• 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
Wasn’t the nuclear option (bypassing Dems filibuster) what contributed to the ending of Newt Gingrich's career and helped get Clinton another term as President? The same thing could happen here, anyone that is perceived to have had the brain fart idea of bypassing the filibuster can kiss his career in the Senate goodbye. Rightfully so.

That being said its been used by both parties in the past, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 and Bushes tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. My opinion is it is being used as leverage, leaving the idea dangling all the while having no intention of using it.

In the meantime keep feeding RNC money to Minnesota hoping in a vain attempt at blocking number 59 from being seated. :mrgreen:
 
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?

Totally agree. It's not supposed to be used as frequently as this.
 
Is this any less frequent than the Democrats used it when they were completely in the minority in the senate?

Not to mention, generally the first 100 days are the most active of a President and if I remember right Bush didn't *QUITE* have a true senate majority during his first 100 days though I may be wrong, so numbers may be skewed.

What I mean by this is....

If we're playing baseball, doing a home run contest type thing.

Lets say one guy gets 10 balls thrown to them every minute for 4 minutes.

Lets say another guy gets 30 balls thrown to them in 1 minute and 10 balls total over the other 3.

Lets say they both his 20 Home Runs.

The first guy averages 5 home runs every minute and each quarter of that contest he's hitting 5.

The second guy then would average 5 home runs every minute BUT in the first minute he'd have hit FIFTEEN homeruns, while hitting 5 over the next 3 minutes.

It SEEMS like the FREQUENCY is soooo much higher for the second guy, we must do something about it! But in reality, it's just because more balls are being thrown faster to him.

The first 100 days of a presidency is like that first minute. Things are being chucked out amazingly quick, and they tend to be extremely partisan towards whichever side is in power thus going directly against the principles of the other side. Furthermore, we're in a unique situation where there's a major issue going on with two very different views on what should be done.

I don't honestly see the Filibuster being all that more of an issue here then it was with Democrats when the Republicans had full power. I think removing the Filibuster would have a devestating effect on this nation whether Republicans OR democrats were in power because it completely takes any true check out of the process for the most part and allows a wide berth for a party radically taking the country full bore in one direction or the other.
 
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."

I would like to see this information.

I have not seen any articles suggesting that Democrats are going to remove the filibuster as a minority tool to prevent the majority from running over them and rubber stamping legislation without debate.

But if they do try this, it sends a message to Americans that Democrats only like rules when it suits their purpose and are hardly interested in honest transparent debate and Democracy.
 
I would like to see this information.

I have not seen any articles suggesting that Democrats are going to remove the filibuster as a minority tool to prevent the majority from running over them and rubber stamping legislation without debate.

But if they do try this, it sends a message to Americans that Democrats only like rules when it suits their purpose and are hardly interested in honest transparent debate and Democracy.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Historical Minutes > 1878-1920 > Cloture Rule
 

Thread thanks. :2wave:

I found this particularly interesting:

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

These were Democrats correct? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t the nuclear option (bypassing Dems filibuster) what contributed to the ending of Newt Gingrich's career and helped get Clinton another term as President? The same thing could happen here, anyone that is perceived to have had the brain fart idea of bypassing the filibuster can kiss his career in the Senate goodbye. Rightfully so.

That being said its been used by both parties in the past, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 and Bushes tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. My opinion is it is being used as leverage, leaving the idea dangling all the while having no intention of using it.

In the meantime keep feeding RNC money to Minnesota hoping in a vain attempt at blocking number 59 from being seated. :mrgreen:
Gingrich was a Representative not a Senator. The House does not have the filibuster.
 
Thread thanks. :2wave:

I found this particularly interesting:

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

These were Democrats correct? :cool:

Do you care about anything other than trying to score cheap political shots?

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 sure very few people have a problem with making sure debate is allowed. The minority should have as long as is reasonably needed to discuss the merits of a bill. But that's not what filibusters are usually used for. They're used to keep a bill from passing entirely. They make sure the majority party can't get anything done, more often than not. If they were just used to further legitimate debate, that'd be one thing, but it isn't the case. Can you give me the last time the minority started a filibuster so they could actually discuss the bill?

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.
Historically, that was the case. It used to be that one person had to actually talk for the entire time. The rules have changed since, so that now all they have to do is to vote no on cloture for a bill. No speaking or stalling is actually needed. They can delay a bill indefinitely if need be. I'd be ok with changing back to the "Mister Smith" rules, but I don't see it happening. And the founding fathers did want majority rule. That's the whole point of our government: Majority Rule with respect to Minority Rights.

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?
Did you even read my OP? I said that I would feel the same if the Republicans were in charge. Zyph is more or less right. Now being on the other end of things has made me sit down and actually evaluate the filibuster and its merit. Like I said, it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the founding fathers, or representative democracy. I've decided that the filibuster in its present form is overused and detrimental, and I'll keep that position when Dems are the minority again.
 
I'm sure very few people have a problem with making sure debate is allowed. The minority should have as long as is reasonably needed to discuss the merits of a bill. But that's not what filibusters are usually used for. They're used to keep a bill from passing entirely. They make sure the majority party can't get anything done, more often than not. If they were just used to further legitimate debate, that'd be one thing, but it isn't the case. Can you give me the last time the minority started a filibuster so they could actually discuss the bill?
Filibusters as such are not about actual "discussion"--they are meant to slow the process down. I venture to say no filibuster was launched with an intention to further discuss a matter before the Senate; they are launched to stop a matter before the Senate.

Being the cynic that I am, I tend to be of the belief that, when in doubt, Congress does the greater good by not passing legislation than by passing legislation. I am quite happy with the current filibuster system for that reason; anything which impedes the ability of Congress to pass legislation is a public good. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican majority--a filibuster is a good thing.
 
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.

You were happy with it when the Democrats did it, so enjoy your turn in the barrel.

When the Democrats stop trying to pass bills that are going to hurt the country, maybe the Republicans will stop filibustering them.

The Democrats were fillibustering bills that were going to help the country, if I can recall the few they tried it on, not to mention their repeated threats to filibuster judges that would use the Constitution as their guide for judging cases, not their political alignment.
 
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.

It does?

You are aware that the US Senate originally was an appointed body, not an elected one, right?

That means American "democracy" had, as one of the co-equal halves of the legislature making laws, a group of un-elected representatives of the states, not the people.

So how is it contrary to this mystical principle of American "democracy" you believe in that this unelected Senate could not also require tht a super majority vote be required to end the debate on bills? Would this not therefore be even MORE representative of the will of the states than a simple majority, since if the states are split nearly 50/50 on an issue, does it not raise more contention when it's passed?

But do remember...the Senators aren't supposed to be "congressmen" with state-wide constituencies, they're supposed to represent the whole state, not just the people who bought them.
 
I voted, "No, reform" on the basis that judicial nominations and other presidential appointees should not be subject to filibuster.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Thread thanks.

I found this particularly interesting:

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

These were Democrats correct?


Do you care about anything other than trying to score cheap political shots?

Your desperate drama aside, what part of my question was a cheap political shot? Your answer certainly will provide amusing entertainment. :roll:
 
It does?

You are aware that the US Senate originally was an appointed body, not an elected one, right?

That means American "democracy" had, as one of the co-equal halves of the legislature making laws, a group of un-elected representatives of the states, not the people.

So how is it contrary to this mystical principle of American "democracy" you believe in that this unelected Senate could not also require tht a super majority vote be required to end the debate on bills? Would this not therefore be even MORE representative of the will of the states than a simple majority, since if the states are split nearly 50/50 on an issue, does it not raise more contention when it's passed?

But do remember...the Senators aren't supposed to be "congressmen" with state-wide constituencies, they're supposed to represent the whole state, not just the people who bought them.

It's contrary to the principles because the founding fathers at no point claimed they wanted a supermajority, and there's been no push by the people and the states as a whole to change that. Yes, an issue that passes 50/50 still raises contention, but that's going to happen even with 60/40 votes. The senate, elected or unelected, could choose to require a supermajority, but they could also require that the bill sponsors hop on one leg. The point is, in America, the majority rules, unless specifically stated otherwise (e.g., the majority of the EC rules). If the rule is unconstitutional, its the job of the courts to step in, but unless that happens, that's how it was intended to work.
 
You were happy with it when the Democrats did it, so enjoy your turn in the barrel.

When the Democrats stop trying to pass bills that are going to hurt the country, maybe the Republicans will stop filibustering them.

The Democrats were fillibustering bills that were going to help the country, if I can recall the few they tried it on, not to mention their repeated threats to filibuster judges that would use the Constitution as their guide for judging cases, not their political alignment.

If you noticed, I said that I want to repeal it, knowing fully well that it will affect both parties. I'm consciously agreeing that we should limit a tool that my party has used and will use in the future. I'm not being partisan about this, why can't you try to do the same?
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Thread thanks.

I found this particularly interesting:

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

These were Democrats correct?



Your desperate drama aside, what part of my question was a cheap political shot? Your answer certainly will provide amusing entertainment. :roll:

The cheap political shot was that we were discussing something that wasn't specifically about either party, and you decided to try to dig up something to smear the party you don't like with. Let me ask you: what happened to most of those Democrats who opposed the act? For instance, what party did Strom Thurmond end up in? Jesse Helms? Most of those Democrats switched parties to the Republican Party, where they ended up controlling the party. On the other hand, the president who signed that bill, knowing full well that his party would lose the south for a generation, but that it was the right thing to do was a ... what again? That's right, a Democrat.
 
The cheap political shot was that we were discussing something that wasn't specifically about either party, and you decided to try to dig up something to smear the party you don't like with. Let me ask you: what happened to most of those Democrats who opposed the act? For instance, what party did Strom Thurmond end up in? Jesse Helms? Most of those Democrats switched parties to the Republican Party, where they ended up controlling the party. On the other hand, the president who signed that bill, knowing full well that his party would lose the south for a generation, but that it was the right thing to do was a ... what again? That's right, a Democrat.

That's right. The real racists remained Democrats, the others became Republicans, and as Republicans gained ascendency in the South, institutional racism vanished there, also.

Where are the places with the most severe race problems? Cities with predominantly Democrat leaderships. Gee, what a coincidence.

Which political party has implemented those policies that have most damaged the black American family since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that they opposed? That's right, the Democrats.

Which political party takes it as an inarguable matter of faith that minority Americans need special consideration for employment because they're not good enough to make it in the real world on their own? That's right, the Democrats defend Affirmative Action still.

Name the "racist" laws the Republicans have passed since they passed the 1964 CRA?

Aren't any.
 
Last edited:
The cheap political shot was that we were discussing something that wasn't specifically about either party, and you decided to try to dig up something to smear the party you don't like with. Let me ask you: what happened to most of those Democrats who opposed the act? For instance, what party did Strom Thurmond end up in? Jesse Helms? Most of those Democrats switched parties to the Republican Party, where they ended up controlling the party. On the other hand, the president who signed that bill, knowing full well that his party would lose the south for a generation, but that it was the right thing to do was a ... what again? That's right, a Democrat.

The notion that the politics of the Senate are not political can only be expressed by someone who is desperately provoking personal drama.

Nothing I posted was cheap politics, they were FACTS.

Carry on; nothing more needs to be added to Akbar eloquently response to your nonsensical attempts to make things personal again.
 
There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.
 
There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.
Yep, that is why I argued earlier that the fillibuster is definitely within the original spirit of the constitution, while the fillibuster can be used to block something that would reform government and shrink the federal government, it can also be used to block something on the other extreme of the argument as well. Whether used for good or bad, I would rather have the fillibuster and take it's flaws than have a runaway train with majority rule.
 
There is one good reason to keep the filibuster, and our forefathers referred to it in their writings - The tyranny of the majority.

Did they ever mention anything about the filibuster or a supermajority?
 
Did they ever mention anything about the filibuster or a supermajority?
In the Constitution, regarding procedure?
No. But they did allow for the senate to make its own rules.
 
In the Constitution, regarding procedure?
No. But they did allow for the senate to make its own rules.

Call it the law of unintentional consequences. I doubt they intended for there to be a filibuster option.
 
Call it the law of unintentional consequences. I doubt they intended for there to be a filibuster option.
Again, the way the founders argued, sometimes resulting in fatality(dueling) and the heated debates that formed the founding document, they would probably give the fillibuster a thumbs up, but that is just a guess on my part.
 
Back
Top Bottom