questioning the whole filibuster in the U.S. Senate

Post Reply New Topic

With all due respect to Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington," I don't think the filibuster is such good a thing.

What does this have to do with a filibuster?

From the link:

Republicans and gun lovers will probably have karma coming after them if Obama tries again and gun laws pass both the House and the Senate.

I'd recommend a review of the history of the filabuster in the US Senate, and how it changed from "unlimited debate" to "2/3 cut off" to "60 votes". Keep in mind that the reason that 60 votes are needed is to limit debate to 1 hour per senator. If the majority party wants to push through without 60 votes, there is'nt anything stopping them (at least until the end of a congress on Janurary 3) from having unlimited debate until there is no objection to a vote.

In other words, the way to break a filabuster is either to a) Get 60 votes to end debate, or b)keep the debate open until the blocking side pays a political price (ie, force a "talking filabuster"). Sen. Santorum tried the later option in what amounted to a publicity stunt in 2005-ish, and had 24 hours of debate. It probably scored some minor political points, but it also helped create the "gang of 12" compromise that ended some logjams back at that time.

The reason for the 60 vote option was also to prevent fights over controversal legislation from shutting down the floor. Under the "two track" system, routine business would be held in the morning, and the calendar would have controversal legislation in the afternoon. Over time, that system kinda broke down (under both parties).

The other option, through it's limited to fiscal measures, is to put things through on spending bills. The senate parlimentarian is supposed to prevent that however, and did strike out pieces of legislation during the senate debate and floor vote that would lead to the ACCA/PPACA in 2010.

Everybody hates filibusters until it's used for something they approve of. If you take it away, you're hurting your own side too.

The filibuster is an integral part part of our democracy. This is not mob rule. Republican amendments were also blocked by democrats today as well. They were actually close to passing than the Democrat's proposals.

The facts are that none of this proposed legislation would of stopped what happened in Newtown. It was purely ideological driven and they were using victims as emotional blackmail.

We are talking a Constitutionally guaranteed right here, so a requirement for a super-majority is hardly out of line. Depending upon how SCOTUS goes in the future, all of this crap might be off the table for Congress without a much more difficult type of vote.

Time for "compromise".

Actually, the existance of the filibuster strengthens the power of the Senate. Let's look at the powers of the Senate:

1. Propose and pass (non-revenue) bills.
2. Pass or amend House (or revenue) bills.
3. Ratify Treaties
4. Confirm executive appointments
5. Carry out impeachment trials (:snore: last guy who was impeached resigned twice before they finished the vote)

And the usual oversight and regulatory review processes...

If, outside of fiscal bills, the Senate has to assemble 60 votes to move controversal actions, that makes each and every senator's vote worth that much more.

The last thing individual senators want is to become like the house, where all they need is 218 votes, and they can hold the vote open 3 hours to twist arms. The House has been like that since the early 1800s. With the weakening of the commitees, including the approprations sub-commitees, the House has lost more and more of it's power because it's only a matter of who can whip up 218 votes.

Here's a question for this board.....does anyone remember the contested nomination for the President's National Counctil on Disability?

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Art. 1, Sec. 5