• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Poised to Limit Filibusters, Angering G.O.P.

Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The filibuster is beyond idiotic in the current form. The idiotic thing is, that it only requires a 51 votes to get something passed, but 60 votes to be allowed to vote.. that is beyond twisted and frankly anti-democratic. The sick thing is, that one or two people have the power to keep stuff off the table even though a large majority of Senators agree on it. And that power has been abused many times, especially by the GOP the last 5 years, and especially from certain far right wing GOP wackos and often for personal gain. It has to stop.

Isn't giving both Alaska and California two senators anti-democratic? The Senate is anti-democratic by design.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Yet we have many posters on this forum that see the same "nonsense" in Texas as completely justified. You don't that think the politcal party invloved makes any difference do you? Obviously all bills/appointments should simply be rubber stamped if one party gets a one seat advantage - that is the "correct" solution is it not? Floor debate and actually reading bills is a silly waste of time, an efficient gov't simply passes everything proposed by the majority party. ;)

I am cool with the republicans actually getting up and doing that. The problem is that no one is required to make any effort which means that there is no reason to stick your neck out and actually do a filibuster to make your point. The whole thing can still be there, but let us make them work to avoid doing the work they are supposed to be doing for the country. This goes for either party. If it is that horrible that they need to oppose it then they can actually work at opposing it. I have a feeling this would limit the amount of filibustering and illustrate to the people when their reps are either fighting the good fight, or just being obstructionist to the other party. I may not agree with rand paul's claims, but at least he did it and through doing it gave us some statements we can look at and his state can hold him to those ideas in the next election. When they silently oppose a bill we have no statement at all to bring up in their next election and that is when we get things that just slide by.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Isn't giving both Alaska and California two senators anti-democratic? The Senate is anti-democratic by design.

Actually it is not. The Senate by design is not the house of the people, the House is. And what does that have to do with one or two men/women blocking legislation or nominations, while a big majority agree?

People tend to forget that this filibuster rule was put in place by the Senate it self, not by the constitution.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/u...n-senate-over-filibusters-change.html?hp&_r=0



While the constant filibustering is certainly not a positive thing, the danger as everybody well knows is when the power shifts to the other party.



One could certainly make the argument that making it your policy to filibuster everything the other side proposes as a means of undermining their president has "irrevocably changed the nature of the Senate." The Republicans have wielded the filibuster recklessly, and if the Democrats remove or even just weaken the power of the filibuster the party in charge will be able to act even more recklessly. But temperance has not been a powerful rallying cry in the Republican party for some time now and they are not likely to relax their use of the filibuster soon.

This belief Americans of all levels have that "changing the rules" will make a meaningful impact on the system needs to go.

All of the rules in the world can't save you from bad spirited and immoral people. If people believe short term partisan gains are more important than functional government to the extent that they could no longer fathom a difference between the two, than your country will fail no matter what its laws and regulations are. The overall badness and evil that rules society will find a way to pervert the new rules.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I am cool with the republicans actually getting up and doing that. The problem is that no one is required to make any effort which means that there is no reason to stick your neck out and actually do a filibuster to make your point. The whole thing can still be there, but let us make them work to avoid doing the work they are supposed to be doing for the country. This goes for either party. If it is that horrible that they need to oppose it then they can actually work at opposing it. I have a feeling this would limit the amount of filibustering and illustrate to the people when their reps are either fighting the good fight, or just being obstructionist to the other party. I may not agree with rand paul's claims, but at least he did it and through doing it gave us some statements we can look at and his state can hold him to those ideas in the next election. When they silently oppose a bill we have no statement at all to bring up in their next election and that is when we get things that just slide by.

That is all well and good for keeping the minority party "honest", but addresses only the minor "abuses" of the minority party. The other side of that coin is the ability of the majority party to block anything that they don't like from even making it to the floor at all. Simply block any bill/amendment that they want to and "poof", it disappears, never to be seen again. Simply Google "Harry Reid blocks" and you may be amazed at the power of the Senate majority leader.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/u...n-senate-over-filibusters-change.html?hp&_r=0



While the constant filibustering is certainly not a positive thing, the danger as everybody well knows is when the power shifts to the other party.



One could certainly make the argument that making it your policy to filibuster everything the other side proposes as a means of undermining their president has "irrevocably changed the nature of the Senate." The Republicans have wielded the filibuster recklessly, and if the Democrats remove or even just weaken the power of the filibuster the party in charge will be able to act even more recklessly. But temperance has not been a powerful rallying cry in the Republican party for some time now and they are not likely to relax their use of the filibuster soon.

They are like fourth graders except they take themselves much more seriously than fourth graders.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I don't really understand why any of you support passing things with only 51% support. What about the other 49%? I think we should not be passing any bills that don't have at least a majority of both parties support.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I don't really understand why any of you support passing things with only 51% support. What about the other 49%? I think we should not be passing any bills that don't have at least a majority of both parties support.

We wouldn't have a functioning government at that point.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The only thing it is functionally doing is passing laws and bills behind our backs so those in power can do whatever they want. Can't get much less functional than that.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Actually it is not. The Senate by design is not the house of the people, the House is. And what does that have to do with one or two men/women blocking legislation or nominations, while a big majority agree?

People tend to forget that this filibuster rule was put in place by the Senate it self, not by the constitution.

My point is simply to refute the notion that the filibuster rule ought to be criticized on the basis of it being "anti-democratic".
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

That rule change requires a super majority to end debate on it as well - does it not? ;)

The Constituation states that the Senate will create and follow its own rules( Article One, Section Five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" ).

The Senate rule changes must be debated, hence, any rule change can be held up by a filibuster. However, the majority leader has the option to strike a rule with a simple majority vote.

I think you end up with circular logic on that, since the option to strike should be governed by the rules, hence, possible to filibuster as well, but that sounds like a Supreme Court Consitutional Crisis if you ask me.

Now, if one party, or a sub-division of multiple parties, colluded to get the 67 votes, they could pass anything they wanted into the rules to block all legislation but their own. Doubt they would be in office for longer than 1 term, or if they even finished the term, but that's the way it works.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

My point is simply to refute the notion that the filibuster rule ought to be criticized on the basis of it being "anti-democratic".

The filibuster rule is not "anti-democratic" per say... the senate version however is, since it does not require the person issuing the filibuster to actually carry out the physical filibuster.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

We wouldn't have a functioning government at that point.

Yes we would, one whose only functions are the ones we all agreed to, whats in the constitution.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The filibuster rule is not "anti-democratic" per say... the senate version however is, since it does not require the person issuing the filibuster to actually carry out the physical filibuster.

Actually it does.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

The Constituation states that the Senate will create and follow its own rules( Article One, Section Five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" ).

The Senate rule changes must be debated, hence, any rule change can be held up by a filibuster. However, the majority leader has the option to strike a rule with a simple majority vote.

I think you end up with circular logic on that, since the option to strike should be governed by the rules, hence, possible to filibuster as well, but that sounds like a Supreme Court Consitutional Crisis if you ask me.

Now, if one party, or a sub-division of multiple parties, colluded to get the 67 votes, they could pass anything they wanted into the rules to block all legislation but their own. Doubt they would be in office for longer than 1 term, or if they even finished the term, but that's the way it works.

The problem is that the Senate rules require a 2/3 vote for changes, whilst the nuclear option would change the rules using a simple majority.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

I can't really blame the Democrats for doing it.

I can't really blame hte Republicans if they keep it if they regain power.

Personally, I'd like to see it go back to the old style filibuster or none at all personally.

But it's kind of interesting looking at this in a historical context and seeing the ebbs and flows.

The first big jump was in 71 through 76 with a Democratic Controlled Senate. The three congresses prior had 7, 6, and 7 cloture motions compared to 24, 44, and 39.

The next sustained jump was from 83 to 88 with a Republican Controlled Senate. The three congresses prior had 23, 30, 31 motions as opposed to 41, 41, and 54 during that stretch.

93 to 96 was the high water point, at a point where the start was Democratic Controlled and the end was Republican Controlled, with 80 then 82.

The cloture motions remained at a higher sustained level than any other previous time, with numbers in the 60's and 70's throughout the late 90's and early 00's when Republicans were in control.

Then when Democrats gained back control in 2007 the number jumped up once more, 139, 137, and 115. This congress however is at it's quarter mark and is at 29, setting it up for roughly 99 cloture motions.

So the jump was, unquestionably, a large one and worthy of condemnation. But it's also hardly a new trend that as one party gains power, the other party does a previously unseen amount of sustained fillibustering.

Some historical perspective...

From 55 to 80 the Dem's controlled the Senate and there was an average of 15 cloture motions filed per congress.

From 81-86 the Reps controlled the Senate and there was an average of 38 cloture motions filed. A 153% increase

From 87 to 94 the Dem's controlled the Senate again and there was an average of 58 cloture motions. A 52% increase

From 95 to 06 with Rep control we averaged 71 cloture motions. A 22% increase

From 07 to the estimated end of 14 with a Dem Controlled congress, we're looking to be averaging 123 cloture motions. This would be a 73% increase.

The numbers have been raising with each power shift, but the increase of that bump varied. The democrats fillibustering of the first Republican controlled Senate in nearly 28 years (and the first multi-term Republican congress in nearly half a century) was the first significant jump coinciding with a change of power. Since that point, the Republicans have had the larger jumps when they've lost power the past two times.

It definitely appears to be a game of one upsminship. And while I don't necessarily begrude the Republicans (or democrats when and if they lose power) for using everything at their disposal to serve their constituents that sent them to Washington, the number was getting ridiculous and it's good to see it trending downwards a bit.

All told, it's reached unreasonable levels even before this point and it's just going to continue with a tit for tat type of situation. I would be in favor of seeing some stricter rules...specifically in terms of appointee's to political positiosn AND in terms of forcing the traditional means of fillibustering.
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Didnt I see you complain once about trying to read someone elses post where that had 100 sentences and no paragraphs?
 
Re: Showdown Nears in Senate Over Filibusters Change

Careful what you wish for.

Republicans can undo everything Obama did, then Dems can undo that, then the GOP can undo that.......

Then nothing ever gets done of substance.
 
Back
Top Bottom