the filibuster

[SethInMI 156]

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. 

[ryoder 1,523]

The theory: It requires both sides to work together to pass bills.

The reality: It enables one side holding 40-50 seats to obstruct everything.

[gowlerk 2,072]

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 March 17, 2021 by gowlerk

[ryoder 1,523]

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

[murps2000 86]

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.

[wolfriverjoe 1,450]

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. 

[wmw999 2,291]

What Murps and Joe said. 100%. Including the part Murps said about voting boobies

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,050]

The filibuster has fallen victim to tribalism. It used to be a tool for democracy but now is merely a club to beat democracy into submission.

[billvon 2,684]

10 hours ago, murps2000 said:

I’m for reinstatement of the talking filibuster. 

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

[Rick 67]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

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

I agree with this if you want to filibuster you should have to work for it

[ryoder 1,523]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

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

And no pee bottles nor catheters allowed!

[JerryBaumchen 1,241]

3 minutes ago, ryoder said:

And no pee bottles nor catheters allowed!

Hi Robert,

Let's see; a bunch of old guys up there talking, it'll be a short soliloquy.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,291]

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.

[SethInMI 156]

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.  

[wmw999 2,291]

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.

[kallend 1,799]

I like boobies.

[brenthutch 416]

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!

[headoverheels 323]

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.

 

[wmw999 2,291]

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.

[gowlerk 2,072]

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.

[brenthutch 416]

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 March 18, 2021 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,291]

My opinion is above. Return the filibuster to how it was originally, requiring action, not just threat. 
Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,523]

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?

[murps2000 86]

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.

[wmw999 2,291]

He’s for whatever puts someone down. 
Wendy P.