• 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!

Schumer To Hold Hearings On Undoing Filibuster Rules

D

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,717
Reaction score
53,432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Schumer To Hold Hearings On Undoing Filibuster Rules | TPMDC

The title is a bit off: Filibuster reform is what's being discussed.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said at a summit for progressive reporters, pundits and bloggers today that he is going to hold Rules Committee hearings on filibuster reform to dramatically change the process.
Click to expand...

At the very least, they need to go back to the old "read some recipes" format. Right now, a single person can hold up everything the Senate tries to do all the while sitting in their chair. When they get tired, they can get up and swap out a buddy to do it for them. This leads to the effect that if one party really wants it, they can make 60 votes a requirement for literally anything to get done, as well as wasting several days on each bill due to the cloture mechanics. (it takes a full day from petition to voting on cloture, and after that up to 30 hours of debate before an actual vote on the bill happens)

One man can stop the government with almost no effort. At the very least, they should have to work for it, to ensure that it only happens on things people are really invested in. Right now, the GOP is using filibuster, or threat of filibuster, on nearly every single piece of legislation no matter how small.
 
Deuce said:
Schumer To Hold Hearings On Undoing Filibuster Rules | TPMDC

The title is a bit off: Filibuster reform is what's being discussed.



At the very least, they need to go back to the old "read some recipes" format. Right now, a single person can hold up everything the Senate tries to do all the while sitting in their chair. When they get tired, they can get up and swap out a buddy to do it for them. This leads to the effect that if one party really wants it, they can make 60 votes a requirement for literally anything to get done, as well as wasting several days on each bill due to the cloture mechanics. (it takes a full day from petition to voting on cloture, and after that up to 30 hours of debate before an actual vote on the bill happens)

One man can stop the government with almost no effort. At the very least, they should have to work for it, to ensure that it only happens on things people are really invested in. Right now, the GOP is using filibuster, or threat of filibuster, on nearly every single piece of legislation no matter how small.
Click to expand...

I like it much better when they do nothing. Congress doing things is what put us in a precarious position. I would like it much better if paid off senators could not fulfill their kickback promises. They would be less subject to temptation if good ideas ran the show.
 
akyron said:
I like it much better when they do nothing. Congress doing things is what put us in a precarious position. I would like it much better if paid off senators could not fulfill their kickback promises. They would be less subject to temptation if good ideas ran the show.
Click to expand...

The problem is that nothing is running the show. We're in the middle of the ocean about to be hit by a major storm, and our engines are fighting eachother. Our government has become "Stop anything and everything the other guys are trying to do" instead of "How do help our country?"

Republicans are railing against their own ideas now that Democrats are supporting them. We're going to sink out here.
 
Deuce said:
Schumer To Hold Hearings On Undoing Filibuster Rules | TPMDC

The title is a bit off: Filibuster reform is what's being discussed.



At the very least, they need to go back to the old "read some recipes" format. Right now, a single person can hold up everything the Senate tries to do all the while sitting in their chair. When they get tired, they can get up and swap out a buddy to do it for them. This leads to the effect that if one party really wants it, they can make 60 votes a requirement for literally anything to get done, as well as wasting several days on each bill due to the cloture mechanics. (it takes a full day from petition to voting on cloture, and after that up to 30 hours of debate before an actual vote on the bill happens)

One man can stop the government with almost no effort. At the very least, they should have to work for it, to ensure that it only happens on things people are really invested in. Right now, the GOP is using filibuster, or threat of filibuster, on nearly every single piece of legislation no matter how small.
Click to expand...

Setting aside all the partisan issues for a moment and looking at it as a blank slate, do you really think that going back to the old "read some recipies" format would be an improvement?

Look at it this way: If its an issue of real importance, such as health care, is there any doubt that the Republicans would be more than willing to get up there and read recipes for as long as they needed to? Filibusters have lasted for weeks in the past, and I have no doubt that they would last for that long nowadays. The end result would just be that the Senate would waste three weeks doing nothing and then be right back where they started. The current system is actually much more efficient, as it avoids all of that time-wasting and forces the sides to do what they were already going to have to do.

Basically, the only way in which that type of reform would have an impact would be if the people conducting a filibuster would back off if they were forced to actually stand up and speak for it. That seems incredibly unlikely to me - with 41 Senators, you just need each person to get up and give a 3 hour speech every 5 days. The only practical effect might be that the opposition would be somewhat less likely to filibuster the least important things.
 
akyron said:
I like it much better when they do nothing. Congress doing things is what put us in a precarious position. I would like it much better if paid off senators could not fulfill their kickback promises. They would be less subject to temptation if good ideas ran the show.
Click to expand...
I think we should amend the Constitution to only allow Congress to meet 30 days per year.
 
Deuce said:
The problem is that nothing is running the show. .
Click to expand...

I think that is absolutely wrong. Follow the money. Who benefits? Do a little research and the answers may come to you.
 
I want it to be a slow and cumbersome process. Tedious and awkward beyond most typical actions in the senate. In short I want to make government at the federal level less effective at passing legislation.
To much of a good thing has gotten bad.
 
b.larset said:
I want it to be a slow and cumbersome process. Tedious and awkward beyond most typical actions in the senate. In short I want to make government at the federal level less effective at passing legislation.
To much of a good thing has gotten bad.
Click to expand...

So you want our government to waste a lot of time and money.
 
Deuce said:
So you want our government to waste a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...
It's their time, and they're on a salary. :mrgreen:
 
Deuce said:
So you want our government to waste a lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a 2/3's majority required in both houses to pass any law ....... a 1/3 minority in either house to repeal any law .

Let's face it, if the law can't garner 2/3's support, it's probably a bad law.

If it has 1/3 opposition, it's also probably a bad law.

I mean really, do you need so many laws that you couldn't possibly read them all in your entire life time?
 
akyron said:
I like it much better when they do nothing. Congress doing things is what put us in a precarious position.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
The US govermnent was -intentionally- set up to make it difficult to get things done.
 
The filibuster was created with good intentions. However the Repubs have abused it to the point of making it . It should be returned to what it used to be. None of this tag team ****. Make it hard to do and maybe it won't be abused as much. Maybe it needs modification so it can't be so abused.

All that aside, if the Dems make this move, they will be sending a "those in power make the rules" message to the Repubs. They need to think about what the Repubs will do when they're in power. Because sooner or later... ughhh... it will happen.
 
ADK_Forever said:
The filibuster was created with good intentions. However the Repubs have abused it to the point of making it . It should be returned to what it used to be. None of this tag team ****. Make it hard to do and maybe it won't be abused as much. Maybe it needs modification so it can't be so abused.

All that aside, if the Dems make this move, they will be sending a "those in power make the rules" message to the Repubs. They need to think about what the Repubs will do when they're in power. Because sooner or later... ughhh... it will happen.
Click to expand...

Yup.... like in about 8 months or so. :2wave:
 
ADK_Forever said:
The filibuster was created with good intentions. However the Repubs have abused it....
Click to expand...
I note that you didnt include the Dems in that. I wonder why.
OK, not really.
 
Goobieman said:
I note that you didnt include the Dems in that. I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Because it's the Repubs who have abused it.

When the Democrats regained tenuous control of the 110th Congress in 2007, filibusters by the new Republican minority skyrocketed. Following the landslide victory of Barack Obama and progressive Democrats in 2008, there was a clear mandate for change in reform in America, yet the 111th should set a new record for filibusters as part of a clear pattern of obstruction from those who do not want change or reform.

During an attempt by the Bush regime to ram a group of conservative activist judges down the throats of the nations highest courts in 2005, the Democratic minority threatened to filibuster. At this point, the Republican majority threatened to abolish the filibuster (called the nuclear option) as a parliamentary procedure.
Click to expand...
Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters | NEWS JUNKIE POST

That should make it perfectly clear.

*There are a few charts on that website that didn't copy over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ADK_Forever said:
Because it's the Repubs who have abused it.


Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters | NEWS JUNKIE POST

That should make it perfectly clear.

*There are a few charts on that website that didn't copy over.
Click to expand...

And as I've explained to your colleagues twice already, the claim that an increased number of cloture votes is proof of increased obstruction belies a lack of understanding of Senate procedures, statistics, and politics in general.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...urb-insurers-rate-hikes-2.html#post1058583292


You can't draw conclusions like this based on something as simple as the number of cloture votes.

In addition, it's pointless to use the number of cloture votes in an attempt to draw any conclusions about the changing perception/use of the filibuster over time. First, the number of votes needed for cloture was 67 until 1975 when it was reduced to 60. Second, the reason the number has fluctuated so wildly in recent years is because whether or not something counts as a technical filibuster depends on whether a Senator brings something up for a procedural vote. Since 99% of the time everyone knows how the vote will turn out, Senators don't make cloture motions that they know will be doomed to failure unless they're doing so for political reasons.

Think about it - if you were part of the majority and wanted to paint the minority as "obstructionist" in order to score political points, what would you do? You'd take a few dozen bills that you know would never win a cloture vote and bring cloture motions on all of them. They all fail, and BOOM! You've got a ready-made headline: "Obstructionist Minority Filibusters Record Number of Bills."
Click to expand...

The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent Congress from enacting controversial bills via slight majorities in both houses. The purpose remains the same whether it's used once or a thousand times. Obama et al. had no problem with it when they were the ones benefiting.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
Exactly.
The US govermnent was -intentionally- set up to make it difficult to get things done.
Click to expand...

Rules for the filibuster isn't set up anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, originally the filibuster was used in the House. But when the House grew too large, they dropped it and the Senate adopted it later. The Senate is able to write it's own rules and procedures. If the Senate wants to get rid of the filibuster, so they can do so however they want. It doesn't mean they can't get it back later.

My own suggestion for the filibuster is to require a Senator from each party to call for it. That way, legislation too unwanted won't get passed but it won't allow partisan obstructionism.
 
Goobieman said:
Exactly.
The US govermnent was -intentionally- set up to make it difficult to get things done.
Click to expand...

And if we really believed that, we would ensure that no party controls the entire US government at any one time.

America is F-ing stupid. Seriously, first time around was a massive debacle. And now we vote the other party in to complete control? I was praying the GOP took the senate in 2008.
 
Deuce said:
Republicans are railing against their own ideas now that Democrats are supporting them. We're going to sink out here.
Click to expand...


That' EXACTLY why they are called the "Party of NO" and why their actions are so ridiculous. Its like dealing with children. Do we really have to start playing the reverse psychology "Don't you eat your vegetables" game with them?
 
disneydude said:
That' EXACTLY why they are called the "Party of NO" and why their actions are so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Opposing a bill that runs against what your party stands for is ridiculous?
I guess it depends on the party...
 
RightinNYC said:
And as I've explained to your colleagues twice already, the claim that an increased number of cloture votes is proof of increased obstruction belies a lack of understanding of Senate procedures, statistics, and politics in general.
Click to expand...

Spare me your lessons. Some numbers don't lie. Repubs have abused the filibuster to try to obstruct almost anything the Dems tried to accomplish.

The "Party of No" doesn't come close to doing justice to how the Repubs have abused their power. It doesn't come close to illustrating how the Repubs aren't concerned with doing the job they were elected to do. ALL they are consumed with is their trickery to try to regain power in November. The Health Care bill will be passed and the Repubs will pay for their part. Americans want this. They need it. And they will not be happy with those who tried to keep them from getting health care.

Watch and learn.
 
Goobieman said:
Ah... not surprised to see that you aren't interested in the truth.
Click to expand...

The truth would be fine. I get dizzy with all the :spin: from the rightees. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom