of the country even down to the most troglodyte citizens of the reddest of red states. From gay marriage to gun control, abortion to Keynesian stimulus, you could impose your preferred solution on them without constraint due to your "majority" status. Would you?

Why would we do that thought experiment? I don't believe in unchecked majority rule so of course not. Anyways, why worry about that when we're getting almost all of those things in our current system? Gay marriage is sweeping the nation, we both know that Keynesian stimulus will be employed during the next downturn because it works, etc, etc. (I can only imagine how incandescent with rage that all makes you, haha)

None of that changes the fact that the filibuster is a mistake of history that has made our upper legislative chamber act in ways it was never designed to do to the detriment of the country. Because you don't have a good argument for the filibuster you're trying to make this into a ridiculous 'either you support the filibuster or you're for unchecked majoritarian tyranny', which is stupid.

 

[glenn1]

Why would we do that thought experiment? I don't believe in unchecked majority rule so of course not. Anyways, why worry about that when we're getting almost all of those things in our current system? Gay marriage is sweeping the nation, we both know that Keynesian stimulus will be employed during the next downturn because it works, etc, etc. (I can only imagine how incandescent with rage that all makes you, haha)

None of that changes the fact that the filibuster is a mistake of history that has made our upper legislative chamber act in ways it was never designed to do to the detriment of the country. Because you don't have a good argument for the filibuster you're trying to make this into a ridiculous 'either you support the filibuster or you're for unchecked majoritarian tyranny', which is stupid.

What checks do you think are reasonable then? You oppose the filibuster and dislike that Senate representation is not proportional to population. If you got your way what would restraint unchecked majority rule in the future if Congress and President were both controlled by the same party? BTW, the census reports that the "South" region has a 37.6% share of U.S. population and it's not impossible they could go from plurality to straight up majority sometime in the future. Do you really want your lifestyle in NYC dictated by the fastest growing regional block that also happens to have antediluvian conservative social views as one of its defining features?

 

[fskimospy]

What checks do you think are reasonable then? You oppose the filibuster and dislike that Senate representation is not proportional to population. If you got your way what would restraint unchecked majority rule in the future if Congress and President were both controlled by the same party? BTW, the census reports that the "South" region has a 37.6% share of U.S. population and it's not impossible they could go from plurality to straight up majority sometime in the future. Do you really want your lifestyle in NYC dictated by the fastest growing regional block that also happens to have antediluvian conservative social views as one of its defining features?

I didn't say that I disliked that the senate has disproportionate representation, I said that it was undemocratic (which by definition it is when one person has more representation than another) and that the disproportion that exists now is about 600% more than when it was designed when comparing the largest to the smallest. That's important to note when discussing a measure that gives further power to the minority.

As for the South taking over, I'm not concerned. I'm not sure if you noticed, but much of the South's population growth has come from more liberal demographics. If the south census were to top 50% it would likely mean that the south had become much more liberal in the process. Not to mention that although the south is behind the rest of the country in social views their trend lines go the same way.

So yes, let's go to a full proportional representation and let the cards fall as they will! I'm all for it! You see I've actually thought this through. I don't know if you have.

 

[cubby1223]

I didn't say that I disliked that the senate has disproportionate representation, I said that it was undemocratic (which by definition it is when one person has more representation than another) and that the disproportion that exists now is about 600% more than when it was designed when comparing the largest to the smallest. That's important to note when discussing a measure that gives further power to the minority.

As for the South taking over, I'm not concerned. I'm not sure if you noticed, but much of the South's population growth has come from more liberal demographics. If the south census were to top 50% it would likely mean that the south had become much more liberal in the process. Not to mention that although the south is behind the rest of the country in social views their trend lines go the same way.

So yes, let's go to a full proportional representation and let the cards fall as they will! I'm all for it! You see I've actually thought this through. I don't know if you have.

It's very convenient that your intellectual disagreement with the system coincides with your political disagreements within the system.

 

[fskimospy]

It's very convenient that your intellectual disagreement with the system coincides with your political disagreements within the system.

/facepalm

Eliminating the filibuster would help the Republicans at this point in time.

 

[cubby1223]

/facepalm

Eliminating the filibuster would help the Republicans at this point in time.

I wasn't commenting on filibusters, I was commenting on your suggestions to alter the makeup of the Senate in ways that just happen to coincide with your political bias.

You see I've actually thought this through. I don't know if you have.

On the subject of the filibuster, I don't give a rats ass. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. Period. End of story.