1 1
SethInMI

the filibuster

the filibuster yea or nay  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. is the filibuster good for the USA?

    • yes. it protects minorities and preserves the status quo
      4
    • no. it stymies the will of the people
      13
    • boobies. USA! USA!
      4


Recommended Posts

I think the filibuster is a bad idea. The interesting thing is how both D's and R's know that changing it will benefit both sides, and so they talk but neither side has pulled the trigger when they had the chance. so going off history it seems unlikely to get eliminated this Congress term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

The senate as selected is a very bad idea. The filibuster is a modification of that basic flaw that succeeds in making it even worse. Moscow Mitch is the most disingenuous politician of our time. Being a non American I did not vote in your poll.

Edited by gowlerk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The senate as selected is a very bad idea. The filibuster is a modification of that basic flaw that succeeds in making it even worse. Moscow Mitch is the most disingenuous politician of our time. Being a non American I did not vote in your poll.

Aw, come on and vote; You are a North American, and it's not like we're going to extradite you for voter fraud. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to vote boobies because, well, it’s the USA. I can’t vote yes or no. I think it is good as originally intended but bad as currently practiced, so I can’t go all in one way or the other. I’m for reinstatement of the talking filibuster. I don’t think it was intended to simply be a veto by the minority. Even the name makes it sound as though it was intended to be a difficult but possibly necessary process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, murps2000 said:

... I think it is good as originally intended but bad as currently practiced, so I can’t go all in one way or the other. I’m for reinstatement of the talking filibuster. I don’t think it was intended to simply be a veto by the minority. Even the name makes it sound as though it was intended to be a difficult but possibly necessary process.

^This.

Originally, the person intending to stall the process via filibuster had to actually hold the floor. Continue talking. 
That takes a lot of work, and holds up everything else the Senate is doing.

The rules were changed in 1970, something called the 'two track' system. That allows a filibuster to be 'officially' taking place, holding up a particular piece of legislation, while everything else proceeds normally.

I can see the need for some sort of way that the minority can create difficulties for the majority to run rampant over the process. That's part of what the Senate was created for. 
But it should at least go back to being 'difficult'. 
If the minority wants to hold up a particular piece of legislation, make them bring everything to a halt. Let them pay that political price. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might get to hear Ted Cruz recite Green Eggs and Ham again

I'm in favor of having to actually talk during a filibuster, too. I guess I watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" at too impressionable an age.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the topic of gridlock / obstructing, i recently learned about Article 49.3 of the French Constitution which I am sure many embattled US presidents have wished for 

Article 49.3 allows the executive branch to pass a law without the consent of the legislature. All the legislature can do is vote to censure, which if passed causes the Government to dissolve and elections to be held. In essence, forcing a referendum on the law in question.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SethInMI said:

on the topic of gridlock / obstructing, i recently learned about Article 49.3 of the French Constitution which I am sure many embattled US presidents have wished for 

Article 49.3 allows the executive branch to pass a law without the consent of the legislature. All the legislature can do is vote to censure, which if passed causes the Government to dissolve and elections to be held. In essence, forcing a referendum on the law in question.  

That's so against how the three branches in the US work, though. The Executive Action is the closest we have to that, and it's been wielded more and more often of late.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a country where abortion was greatly constrained, concealed carry reciprocity was nation wide NPR was abolished, southern border was effectively sealed, wind solar and E-car subsidies eliminated, all federal lands opened up for mineral and fossil fuel exploitation, federal funding was stripped from sanctuary cities, planned parenthood and BLM were stripped of their tax exempt status.  Without the filibuster all of that is just one election away.  With a solidly conservative SC, a razor thin margin in the House and a 50/50 senate, it is not out of the realm of possibility.  When Harry Reid used the nuclear option for judiciary appointments, it resulted in Trump filling three seats on the SC, congratulations Harry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The automatic filibuster always reminds me of the classic Star Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon."   In that, the intrepid crew visits a planet where the inconveniences and destructiveness of war with a nearby foe have been replaced with a simulation, the results of which determine certain people to have been "killed" in a battle. Those people then report to disintegration chambers, where they are, well, disintegrated.  The Enterprise upsets this system/treaty, so the adversaries actually have to start dealing with each other to avoid a real war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Imagine a country where abortion was greatly constrained, concealed carry reciprocity was nation wide NPR was abolished, southern border was effectively sealed, wind solar and E-car subsidies eliminated, all federal lands opened up for mineral and fossil fuel exploitation, federal funding was stripped from sanctuary cities, planned parenthood and BLM were stripped of their tax exempt status.  Without the filibuster all of that is just one election away.  With a solidly conservative SC, a razor thin margin in the House and a 50/50 senate, it is not out of the realm of possibility.  When Harry Reid used the nuclear option for judiciary appointments, it resulted in Trump filling three seats on the SC, congratulations Harry!

All in two years? That's a pretty tall order.

Because, you know, unless they gerrymander the shit out of the country, they'll lose that majority. Unless you approve of gerrymandering and making voting harder for your opponent as well. It's telling that no matter how low someone can go, the Republicans can go lower.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

All in two years? That's a pretty tall order.

Because, you know, unless they gerrymander the shit out of the country, they'll lose that majority. Unless you approve of gerrymandering and making voting harder for your opponent as well. It's telling that no matter how low someone can go, the Republicans can go lower.

Wendy P.

Wendy, he may be correct. Ten more GOP reps in the house and a couple senators would have allowed Trump's attempt to steal the election to succeed. And there is a good chance the SC would have stood by. The civil unrest over the summer would be explosive. Still, McConnell's threats are empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

All in two years? That's a pretty tall order.

Because, you know, unless they gerrymander the shit out of the country, they'll lose that majority. Unless you approve of gerrymandering and making voting harder for your opponent as well. It's telling that no matter how low someone can go, the Republicans can go lower.

Wendy P.

That is the point, with the WH, Senate and House and without a filibuster, it can be done in a matter of days.  Sure they will loose Congress in the next election but until the Ds regain the WH, it will stand and it works both ways.  Go ahead and advocate for the end of the filibuster, but do so at your peril.

To your point about the next election cycle...you would think the Ds would have learned their lesson after they got “shellaced” in the mid-terms after Obamacare was shoved down the throat of Americans on a party line vote.  Can’t wait for the mid-terms^_^

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 11:59 AM, billvon said:

Agreed.  With a requirement that they be standing at the podium talking.

I simply cannot believe that anyone wouldn't prefer a system where you could stand up and be a nonstop asshole until your booze ran out. What has happened to this country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is the point, with the WH, Senate and House and without a filibuster, it can be done in a matter of days.  Sure they will loose Congress in the next election but until the Ds regain the WH, it will stand and it works both ways.  Go ahead and advocate for the end of the filibuster, but do so at your peril.

To your point about the next election cycle...you would think the Ds would have learned their lesson after they got “shellaced” in the mid-terms after Obamacare was shoved down the throat of Americans on a party line vote.  Can’t wait for the mid-terms^_^

I’m curious because I can’t figure it out from your posts. Are you for or against ending the filibuster? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1