Senate filibuster reform

[Sims2789]

Back in the old days (after secret holds were rarely used, before the current situation), I'm pretty sure senators had to actually physically speak to hold a filibuster, instead of simply voting to not end "debate" without anybody actually physically reading jibberish on the Senate floor.

This would not reduce the Senate's purpose as a more moderate body somewhat insulated to short-term public opinion since forty senators would still be able to filibuster bills as long as they are willing to take turns speaking till the bill is killed, but it would prevent obstructionism, i.e., senators filibustering bills so that the other party won't get things done and will suffer a political defeat.

 

[emzie]

Reed doesn't have the balls to actually hand McConnel a phone book and say "get to it." Which is unfortunate. He's a pretty underwhelming leader.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Reid sucks. If you have a leader who actually makes people take to the floor, then it works better.

Cleo

 

[GinandTonic]

Back in the old days (after secret holds were rarely used, before the current situation), I'm pretty sure senators had to actually physically speak to hold a filibuster, instead of simply voting to not end "debate" without anybody actually physically reading jibberish on the Senate floor.

This would not reduce the Senate's purpose as a more moderate body somewhat insulated to short-term public opinion since forty senators would still be able to filibuster bills as long as they are willing to take turns speaking till the bill is killed, but it would prevent obstructionism, i.e., senators filibustering bills so that the other party won't get things done and will suffer a political defeat.

What kind of sorryarsed filibustering do you have? Sod the phone book, they should have to speak on the topic to avoid being in contempt of the house. Does the speaker have no authority to boot them out if they just read the phone book?

Did we teach you nothing

 

[diggygames]

Reed doesn't have the balls to actually hand McConnel a phone book and say "get to it." Which is unfortunate. He's a pretty underwhelming leader.

LOL, does anyone?

 

[Lillefix]

Didn't the Roman Republic have some kind of filibustering-thing along those lines. I believe Cato among others liked to talk the other senators to death.

 

[Dachs]

Didn't the Roman Republic have some kind of filibustering-thing along those lines. I believe Cato among others liked to talk the other senators to death.

Somewhat along those lines, yes, and most famously used by the younger Cato. However, if you could shout down the attempted filibusterer, or otherwise stop the speech, then you could move on.

 

[Shadylookin]

well the dems could tell them if they want to filibuster then they have to do it for real, but they usually just back down if they know they can't get the 60 votes for cloture. Personally I think it'd make for a great attack ad "While the American economy was in a downturn and thousands of Americans were losing their jobs Senator INSERT_NAME_HERE was wasting time reading from a phone book on the senate floor"

 

[Cutlass]

Lieberman was just on TV saying they had 61 votes to break the filibuster.

 

[bhsup]

I don't like the man, but give "My dog Billie" Byrd his due. The man knew how to filibuster.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Theres always the "nuclear" option

 

[Dachs]

Theres always the "nuclear" option

Pat Robertson wanted to target Foggy Bottom, dude, not the Capitol. I suppose the same nuke would destroy both, though.

yes I know that that's something different

 

[Trajan12]

Can someone please explain the usefulness of the filibuster to me?

What, is having a majority of the Senate good for if 40 senators can just filibuster anything you put up? What would be so wrong with a 51 seat majority being able to end the debate? Isn't that the whole goddamn point of having 100 senators, with 50 being the threshold for control?

 

[downtown]

Its about protecting minority rights

 

[Dachs]

Can someone please explain the usefulness of the filibuster to me?

Protection of minority rights?

What, is having a majority of the Senate good for if 40 senators can just filibuster anything you put up? What would be so wrong with a 51 seat majority being able to end the debate? Isn't that the whole goddamn point of having 100 senators, with 50 being the threshold for control?

You can't filibuster anything. For example, budget bills are off limits.

 

[Cutlass]

Can someone please explain the usefulness of the filibuster to me?

What, is having a majority of the Senate good for if 40 senators can just filibuster anything you put up? What would be so wrong with a 51 seat majority being able to end the debate? Isn't that the whole goddamn point of having 100 senators, with 50 being the threshold for control?

The purpose of the design of the system is not to prevent all legislation from going forward, but rather to prevent it from going forward until the majority of both houses of Congress and the president are well and truly convinced that it is a good thing.

The system is designed to be slow and easy to obstruct, so that sober thought will win out in the end.

Occasionally it even does.

 

[Ekmek]

always the party IN power sees filibustering as obstructionist and it should be banned. But once they are out of power they love to use.

keep it as is, or maybe just make everything require a supermajority. Its a great system to prevent tyrrany of the majority. And the only check and balance left in the system. The early 20th century progressives destroyed the founders vision of checks and balances by the 17th amendment. So now the only check and balance is by parties not branches. Recent history (Clinton 92-94) and Bush (2002-2006) shows that once a party owns all three branches checks are out of the window.

 

[Dachs]

The early 20th century progressives destroyed the founders vision of checks and balances by the 17th amendment.

what tenchar

 

[Ekmek]

when they created direct election of senators it broke the local state party boss power and ended up making senators party of the national party machines. the same things that elect representatives and the president. transferred power from the states to the parties. now the fed is divided by left-right parties before it was the executive as the nationally elected leader, the represenatives for the locally/popularly elected lower house, and the senate represented the local/state govts. that was changed with the 17th amendment

 

[MagisterCultuum]

How about just letting Senators leave and reconvene at a different location, where they can hold votes so long as they have a quorum?

And then maybe repeal the 17th amendment?

And then require all elections to federal offices to use Fractional Ballots or Ranged Voting and outlaw giving political parties official recognition for purposes of primaries etc., to give the populace a greater say than just a choice of the lesser of two evils.

And them maybe making congress use ranged voting on their bills too?

And then allow line item vetoes, but allow congress to override line item vetoes and any executive orders wiht a simple majority?