• 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!

Grayson's Senate filibuster petition faulted

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think they are going to shoot themselves in their foot if the ever manage to end the filibuster. Its viewed as a bad thing when your party is in the majority and trying to pass something but it is something viewed as a good thing when your party is in the minority and you do not want something passed.


Grayson's Senate filibuster petition faulted - Washington Times

Rep. Alan Grayson, Florida Democrat, is trying to make it easier to prevent Senate filibusters, arguing that President George W. Bush got better treatment than President Obama is getting.

The only problem is, --none of the seven votes the Florida Democrat cites as evidence backs up his claim.

Mr. Grayson is circulating a petition asking voters to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lower the threshold for ending filibusters from the current 60 votes to just 55 votes.

He says Mr. Bush won seven major votes with fewer than 60 votes' support. But in each case he either misunderstands Senate rules or gets his facts wrong.

Four of the votes were on budgets and one was on a trade agreement ---- all governed by special rules that prohibit filibusters. In fact, Democrats took advantage of the same rules this year to pass their own budget with just 53 votes.

Mr. Grayson says the 2003 energy bill, the result of former Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, passed with 57 votes. Actually it failed on a filibuster vote, 57-40. Ironically, if Mr. Grayson's rules had been in place, the Cheney energy policy would have passed.

And the final vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill did garner just 54 votes, but that was only after it had passed a 60-vote threshold the day before on a budget rules vote the senators agreed was akin to a filibuster vote.

Todd Jurkowski, a spokesman for the congressman, did not defend the incorrect votes listed in the online petition.

Instead, he said the Senate rules "are creating havoc."

"What other reason is there to explain why there are 100 bills that passed the House that are sitting dormant in the Senate? The bodies are not that different politically," Mr. Jurkowski said.

The petition has won Mr. Grayson much attention. He appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday night to talk about it, and plenty of political bloggers have written about it.

But the congressman is treading dangerously - senators of both parties bristle at outsiders telling them how to run their chamber.
 
Last edited:
I support this... and I understand it'll bite both sides.
 
I'm against this, because it weakens the checks and balances system of our government.

How? The founding fathers never envisioned anything more than a simple majority being needed to pass legislation.
 
How? The founding fathers never envisioned anything more than a simple majority being needed to pass legislation.
Considering that they gave the senate the entire power to write it's own rules, I imagine the founding fathers envisioned more than just a filibuster.
 
First off understand what a filibuster is - it is an attempt to keep the debate going and preventing a vote on the bill from taking place. It requires a vote of the Senate to close debate, a vote that cannot take place while a Senator has the floor. For a quick history of the filibuster check out the US Senate's own website:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture

The original Senate rules require a two-thirds (67) vote to close debate and prepare for a vote. It was reduced to 60 votes in 1975. I believe this is also when they decided that a Senator no longer had to speak in order to maintain a filibuster but rather just declared his/her intention to filibuster in order to keep the debate open on the floor. This change has led to the real abuses of the filibuster over the past 30 some years. Return it to 67 votes but require someone to continually speak in order to continue the filibuster and you will find that it will be reserved for more important issues than it is used for now.

With the 1975 changes, it made the filibuster too easy to implement and became a method to prevent a specific bill from every reaching a vote. With the original filibuster rules, ALL business in the Senate was stopped until the floor was relinquished and new motions could be heard. That is no longer the case today, it is rather like a line item veto that affects a single bill while allowing all others to continue on.

So all of this aside, no one but a member of the US Senate can or should bring up a motion to change the rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom