Thread: The filibuster is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by washunut

Can't the same be said for this rule. After all for better or worse we have come to expect that it is very difficult for one side to get it's way over the last couple of decades. People may make decisions on what can't get done as well as what gets done.

That's true to an extent, but it's really just been in the last 4-6 years that gotten completely out of hand.

It does bother me, though - the increasing tendency for people to want things to be ruled unconstitutional or appealed in court rather than appealing to legislative and elective processes to dictate and mitigate.

Constitutional questions are far more difficult to prove and time consuming - and inflexible. Such responses are pretty much permanent unless you jump through some serious hoops.

Originally Posted by AdamT

The percentage increase in cloture votes doesn't mean much in light of the explosion in the number of filibusters. Regardless of cloture percentange, the number of bill ACTUALLY blocked by filibuster has essentially doubled under this minority. And of course it's really much worse than that, as many bills simply aren't filed because the Democrats know in advance that they will be fillibustered. Thus the hypocrisy of Republicans complaining about the lack of a Democratic budget, when the reason the Dems don't produce a budget is that they know it will be filibustered.

No government can function if a super majority is needed for every action.

Which is to say that talking about the total number of cloture votes is pointless, because the same can be said for the last 100 years. They didn't bother having a vote since it was pointless. They are making the votes now purely for the sake of hammering people about the votes.

However, I disagree with you about the budget. Budgets only require 51 votes to pass since fillibusters aren't allowed on budgets(reconciliation bills).

They don't want to make a budget because there would have to be a public debate about what's in the budget.

There have been I think three incidents now where the Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee for more than a year only to ultimately UNANIMOUSLY vote to confirm them. One of them was once Sarah Palin's pick for the Alaska supreme court. They just set the machine on "filibuster all" and checked out a couple years ago.

Originally Posted by teamosil

There have been I think three incidents now where the Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee for more than a year only to ultimately UNANIMOUSLY vote to confirm them. One of them was once Sarah Palin's pick for the Alaska supreme court. They just set the machine on "filibuster all" and checked out a couple years ago.

Yep, they are very obviously just screwing with Obama because they decided that that would be their strategy. There are many many nominees who are highly qualified, and who no one really objects to, but who are nonetheless being blocked. It's really pathetic.

Originally Posted by AdamT

That's true to an extent, but it's really just been in the last 4-6 years that gotten completely out of hand.

I agree it is out of hand. I have some concerns about the tyranny of the majority. What looks like a good fix now may not look so good if roles change in the senate. Not sure there is an easy answer.

Originally Posted by AdamT

A picture is worth 1000 words:

citing the times cloture was invoked is a poor measure of filibusters.

a filibuster need not be filed to invoke cloture.... ask Harry Reid, he does it quite a bit.
Harry will call for a cloture vote before a filibuster is even so much as threatened... which has the political benefit of people believing Republicans filibustered the item.... most folks don't understand that a cloture doesn't need to follow a filibuster, it can exist all on it's own, and does.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

and how do you go about doing that when the majority won't let you debate or add to legislation, etc?

We'll tell you that when it becomes a reality, instead of being nothing more than one of your delusions

Originally Posted by sangha

We'll tell you that when it becomes a reality, instead of being nothing more than one of your delusions

not a delusion.. it's a criticism that Harry Reid has faced quite a few times....

Originally Posted by Thrilla

the majority still gets to dictate the agenda... and that's a mighty big power... a power that comes with the necessity to take into consideration the arguments of the minority... as the minority still represents citizens of the nation( well, none of our current Senators represent anything beyond their party, but in theory , they are supposed to represent the states/people)
when you have majority leaders that are not respectable and do not govern or debate in good faith, I think the filibuster process is a necessary and proper check on majority power.

the idea that the majority should be able to do anything and everything it wants is repugnant.... why even have a minority present in government if the majority is allowed carte blanche power?..if they are the minority party, and the majority has all the power, without recourse.. just send em home, take away their salaries/benefits and save us taxpayers some money

That's why we have elections every two years. If you don't like what the majority is doing, then change the majority. If you can't do that, it might just be possible that the majority of your friends and neighbors agree with the actions of the majority. It's called democracy.

Originally Posted by Centinel

Yes. It doesn't indicate what aspect of the constitution is being violated.

expressio unius est exclusio alterius

It's a legal term:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others")
Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as".

Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Thrilla

what role do you feel the minority has or should have?... should they just go home and let the majority party rule everything?

No, they should learn how to compromise and work with the majority so that everyone gets some of what they want, but nobody gets all of what they want. If the majority of Americans don't agree with what the majority of congress is doing, then they won't be a majority for long. That's how the Framers envisioned our democracy, and the filibuster is one big way that that vision has been perverted and distorted along the way.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

how would you feel if your party was the minority and you had a president you disagreed with in office?

Were you out of the country from 2000 to 2007?