• 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!

Removing the Filibuster

Should The Filibuster Be Removed

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • No

    Votes: 21 80.8%
  • No, but it should be reformed

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • Total voters
    26

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed. Now I'm sympathetic to the filibuster as a last ditch measure in extreme cases, but using it on a constant basis like this? I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being abused to this point, it needs to be cut. Now I know that as a Democrat, I'd be removing an important tool from our arsenal when we're in the minority, but something needs to be done, as I see it. The constitution only requires a super-majority on a few items, such as impeachments. To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
 
I am sure you libs enjoyed all the times the democrats filibustered,so why change it?At the rate Obama is going with all the bailouts, potential weapons bans,socialism and potential tax increases he is practically handing the republicans the white house for the next presidential election.I am sure you libs would want every advantage you can have.
 
To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?
Really? Then why would they add the ability to filibuster at all? To the contrary of your veiwpoint, I think this is exactly want the founders wanted. The whole point of the senate, why only 1/3 are elected ever 2 years and having the ability to filibuster is so that the senate would govern from the center, rather than like the house which may only govern over the 50.1% of the nation.
 
In a two party system, no filibuster basically means a one party rule. I would be in favour of eliminating it if congress had a more diverse party base.
 
In any Congress, regardless of which party has the majority, thank God for the filibuster.

Merely having a majority does not make anyone automatically correct. Merely having a majority does not ensure all their ideas are good. Merely having a majority does not guarantee bills are sound legislation.

The filibuster rules of the Senate, and the effective 60-vote supermajority needed to bring any legislation to a final vote, is an effective brake on the system. It has proven most useful in giving Congress time to pause on the punitive AIG-tax bill which bludgeoned its way through the House of Representatives.

I, for one, am glad Senators have a mechanism for slowing down the process. The slower the process the fewer laws; this is a good thing.
 
Really? Then why would they add the ability to filibuster at all? To the contrary of your veiwpoint, I think this is exactly want the founders wanted. The whole point of the senate, why only 1/3 are elected ever 2 years and having the ability to filibuster is so that the senate would govern from the center, rather than like the house which may only govern over the 50.1% of the nation.

The founding fathers didn't add the filibuster. They clearly wrote in the constitution that all votes would be on a clear majority, with a few exceptions like impeachments or constitutional clearly defined. The filibuster was an unintentional loophole written into the senate rules. It wasn't even used till 1841, quite a bit after the founding fathers. In other words, it is not what the founding fathers wanted, and not in the constitution. I don't know where you got your info about filibustering from, but its crap.
 
At this point most of congress should not be allowed bail let alone be allowed to vote on anything.
 
In any Congress, regardless of which party has the majority, thank God for the filibuster.

Merely having a majority does not make anyone automatically correct. Merely having a majority does not ensure all their ideas are good. Merely having a majority does not guarantee bills are sound legislation.

The filibuster rules of the Senate, and the effective 60-vote supermajority needed to bring any legislation to a final vote, is an effective brake on the system. It has proven most useful in giving Congress time to pause on the punitive AIG-tax bill which bludgeoned its way through the House of Representatives.

I, for one, am glad Senators have a mechanism for slowing down the process. The slower the process the fewer laws; this is a good thing.

It could just as easily be used to stop someone trying to roll laws back though, it is a two edged sword. And don't forget, it goes against the concept of American Democracy.
 
I wonder if the senate would filibuster a filibuster bill :)
 
It could just as easily be used to stop someone trying to roll laws back though, it is a two edged sword. And don't forget, it goes against the concept of American Democracy.
Anything that gums up the workings of Congress can hardly be said to go against the concept of American Democracy.

However, my own skepticism of Congress notwithstanding, the filibuster is very much in keeping with the concept of American Democracy. It is very much in accordance with the Constitution, Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
The Founding Fathers gave each House the power to decide for itself what the regular order of affairs should be. The Founding Fathers may not have written the filibuster into the Constitution, but the license granted each House to set its own rules renders the point moot. The filibuster in the Senate is part of the rules devised by the Senate, in accordance with the powers and privileges granted each House of Congress per the Constitution.
 
Anything that gums up the workings of Congress can hardly be said to go against the concept of American Democracy.

However, my own skepticism of Congress notwithstanding, the filibuster is very much in keeping with the concept of American Democracy. It is very much in accordance with the Constitution, Article I, Section 5:

The Founding Fathers gave each House the power to decide for itself what the regular order of affairs should be. The Founding Fathers may not have written the filibuster into the Constitution, but the license granted each House to set its own rules renders the point moot. The filibuster in the Senate is part of the rules devised by the Senate, in accordance with the powers and privileges granted each House of Congress per the Constitution.

I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way. Can you really give me a good reason, other than that if helps your agenda, that the filibuster should be kept?
 
I wonder if the senate would filibuster a filibuster bill :)

They could try, but it says in the constitution that the senate ultimately makes their own rules. What that means is, in essence, if 51 senators (or 50 and Biden) want to push any issue, they can technically get away with it.
 
I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way. Can you really give me a good reason, other than that if helps your agenda, that the filibuster should be kept?
The Founding Fathers opted to give each House of Congress the power to write its own rules of order; in effect, they gave each House the power to decide the matter. The "spirit" of the Constitution is that each House establish its own rules of regular order--and thus the Senate has the filibuster.

As for why it should be kept, the answer is simple. It preserves the rights of the minority. It ensures the majority will not trample the minority in passing legislation. By slowing down legislation, it allows for greater debate, and hopefully more meaningful debate; it helps ensure that laws are not enacted in the spur of the moment, or in a burst of partisan outrage.
 
I'm not saying the filibuster goes against the rules of the constitution. But it does go against the spirit of the constitution, and the wishes of the founding fathers. If they had wanted a 3/5 majority on every bill, they would have written the constitution that way. Can you really give me a good reason, other than that if helps your agenda, that the filibuster should be kept?
Actually, the fillibuster is exactly in the spirit of the constitution. The founding fathers were not all of one mind when the constitution was ratified and some of the most heated political debate came from the very writing of our constitution, that process was based upon argument and concession, the fillibuster is merely a stalling tactic to see who can outlast it to get their bill passed, and I wouldn't have it any other way as I see the best thing for us is a congress too deadlocked to do anything to us in the form of unsuitable legislation. The best reason to keep the fillibuster is to prevent majority rule, which is not our system of governance, whether I agree with the side being fillibustered or not I prefer to have multiple opinions with the appropriate checks and balances, plus, there have historically been some hilarious uses of the fillibuster such as reading the phone book and other ridiculous stalls, it's high comedy at it's best.
 
We had the same kind of thread pop up in the past I believe when it was a majority republican senate.

No, as we've seen under Bush and we're seeing again under Obama having one party dominate all three houses is incredibly dangerous for America as it allows for the very fabric of it to be changed drastically and monumnetally with absolutely no recourse. The Fillibuster is essential for minority rights and should remain, be it Dem or a Rep controlled congress.

Frankly, I have a good laugh at ANY democrat that sat on this forum for the past few years and never ONCE uttered a PEEP about fillibuster being a problem NOW amazingly showing up and saying we need to get rid of it.
 
We had the same kind of thread pop up in the past I believe when it was a majority republican senate.

No, as we've seen under Bush and we're seeing again under Obama having one party dominate all three houses is incredibly dangerous for America as it allows for the very fabric of it to be changed drastically and monumnetally with absolutely no recourse. The Fillibuster is essential for minority rights and should remain, be it Dem or a Rep controlled congress.

Frankly, I have a good laugh at ANY democrat that sat on this forum for the past few years and never ONCE uttered a PEEP about fillibuster being a problem NOW amazingly showing up and saying we need to get rid of it.

Pretty much hits the proverbial nail on the head.
 
As a note too, and this may draw some thanks away from me ; )

I laugh about it not necessarily because they're doing it ONLY because they want Republicans not to have it now, but because that likely means that this being a "problem" had never crossed their mind for years and now they've "suddenly" realized it. That makes me think that, in reality, consiously or subconsiously the issue for them isn't so much the filibuster as it is the filibuster causing what THEY see as "progress" from happening.
 
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed. Now I'm sympathetic to the filibuster as a last ditch measure in extreme cases, but using it on a constant basis like this? I don't care which side is doing it, if it's being abused to this point, it needs to be cut. Now I know that as a Democrat, I'd be removing an important tool from our arsenal when we're in the minority, but something needs to be done, as I see it. The constitution only requires a super-majority on a few items, such as impeachments. To force bills to pass on a 60 vote line is just contrary to what the founding fathers wanted, and to the concept of democracy. But that's just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Great topic and here are my thoughts on this:

The Senate writes the rules. If the Democrat majority wants to re-write them at this critical time, then they are welcome to try it.

However, there would be great political risk and once they are once again in the minority, although I think the American people are too dumb to do this any time soon, they will have to abide by the same rules.

But the filibuster in my opinion is the ultimate tool of Democracy. It allows the minority to still have something that prevents them from being totally irrelevant and forces debate. Anytime thoughtful debate can be substituted for rubber stamping laws through Congress it should be welcome by any informed citizen.

This begs the question, why is this an issue NOW for you? Do you think a rubber stamp congress is a good thing? Would you feel the same if Republicans were in charge?

This is similar to the debate about the Fairness Doctrine. Both issues are attempts by the majority to shut down the minority in my opinion. No principled, thoughtful American should support anything that would do that.
 
As a note too, and this may draw some thanks away from me ; )

I laugh about it not necessarily because they're doing it ONLY because they want Republicans not to have it now, but because that likely means that this being a "problem" had never crossed their mind for years and now they've "suddenly" realized it. That makes me think that, in reality, consiously or subconsiously the issue for them isn't so much the filibuster as it is the filibuster causing what THEY see as "progress" from happening.

I am curious who this "they" are? I see that people like Hobo may take issue to this but have seen no news that politicians are talking about it, am I missing something here?
 
Refering back to my original point where I stated it'd make me laugh a bit seeing liberals on this board that never made a peep about the filibuster rules during the previous administration but now are saying something. That's who the post was refering to with the second one explaining why they may now "just now" be coming to the thought other than just pure partisanship.

For example, Hobo has routinely seemed a level headed objective guy. He's most assuredly liberal from all I've seen, and makes no appologizes for it, and while I disagree with him ideologically he'll at least look and discuss issues legitimately. So him saying this makes me initially think its more that the fact that he's now seeing things HE believes are "progress" for this country being blocked by this that its making him possibly come to "realize" that the filibuster is an issue.

This is different from some liberals who I believe would push for the removal of the filibuster now simply because Democrats are in power so its okay to get rid of it, but they'd secretly want it back immedietely come the Rep's regaining power.

So my second post was more just explaining that the end of my initial post wasn't insinuating that only hyper partisan liberals would just now think of removing it.
 
Refering back to my original point where I stated it'd make me laugh a bit seeing liberals on this board that never made a peep about the filibuster rules during the previous administration but now are saying something. That's who the post was refering to with the second one explaining why they may now "just now" be coming to the thought other than just pure partisanship.

For example, Hobo has routinely seemed a level headed objective guy. He's most assuredly liberal from all I've seen, and makes no appologizes for it, and while I disagree with him ideologically he'll at least look and discuss issues legitimately. So him saying this makes me initially think its more that the fact that he's now seeing things HE believes are "progress" for this country being blocked by this that its making him possibly come to "realize" that the filibuster is an issue.

This is different from some liberals who I believe would push for the removal of the filibuster now simply because Democrats are in power so its okay to get rid of it, but they'd secretly want it back immedietely come the Rep's regaining power.

So my second post was more just explaining that the end of my initial post wasn't insinuating that only hyper partisan liberals would just now think of removing it.

Got it; thought perhaps there was news out there that Democrat politicians were suddenly thinking along the same lines. ::shivers::
 
Well, it wouldn't surprise me too much. If my memory serves me right didn't old Nancy Pelosi start to try and redo the House rules to remove some of the minority rights? Rights that Nancy Pelosi and company spoke about how important and needed they were previously when they were the minority?
 
I am curious who this "they" are? I see that people like Hobo may take issue to this but have seen no news that politicians are talking about it, am I missing something here?

I would have to do some research (Google is my friend) to pull the articles together, but I have read where Hapless Harry Reid wanted to reduce the votes for cloture to 55 from 60, or even to just a simple majority of 51.

Interestingly, the last reduction of the votes required for cloture was also during a Democratic majority.

Cloture originally required 2/3 of all Senators "present and voting". In 1975, the cloture requirement was reduced to 3/5 of all Senators "duly chosen and sworn."
 
Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed.
This is a tactic carried over from the Dems when they were the minority, especially under the Bush administration.

Fillibusters are fine. But, those wishing to do so should be forced to actually fillibueter, rather than just declaring that they are doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom