Posted about this before, too, but again; it's gaining support for either revision or killing the filibuster. It probably won't happen, given the votes n..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Yes, the filibuster again...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, February 21, 2010 09:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1417
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Posted about this before, too, but again; it's gaining support for either revision or killing the filibuster. It probably won't happen, given the votes necessary to pass, but the idea seems to be picking up steam. Using reconciliation isn't a great tactic, but the Republicans have made anything else virtually impossible. Once again, maybe there's something stirring out there...



Here is the article she cites in its entirety:
Quote:

Senate Democrats need to use 'nuclear option' against GOP

The thing that really bothers me about Republicans' use of the filibuster to derail bills and stall the Senate's legislative process is not the tyrannical behavior of the GOP minority; it is the complicity of the Democratic majority.

While the Senate's 59-member Democratic caucus is one vote short of the 60 votes needed to cut off a filibuster, it has eight more votes than is required to stop the body's 41 Republicans from using the tactic to effectively block the will of the majority.

For much of its history, the Senate permitted unlimited debate on an issue. But in 1917, it enacted a rule that allowed a two-thirds majority of the body's members to cut off debate. That was reduced to a three-fifths vote in 1975. Since then, the Senate has been required to get the backing of 60 of the body's 100 senators to end a filibuster — a supermajority that flouts the basic idea of a majority-rule democracy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has effectively dismissed some of his fellow Democrats' efforts to change Senate rules so that, eventually, 51 votes would be enough to eliminate the filibuster.

Five years ago when Republicans controlled the Senate, they threatened to do just that when Democrats used the filibuster to block 10 of President Bush's judicial appointments. They called it a "nuclear option" and for good reason. The thing Senate Democrats and Republicans fear more than being in the minority is being out of power. The filibuster allows the body's minority party to stop the majority from acting if it can rally to its side 41 of the Senate's votes.

Until recently, the filibuster was used sparingly. But as party lines have come to mark this nation's ideological divide, the filibuster has become the roadside bomb of the Senate's minority party.

But as frustrated as each party has been by the other's heavy-handed use of the filibuster, neither has been willing to detonate the "nuclear option" out of fear that such action would harm them, too.

As he spoke in support of ending the filibuster last week on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean seemed to wish it wouldn't come to that. "Even though having a filibuster would help us in the long run if we get back into the minority, which statistically someday we're likely to do ... I think for the good of the country, we probably have to go forward (and) eliminate the filibuster."

The filibuster is a Faustian bargain that undermines the will of voters. The promise of change that swept Barack Obama into the presidency and padded Democratic majorities in the House and Senate last year has been largely derailed by the Senate's Republican minority, which has kept a broad array of legislation from coming to a vote.

More than outrageous, this legislative tyranny holds hostage our democracy to the whims of a political party that was on the losing end of an election cycle. The voters who gave Democrats control of Congress and the White House in the recent elections expect results, not inaction. They expect Congress to bring bills to a vote, not allow a mean-spirited minority to filibuster them to death.

If Democrats won't use the majority voters gave them to end this bad practice, then they deserve to suffer their wrath in November's elections.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/column-senate-democrats-need-to
-use-nuclear-option-against-gop.html


Chris Dodd is against it, but his reasoning seems fallacious:
Quote:

Dodd Defends Filibuster, Calls for More “Civility”
“I totally oppose the idea of changing filibuster rules,” Dodd said during an appearance on MSNBC. “That’s foolish, in my view.”

Some other Democratic senators, led by Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), have introduced a measure to change the filibuster, though leaders have acknowledged it is unlikely to pass.

Still, Democrats have been stymied on top priorities like health reform and climate change legislation by not being able to get the 60 votes needed to end debate, despite having had a majority of that size for some months.

Dodd said that changing filibuster rules wouldn’t do much to change a culture of incivility he said had crept into the Senate.

“There’s nothing wrong with partisanship. We’ve got to get over this notion that there’s something evil about partisanship,” the Connecticut senator said. “It’s the lack of civility.”

This mostly strikes me as non-responsive. Absolutely nobody outside of Washington, DC cares how civil or incivil members of the United States Senate are to one another. Indeed, as best I can tell Senators actually treat each other in an excessively polite manner. Any normal human being would have been disgusted by the bipartisan outpouring of love for corrupt mediocrity Ted Stevens that issued forth on the Senate floor on the occasion of his departure from the world’s least-functional deliberative body. But one way or another, the goal of Senate rules should be good public policy. If Dodd has an argument that the filibuster improves public policy, he should offer it. But “civility” is a non-issue.

I think there’s clear reason to believe that majority rule would, by reducing the bargaining power of individual members vis-a-vis party leadership and the White House, lead to policymaking that’s more focused on the national interest. Evan Bayh, for example, brags about how he “helped revitalize the recreational vehicle industry during tough times in the economic recession, passing a generous new sales tax deduction to help families purchase recreational vehicles.” Of course there’s no reason to think that a special tax incentive to buy RVs is good idea for America. But they build RVs in Indiana. And the need to assemble 60 votes to pass legislation makes it very reasonable for legislative leaders to agree to small-bore bad ideas like this in order to secure people’s votes. If you only need 50 votes there will still be side-deals, of course, but the “price” of such deals will be lower.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/dodd-defends-filibu
ster-calls-for-more-civility.php?sortby=toprated







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Dodd's got one foot out the door already, so anything he says, he says as the lamest of dead ducks. Sorry, but that's the truth, unvarnished.

That said, I'm still against the "nuclear option", but I *AM* in favor of dialing back the Senate rules to where they were in the 50s and 60s, when you had to actually stand up and say your piece for as long as you could hold out, in order to filibuster. No more of this procedural "intent to filibuster" bullshit; if you're going to do it, DO IT!

Now, if just SAYING you're going to do the nuclear option gets Republicans to come back to the table and start working with Democrats for real, that's fine. It worked for the Republicans a few years back, so it COULD do the trick. But doing away with the filibuster completely is a bad idea, in my opinion, because someday you're going to need it - and that day is more likely to be sooner than later.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 12:02 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Guys, being from the other side of the pond, I'm not too savvy with this concept of Filibustering.Is it basically a measure whereby a politician will drone on and on in order to forestall a vote?
I know that over here, when it comes to political conferences, we have the traffic light system. You start talking when the light is green and you conclude when the light is red. If you aint made your case in that allotted period then it's tough titty. Should have been more eloquent. Is this the gist or am I way off base, here?

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 3:06 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
... but I am in favor of dialing back the Senate rules to where they were in the 50s and 60s, when you had to actually stand up and say your piece for as long as you could hold out, in order to filibuster. No more of this procedural "intent to filibuster" bullshit; if you're going to do it, DO IT!


I agree 100%. It is bullshit using the "technique" they've used. Frankly, I'm amazed Reid never once called their bluff. I'd like to see one of these overfed, over martinied, self-absorbred blowhards actually have to stand on the floor like Jimmy Stewart did and actually filibuster.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 3:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


PeaceKeeper: Yup, you've got the gist of it. As long as you're standing there, still talking, they can't move on and motion for a vote. And there are some rules by which you can take a short break, yield the floor to someone else so THEY can keep talking, etc., without yielding the floor to a vote.




Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
... but I am in favor of dialing back the Senate rules to where they were in the 50s and 60s, when you had to actually stand up and say your piece for as long as you could hold out, in order to filibuster. No more of this procedural "intent to filibuster" bullshit; if you're going to do it, DO IT!


I agree 100%. It is bullshit using the "technique" they've used. Frankly, I'm amazed Reid never once called their bluff. I'd like to see one of these overfed, over martinied, self-absorbred blowhards actually have to stand on the floor like Jimmy Stewart did and actually filibuster.



Bingo. And the shits of it is, NONE OF THEM want to actually have to stand there and talk; they just want to threaten that they MIGHT do so. And both sides are guilty of not wanting to enforce the rules, lest someday someone forces THEM to go by those same rules. No, instead, they just threaten to do away with the rules, because that would work out so much better.

I'm a believer in unintended consequences, and I don't like the precedent doing away with the filibuster would set. It SOUNDS like a good idea, when you're the party in power, just like the line-item veto SOUNDS like a good idea when it's your guy in the White House. "Yeah, I like everything in this new bill, except the part where it says 'No torturing'; I'm not down with that, so I'mma strike that part, but then I'll sign off on the rest..." Wow, that works great, huh? Besides, with these idiotic "signing statements", we in essence already HAVE a line-item veto. We're allowing our lawmakers to only obey the parts of the laws they sign that they WANT to obey.

Not that that wasn't already the case, but now we allow them to actually write it down and sign it, and nobody calls them on it. That disturbs me.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 3:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Yeah, that's about it, and I am with Mikey on this, if you're gonna do it, then DO it, don't just declare intent, make someone stand and deliver, get up on the podium and go to work!

Hell, I'd lay good odds Ron Paul could keep goin on economic impact and constitutional reasons why it's a bad idea for a friggin WEEK without ever repeating himself even once.

Or better yet, read the whole goddamn bill out loud, cover to cover, that could take a MONTH.

That was actually one of the foremost tactics, historically, cause while not codified in any official document, the whole idea of the Constitution was that all proceedings of the Gov should be clearly comprehensible to anyone who could read at all, see ?

Have you ever TRIED to read the intentially vague doubletalk they write bills in these days ?

That crap could mean ANYTHING, and with the Supreme Court willing to interpret it any way their political backers desire, you could just transcribe the phone book for all the use most of this bullshit is.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 7:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


One thing is being forgotten here. Peace, Mike is right and that is about it. Anyone can stand up and start talking, and the bill can't come to a vote until he sits down (or falls down, like Jimmy Stewart did).

As long as they don't "yield" the floor, nothing can happen. But they can yield to someone else, who can keep talking, etc.

What nobody's mentioning is that this is a united effort by the Republicans. Ergo, one Republican stands up, starts talking, and when he's tired, merely yields to another, who yields to another--there are a lot of Republicans available, and by the time they went all the way around, the first one would be rested and ready to go again.

Yes, it would be damned bad press for the Republicans, but if determined, they can bring everything to a halt virtually forever. They HAVE done it before:
Quote:

Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster
_Cloture.htm


Right now, given the set-in-cement stance of the Repubs to stop everything cold, I wouldn't put it past them to do so on anything that comes up, just as they are doing with the

There are arguments that the filibuster itself is unconstitutional, as well:
Quote:

First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.

Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement....

Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum....It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/unconstitutional-filibuster

The only solution would be the Supreme Court stepping in, and you bet your booties they wouldn't!

The filibuster has been around since Ancient Rome, and you've actually GOT it across the Pond, and it exists elsewhere, too:
Quote:

In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, a bill defeated by a filibustering manoeuvre may be said to have been "talked out". The procedures of the House of Commons require that members cover only points germane to the topic under consideration or the debate underway whilst speaking.

Both houses of the Australian parliament have strictly enforced rules on how long members may speak, so filibusters are generally not possible there.

Most attempts at stalling legislation are usually just for show and last a relatively short period of time. But in 1997, the opposition parties in Ontario tried to prevent Bill 103 from taking effect, setting in motion one of the longest filibustering sessions Canada had ever seen.

The Northern Ireland House of Commons saw a notable filibuster in 1936 when Tommy Henderson (Independent Unionist MP for Shankill) spoke for nine and a half hours (ending just before 4 AM) on the Appropriation Bill. As this Bill applied government spending to all departments, almost any topic was relevant to the debate, and Henderson used the opportunity to list all of his many criticisms of the Unionist government.

In the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly, the Independent member Dr Ahrn Palley staged a similar all-night filibuster against the Law and Order Maintenance Bill in 1960.

Wikipedia

The problem currently is the use of the "procedural" filibuster, in which one party can inform the other that they INTEND to filibuster--which currently keeps the other party from even bringing a matter to a vote. If we at least did away with that, it would be a step forward, but I don't think it would stop the Repubs in this case; they're hardened on the idea of filibustering everything, and have enough members to keep it going.

By the way,
Quote:

Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
So the Dems COULD ask for a traditional filibuster if they wanted to, they just haven't.

As to changing or getting rid of it
Quote:

According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority:[26]

The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.
The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6] member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

So they could also theoretically change the filibuster rule, make it fewer votes necessary for cloture (as was done before), or eliminate it completely.

I just wish the current practice could be stopped, one way or another, because I think it sets precedence dangerous in the future. Either party could go on using it in future the way it's being used now (tho' I'll bet dollars to donuts the Dems WOULDN'T--they haven't got the balls).



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 8:33 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, and if we're changing Senate rules and procedures, we can also require that anyone who wishes to support a filibuster or speak on its behalf MUST be present for the entire filibuster, barring only short bathroom and/or food breaks. So if you wanna get 41 Republican Senators filibustering something, they need to be there to do it, and be there for the whole long slog of it.

And of course, that goes for the Dems as well. If you're going to filibuster something, if it's THAT damned important to you, then by gum, stand up and be counted. And REMAIN STANDING. And air every last second of it on CSPAN.

But they won't do that, any of them, because this isn't about getting things done, it isn't about actual LEADERSHIP or anything having to do with the "good of the nation"; it's theater, pure and simple, and if you can phone in your performance and still win the Oscar, why would you work any harder?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 9:09 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Surely there must be some kind of rule whereby if the talker is merely repeating the same point over and over it can be brought to stalemate.It sounds nothing more than obstruction and isn't exactly impressing me as a system of democracy.
I know i am a layman to American politics, but this seems a total waste of time.Even if the filibusterer continues for days on end, the vote still has to be taken at the end? This strikes me as kids throwing tantrums if they don't get your own way.Makes me appreciate my political system a little better.At least on that score,anyhow.House of Commons has deadlines.Decisions are made at that deadline and limits are put on wasting the speakers time.(The speaker being the commons Chairperson)

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 9:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
Surely there must be some kind of rule whereby if the talker is merely repeating the same point over and over it can be brought to stalemate.It sounds nothing more than obstruction and isn't exactly impressing me as a system of democracy.
I know i am a layman to American politics, but this seems a total waste of time.Even if the filibusterer continues for days on end, the vote still has to be taken at the end? This strikes me as kids throwing tantrums if they don't get your own way.Makes me appreciate my political system a little better.At least on that score,anyhow.House of Commons has deadlines.Decisions are made at that deadline and limits are put on wasting the speakers time.(The speaker being the commons Chairperson)

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!



PK, they don't even have to be talking about the stuff they're filibustering. They just have to keep TALKING. Some read the Bible, some read the phone book, or the encyclopedia, or children's stories... Just as long as they're standing there and talking, nothing can move forward.

And it ISN'T a horrible idea, really - it's the idea that if I'm dedicated enough, I *CAN* block even a 99 senator majority, and make a stand on my principles. And it used to take some stones to actually do that, because it definitely WAS going to get noticed.

The worthless part of it is that now, all they have to do is announce intent, and that has the same effect on the lawmakers - everybody freezes and freaks right the hell out, and it's just become too damned easy.

I miss ol' AnthonyT around here; he made a very good point a few times, one of which is that it SHOULD be damned hard to change or enact a law. And I tend to agree - some parts of democracy SHOULDN'T be too easy.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 11:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by peacekeeper:
This strikes me as kids throwing tantrums if they don't get your own way.


Dude, that prettymuch describes american politics in a nutshell, really it does...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 19, 2010 12:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mike, I like your thinking, whacker! Would be nice, wouldn't it? THAT might have a chance of breaking filibusters...but as you said, it won't happen. Yeah, where did Anthony go, anyway? I remember him...

Personally, I don't think even HOLDING a real-life filibuster would stop the Republicans now, although if your suggestion were part of it, THAT might work!

Yes, Peace, I agree 100%. Now you see why we're so pissed off about it! If nothing else, I wish we'd adopt YOUR system, because as it is, it's just plain infantile and stupid.

The idea is that if they talk long enough, the other side will give in and scrap the legislation. Now, with only having to announce one, they get off double easy!

Frem: Yes!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:47 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


The whole idea of announcing intent reminds me of the scene in Hitchhikers where Arthur Dent lies in front of a bulldozer!!!If you would like an explanation, I will, but you may be aware of the scene???

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Being a long-time fan of Sir Douglas Adam's books and having read them all, of COURSE I know the scene! You're probably right, too, unfortunately...



Ooo, new avatar...





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:19 - 3412 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL