• 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!

Could Senate Dems Nuke the Filibuster?

PeteEU said:
There is a growing movement among conservatives to have it removed. There is also a small group (and growing) to only allow land owners to vote and other anti-democratic proposals... all on the US right.
Click to expand...

First of all, you can't remove an amendment, it has to be repealed. Secondly, there is a growing movement of non-progressives to have the 17th amendment repealed. Nice try though Pete, next time do some homework before you speak of what you do not know.
 
Kandahar said:
Actually now is probably a good time to get rid of the filibuster, because neither party would overwhelmingly benefit from it. Anything the Democrats tried to ram through the Senate on a party-line vote would be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House. Similarly, if the Republicans tried to pick off a few conservative Senate Democrats and ram through right-wing legislation, President Obama would veto it.

This may be the best time to reform it precisely because the new Congress will need to work together anyway. The filibuster (at least as it's used now) is antithetical to a functional legislative branch.
Click to expand...

You are thinking way too small here. Sure, removing the filibuster may work now, but how about 2 years from now when Republicans most likely re-gain control of the WH and the Senate? What about if in 10 years the Democrats regain control of the WH and both houses? What works today won't work down the road. Do you really want a Republican controlled WH, Senate and House? I know I don't. I've always said it was a bad idea when one "side" has control of both. Early on in the Bush administration and the first two years of the Obama administration have proven that for all to see. If you remove the filibuster, whoever is in power can just ram through whatever legislation they want to. Is this what anyone really wants as a whole? I can see the case being made when "their side" is in control, but what about when the pendulum swings the other way?
 
MrVicchio said:
The Senate was DESIGNED to be slow, hard to pass things through and easy for one Senator, one state, one small group to stand up and bring the whole thing to a crawl.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The Senate was not designed so that every bill was filibustered by default, requiring a 60 vote supermajority. If it was, then that would have been written into the Constitution. Furthermore, the filibuster isn't even a time-honored tradition. It was rarely used at all before the civil rights era, and even then it wasn't used very frequently until the 1990s.

MrVicchio said:
It's the art of compromise that was demanded with the Senate. I know people don't want to understand that, to consider it. It's so much easier to use the bumpersticker logic slogans of "What's wrong with 51 votes?"
Click to expand...

I can tell you exactly what's wrong with 60 votes. It means that there will rarely be a consensus on how to solve our nation's problems, ensuring that nothing ever gets done. Look at California, where there is a gap between the majority and the supermajority. There aren't enough votes to raise taxes and there aren't enough votes to cut spending, so the state has a huge deficit. Either low taxes/spending or high taxes/spending would be preferable to the mess California now finds themselves in...but the gridlock has ensured that they can't make a decision and has made it impossible to solve the problem.

MrVicchio said:
What's wrong is that isn't what the Senate is about. Learn to understand WHY things are the way they are before you demand they change. So few here on either side understand the WHY. And we all know that if the Dem's managed to cahnge this, teh moment they are out of power and unable to Filibuster something that's near and dear to them all hell will break loose in the media. "The Tyrannical Republicans...."
Click to expand...

It's not like the Democrats are going to hugely benefit right now from getting rid of the filibuster anyway, so I don't see why you need to make this a partisan issue. The filibuster is bad for democracy and it's bad for practical reasons. We may as well get rid of it now, when no one stands to gain a huge partisan advantage from it.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Akston said:
You are thinking way too small here. Sure, removing the filibuster may work now, but how about 2 years from now when Republicans most likely re-gain control of the WH and the Senate? What about if in 10 years the Democrats regain control of the WH and both houses?
Click to expand...

Well, if the voters gave a single party a huge mandate in Congress and the White House, then I don't see why that's a problem.

Hugh_Akston said:
What works today won't work down the road. Do you really want a Republican controlled WH, Senate and House? I know I don't.
Click to expand...

No, but if that's what the voters want I don't see why the minority party should be awarded more influence than the voters think they are due.

Hugh_Akston said:
I've always said it was a bad idea when one "side" has control of both. Early on in the Bush administration and the first two years of the Obama administration have proven that for all to see. If you remove the filibuster, whoever is in power can just ram through whatever legislation they want to. Is this what anyone really wants as a whole? I can see the case being made when "their side" is in control, but what about when the pendulum swings the other way?
Click to expand...

If the ruling party passes extreme legislation, the voters will toss them out in the next election and a more moderate Congress will adjust accordingly. Furthermore, the Senate rarely used the filibuster for the first 200 years of its existence, and we only occasionally had issues with Congress undoing all the legislation of the previous Congress. For the most part, they just tinkered with it or built on it, but it's pretty unusual in our nation's history to see Congresses radically departing from their predecessors' legislation, who themselves undid their predecessors' legislation, etc.
 
Last edited:
how did us presidents from ronald reagan to bill clinton manage to pass legislation when opp's held the houses?

how does chubby chris christie manage in trenton?

the answer---leadership

hint---you gotta pick issues the public actually LIKES

meanwhile:

The first day of the new Congress was supposed to mark the beginning of the end of how the filibuster has been regularly used to kill legislation on the Senate floor.

But Democrats who have been complaining for two years about Republican obstruction are struggling to unite behind a single filibuster reform plan – and several are expressing reservations that they could set a dangerous precedent if Republicans return to the Senate majority after the 2012 elections. Republican leaders — who have been largely quiet in the debate so far — are planning to step up their attacks and portray any proposed changes in Senate rules as a power grab by Democrats.
Click to expand...

Democrats stymied on filibuster reform - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

surprised?
 
Kandahar said:
No it wasn't. The Senate was not designed so that every bill was filibustered by default, requiring a 60 vote supermajority. If it was, then that would have been written into the Constitution. Furthermore, the filibuster isn't even a time-honored tradition. It was rarely used at all before the civil rights era, and even then it wasn't used very frequently until the 1990s.
Click to expand...

I am first going to address, as I understand it, your two points. The first, unless I am mistaken, is comprised of two (admittedly, overlapping and thus logically inconsistent) claims concerning the Senate and what it was designed to do. In order of appearance: (a) The Senate was designed by the Founding Fathers to act quickly and (b) this is reflected in the Constitution. The second is more straightforward, and is composed of three parts (a) an indictment that filibustering isn't a "time-honored tradition," (b) it wasn't used "at all" before the civil rights era and finally (c) it wasn't used widely until the 1990s.

I am going to address the second one first, because it is much easier to demonstratively disprove.

Filibustering is a "time-honored" tradition stretching all the way back to the Roman Republic; more specifically, Cato the Younger [Link]. This tradition has extended through France and Britain (most spectacularly over the Irish Question), until arriving in American in 1841 in the famous debate between Henry Clay and Calhoun following the removal of the "Previous Question Motion" in the Upper House. I believe this, along with the following examples, unequivocally disproves (a) of your second claim.

Moving onto (b) of claim (2), where you state it wasn't used until the civil rights era. On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette. Neither of which are part of the civil rights movement or of the era. There is also the example of the famous Senator Huey Long who filibustered for a then-record 15 hours on On June 12, 1935.

Finally, the idea that the filibuster was not widely used before the 1990s is absurd; as you well know. I believe this [Link] is evidence enough.

At this point, any fair-minded person can conclude that filibustering in America does have a long "time-honored tradition," that it existed well before the civil-rights era was well used extensively before 1990.

Moving onto the skipped claim (1), I will now address your points. These are somewhat harder, not because they are supported by more evidence, but merely because you have constructed your argument in such a duplicitous way to make anyone disagreeing with you to be arguing a negative. In effect, that the Senate was designed *not* to act quickly and that to act quickly is *not* reflected in the Constitution. However, this link eloquently sums up why the reigning opinion is that the Senate is a slower deliberative as reflected within the Constitution. [Link]
 
Areopagitican said:
I am first going to address, as I understand it, your two points. The first, unless I am mistaken, is comprised of two (admittedly, overlapping and thus logically inconsistent) claims concerning the Senate and what it was designed to do. In order of appearance: (a) The Senate was designed by the Founding Fathers to act quickly and (b) this is reflected in the Constitution. The second is more straightforward, and is composed of three parts (a) an indictment that filibustering isn't a "time-honored tradition," (b) it wasn't used "at all" before the civil rights era and finally (c) it wasn't used widely until the 1990s.

I am going to address the second one first, because it is much easier to demonstratively disprove.

Filibustering is a "time-honored" tradition stretching all the way back to the Roman Republic; more specifically, Cato the Younger [Link]. This tradition has extended through France and Britain (most spectacularly over the Irish Question), until arriving in American in 1841 in the famous debate between Henry Clay and Calhoun following the removal of the "Previous Question Motion" in the Upper House. I believe this, along with the following examples, unequivocally disproves (a) of your second claim.

Moving onto (b) of claim (2), where you state it wasn't used until the civil rights era. On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette. Neither of which are part of the civil rights movement or of the era. There is also the example of the famous Senator Huey Long who filibustered for a then-record 15 hours on On June 12, 1935.

Finally, the idea that the filibuster was not widely used before the 1990s is absurd; as you well know. I believe this [Link] is evidence enough.

At this point, any fair-minded person can conclude that filibustering in America does have a long "time-honored tradition," that it existed well before the civil-rights era was well used extensively before 1990.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about on a regular basis, not isolated examples that you can find. Nor am I talking about Ancient Rome. For God's sake. :roll:
The filibuster as it is currently used in the United States is relatively new. This is the first time in history when every bill, no matter how petty, is filibustered by default.

101223-filibuster.gif


Areopagitican said:
Moving onto the skipped claim (1), I will now address your points. These are somewhat harder, not because they are supported by more evidence, but merely because you have constructed your argument in such a duplicitous way to make anyone disagreeing with you to be arguing a negative. In effect, that the Senate was designed *not* to act quickly and that to act quickly is *not* reflected in the Constitution. However, this link eloquently sums up why the reigning opinion is that the Senate is a slower deliberative as reflected within the Constitution. [Link]
Click to expand...

Ya, it's just a preview page and I'm not about to buy (or read) the study. If there's something valuable in there you can sum it up yourself instead of having someone else do your thinking for you. In any case, the Senate can be a slower, deliberative body without the filibuster being used on every single bill, as it was for the first 200 years of its existence. Somehow I think our republic would survive if a simple majority was able to pass such momentous, controversial legislation as the Veterans Retraining Act, the Vision Care for Kids Act, and the Water Quality Investment Act (all of which were filibustered in the last Congress).
 
Last edited:
and yet the party that filibustered, essentially, EVERYTHING, reaped such RICH REWARDS...

go figure
 
Kandahar said:
I'm talking about on a regular basis, not isolated examples that you can find. Nor am I talking about Ancient Rome. For God's sake. :roll:
The filibuster as it is currently used in the United States is relatively new. This is the first time in history when every bill, no matter how petty, is filibustered by default.

101223-filibuster.gif
Click to expand...

The quantity of cloture votes disguises the fact that the amount of time spent filibustering has not increased to doomsday predicition. Merely because it is less tolerated, and cloture votes immediately follow regardless of whether there is a filibuster doesn't hide the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.



Ya, it's just a preview page and I'm not about to buy (or read) the study. If there's something valuable in there you can sum it up yourself instead of having someone else do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

A pithy summary: you're wrong.

In any case, the Senate can be a slower, deliberative body without the filibuster being used on every single bill, as it was for the first 200 years of its existence. Somehow I think our republic would survive if a simple majority was able to pass such momentous, controversial legislation as the Veterans Retraining Act, the Vision Care for Kids Act, and the Water Quality Investment Act (all of which were filibustered in the last Congress).
Click to expand...

Meaningless speculation.
 
Last edited:
Areopagitican said:
The quantity of cloture votes disguises the fact that the amount of time spent filibustering has not increased to doomsday predicition.
Click to expand...

You're right, the amount of TIME spent filibustering hasn't increased...because there aren't any Mr. Smith speeches anymore. The opposition just SAYS they're filibustering, and that's the end of it. But the amount of time isn't what matters, since that's a poor measure of gridlock; it's the amount of BILLS that are filibustered that matters.

Areopagitican said:
Merely because it is less tolerated, and cloture votes immediately follow regardless of whether there is a filibuster doesn't hide the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.
Click to expand...

Technically there is no such thing as a filibuster (until recently it just meant that someone was talking for a long time), so the number of clotures is the best proxy.

Areopagitican said:
A pithy summary: you're wrong.
Click to expand...

Cool. Bye bye then. :2wave:
 
Hugh_Akston said:
So you're OK with the 51-vote rule being proposed? What if your "party" is not in control? We will have Congress doing nothing but repealing bills every time the power changes hands. Won't that be good for the American people. :roll:
Click to expand...

I, personally, have nothing wrong with the Senate passing bills with only a 50% +1 majority vote even when my party is not in power in the Senate.
 
MrVicchio said:
The Senate was DESIGNED to be slow, hard to pass things through and easy for one Senator, one state, one small group to stand up and bring the whole thing to a crawl.

It's the art of compromise that was demanded with the Senate. I know people don't want to understand that, to consider it. It's so much easier to use the bumpersticker logic slogans of "What's wrong with 51 votes?"

What's wrong is that isn't what the Senate is about. Learn to understand WHY things are the way they are before you demand they change. So few here on either side understand the WHY. And we all know that if the Dem's managed to cahnge this, teh moment they are out of power and unable to Filibuster something that's near and dear to them all hell will break loose in the media. "The Tyrannical Republicans...."
Click to expand...

If the Senate isn't about 51 votes, then why didn't the Founding Fathers just make it so that a 2/3 majority was needed to pass all bills rather than 50% +1?

Also, the filibuster isn't the only thing that keeps the Senate slow and deliberative. One is that they are elected to 6-year terms. Another is that they have pretty lengthy debates. In fact, the filibuster is a debate in the Senate, but every debate requires a 2/3 majority in order to end the debate. This is vastly different from the House of Representatives, in which most debates take up 2 minutes and the rules on debates is very strict.

So getting rid of the filibuster won't stop the Senate from being slow. It'll just prevent one senator from holding up legislation.
 
ludahai said:
The United States was founded by the states as a republic. The states stupidly gave up the power that was given to them as a part of the Constitution with the 17th Amendment. No changing that.
Click to expand...

Actually, the states didn't give up the power - the people took it away from them.

This was because near the time of the 17th Amendment, state legislatures kept getting deadlocked in appointing Senators. Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature would filibuster attempts for the other side to make any appointments. They did this for their political parties. The people got tired of being screwed over by partisan politicians and not being represented in Congress, so they adopted the 17th Amendment.

It's not the people's fault that the state legislatures weren't responsible with the power, and so it is understandable why that power was taken away from them.
 
samsmart said:
I, personally, have nothing wrong with the Senate passing bills with only a 50% +1 majority vote even when my party is not in power in the Senate.
Click to expand...

senator mccaskill does

and according to roger simon's journolisters, she's not alone

unlike any of us, they actually get to vote
 
Hugh_Akston said:
You are thinking way too small here. Sure, removing the filibuster may work now, but how about 2 years from now when Republicans most likely re-gain control of the WH and the Senate? What about if in 10 years the Democrats regain control of the WH and both houses? What works today won't work down the road. Do you really want a Republican controlled WH, Senate and House? I know I don't. I've always said it was a bad idea when one "side" has control of both. Early on in the Bush administration and the first two years of the Obama administration have proven that for all to see. If you remove the filibuster, whoever is in power can just ram through whatever legislation they want to. Is this what anyone really wants as a whole? I can see the case being made when "their side" is in control, but what about when the pendulum swings the other way?
Click to expand...

If what you oppose is one political party having control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, then the filibuster is still no adequate check against the political party in power. Rather, other methods can be done.

Personally, I think we should start doing what the UK does and have a "shadow executive" - that is a group of those in the opposition party that shadows the President and the Cabinet Secretaries to criticize and offer alternatives. So, for example, the Shadow Secretary of the Treasury would be the chosen person from the opposition party in the White House to criticize the Secretary of the Treasury and offer alternatives on fiscals and monetary policies.

I think such a thing would be a healthy change to our current system.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm talking about on a regular basis, not isolated examples that you can find. Nor am I talking about Ancient Rome. For God's sake. :roll:
The filibuster as it is currently used in the United States is relatively new. This is the first time in history when every bill, no matter how petty, is filibustered by default.

101223-filibuster.gif
Click to expand...

I think you are ignoring a very important consideration. In the old days, you actually had to stand on the floor and speak to effectuate your filibuster. You actually had to physically do it, leading to the absurdity of a Senator reading from the phone book to maintain the filibuster. Now, one merely has to announce the intent to filibuster rather than actually physically stand in the well. That makes a filibuster easier to maintain without blocking other business that has to be done. So, while there are more filibusters today than there were four decades ago, such filibusters have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate than they did in that bygone era...
 
Last edited:
bottom line---if the party in power were pushing policies approved by the american people, those who filibuster against em would be PUNISHED

not REWARDED

politics 101

you don't have to change the RULES to make govt work

but apparently its incumbent on LEADERSHIP to undertake some kinda makeover

kinda like when the president suddenly came out for tax cuts for the rich as the right thing to do
 
samsmart said:
Actually, the states didn't give up the power - the people took it away from them.

This was because near the time of the 17th Amendment, state legislatures kept getting deadlocked in appointing Senators. Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature would filibuster attempts for the other side to make any appointments. They did this for their political parties. The people got tired of being screwed over by partisan politicians and not being represented in Congress, so they adopted the 17th Amendment.

It's not the people's fault that the state legislatures weren't responsible with the power, and so it is understandable why that power was taken away from them.
Click to expand...

The amendment was ratified by state legislatures, not by popular vote within each of the states...
 
ludahai said:
I think you are ignoring a very important consideration. In the old days, you actually had to stand on the floor and speak to effectuate your filibuster. You actually had to physically do it, leading to the absurdity of a Senator reading from the phone book to maintain the filibuster. Now, one merely has to announce the intent to filibuster rather than actually physically stand in the well. That makes a filibuster easier to maintain without blocking other business that has to be done. So, while there are more filibusters today than there were four decades ago, such filibusters have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate than they did in that bygone era...
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think they're a lot worse now than they were before. In fact, if they were willing to go back to the old reading-from-a-phone-book style of filibuster, that would be a big improvement. It would mean A) that every piece of trivial legislation wouldn't be filibustered by default, and B) the majority party could eventually get their way if they considered it important enough - they'd just have to outlast the speaker(s). If the opposition party regularly held up the business of Congress for days at a time to protest, say, the Water Quality Investment Act, they'd look pretty silly on C-SPAN and the media would want to know why. And even aside from the public embarrassment, the opposition probably just wouldn't care enough about most bills to personally camp out in Congress and speak for hours on end.

It's true that filibusters don't waste as much floor time today...but I wouldn't say they have a far reduced impact on the workings of the Senate, unless you measure impact by the amount of time Congress spends on routine business rather than the amount of meaningful legislation they pass.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
If what you oppose is one political party having control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, then the filibuster is still no adequate check against the political party in power. Rather, other methods can be done.

Personally, I think we should start doing what the UK does and have a "shadow executive" - that is a group of those in the opposition party that shadows the President and the Cabinet Secretaries to criticize and offer alternatives. So, for example, the Shadow Secretary of the Treasury would be the chosen person from the opposition party in the White House to criticize the Secretary of the Treasury and offer alternatives on fiscals and monetary policies.

I think such a thing would be a healthy change to our current system.
Click to expand...

I have an even better idea: let's stop trying to mirror what the goddamn Europeans are doing. They've had a thousand years to get it right and still can't. That's the reason that United States even exists, because the Europeans were cocking up the works.
 
samsmart said:
If the Senate isn't about 51 votes, then why didn't the Founding Fathers just make it so that a 2/3 majority was needed to pass all bills rather than 50% +1?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be best if you researched the answer to your question instead of waiting for me to post something you can dismiss, that way you get to understand it from them, rather then my repeat of it.

samsmart said:
Also, the filibuster isn't the only thing that keeps the Senate slow and deliberative. One is that they are elected to 6-year terms. Another is that they have pretty lengthy debates. In fact, the filibuster is a debate in the Senate, but every debate requires a 2/3 majority in order to end the debate. This is vastly different from the House of Representatives, in which most debates take up 2 minutes and the rules on debates is very strict.
Click to expand...

You are so close to answering your own question, and you don't even realize it! The HOUSE is allowed to be quicker, by design.

samsmart said:
So getting rid of the filibuster won't stop the Senate from being slow. It'll just prevent one senator from holding up legislation.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly why the Filibuster is needed, and should never be done away with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom