Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: pdx rick The Filibuster - 03/07/21 01:44 AM


According to this article in The Hill (03/04/21), all the Democrats have to do is wait out a Republican temper-tantrum aka Filibuster, then The Dems can vote the measure along party lines if no Republicans vote for the measure as well.

Quote:
An actual filibuster will ensue and will go on; possibly for a month or two. All filibusters in history have ended sometime ó the longest filibuster lasted 60 days when the 1964 Civil Rights bill was held up. Sooner or later, all filibusters will fizzle and a simple majority (51 percent) can then pass the legislation.


If this is true, then somebody ought to tell the Senate Dems and get going on getting ol' Joe's agenda passed. smile
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 09:52 AM
That could happen, but if Republicans are going to be insistent on blocking every normal bill Democrats propose, sooner or later Manchin and Senema will realize they need to vote to end or modify the filibuster. If not, we would have a repeat of the Obama administration when the Republicans blocked everything.

A proposal they both might go for would be to modify the filibuster so it takes 60 votes the first day, 55 the second, and 50 votes the third day to reach cloture. This leaves plenty of time for debate on a bill, while preserving majority rule. Interesting point: There is nothing about the filibuster or a 60 vote requirement in the constitution. The founders wrote it as a simple majority, with the VP casting a tie-breaker vote. If it ever got to the Supreme Court, they could easily decide it's unconstitutional.
Posted By: Ujest Shurly Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 01:31 PM
No leave the Filibuster, first known use - Ancient Rome, during Julies Ceaser's time.

Just take it back to its roots - want to filibuster a bill, get up and talk until you can not, then if you can, start again the next day otherwise it would be voted upon.

A Republic is a majority rule form of government, and yes I know it cuts both ways...
Posted By: logtroll Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 02:12 PM
It has always seemed irrational to me in the practice of government to allow tricks and gimmicks to influence legislating. Even when a filibuster required actual effort, the subject matter should have been limited to the bill under consideration, with limits on repetition. You know, like real debate...

This modern thing of defaulting to needing 60 votes not only changes the mechanics of approval, it also often avoids potentially useful substantive debate.

My vote is to keep the filibuster, but require it to conform to serious discussion of the issues. Make 'em behave like responsible adults!
Posted By: perotista Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 03:13 PM
The problem isn't the filibuster, it's today's modern era of politics we entered into. The polarization, the divisiveness and the mega, ultra high partisanship. Of the straight party line vote. This is a relative new thing going back 20-25 years. Prior to that a straight party line vote was very rare if they occurred at all.

Even the 1964 civil rights bill which included a very long filibuster was more or less bipartisan with 61% house Democrats and 80% of House republicans voting for it, in the senate was 66% of democrats and 82% of republicans voting for cloture with the final version of the bill passing the senate with 63% of democrats and 82% Republicans.

Now I'm all in favor of keeping the filibuster. Now I was really peeved at Reid for his first use and setting the precedence with the nuclear option which came back and bit them in the butt with Kavanaugh and Barrett. I'm positive if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster for another short term gain, it too will come back to bite them even harder. But that's their call, not mine.

With the nuclear option a reality, I'd like to see a change. I'm all in favor of a president having the people he wants in his cabinet and heading the different government agencies. Since the Constitution states the senate must confirm, for these I'd go with a simple majority vote. It already is considering Reid's setting the precedence with his first use of the nuclear option.

Second, judicial appointment, I'd raise them to 2/3rds of the senate needed to confirm. That means more moderate judges and takes some of the politics out of judicial appointment. A federal judge would have to be supported by some of both parties. Most judicial appointments are carried by 80-20 or even 90-10 in the senate today.

Legislation, I'd leave it at 60.

The problem is our modern era of politics, where both parties try to stop anything and everything of the other party from ever being passed. No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it. Somehow we have to get back to an older era of our politics and leave this modern era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship behind us.
Posted By: pdx rick Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 03:21 PM
Quote:
...This is a relative new thing going back 20-25 years....

What does this time frame have in common? Oh yes! Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the start-up of Fox News. Hmm
Posted By: logtroll Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 04:36 PM
Originally Posted By: perotista
The problem is our modern era of politics, where both parties try to stop anything and everything of the other party from ever being passed. No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it. Somehow we have to get back to an older era of our politics and leave this modern era of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship behind us.

I'm curious as to how keeping a 60 vote requirement addresses the inability to work together problem? It can just as easily be blamed for the chronic obstruction by the minority party. I think the lack of working together is more of a cultural problem, rather than a structural issue. And the cultural dysfunction does seem to flow from right-wing misinformation, lies, and propaganda, not from honest rational ideological principles.

I think "member directed spending" will actually stimulate bipartisanship.
Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 05:31 PM
Quote:
I'm positive if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster for another short term gain, it too will come back to bite them even harder. But that's their call, not mine.


Why should it concern you that Democrats might get bitten in the butt?

You aren't one of them and their agenda is not your agenda.

The filibuster itself seems to have worked more to divide the parties than it has to unite them. In a different day and time it might serve a purpose, today it's just a spanner in the works and it prevents either party from getting anything done. To support the filibuster you support the gridlock.

All is not fair in war or love. But in politics it is.

Trump proved that.
Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 05:43 PM
Quote:
No merits is given to the legislation being good or bad, just who proposed it.

Pero...
Perhaps you could present a short list of Republican legislation which the Democrats have filibustered?

Or a few examples of Republican legislation you believe Democrats should have supported?

Or even a few bills proposed by Republicans that you supported?

I submit that this filibuster thing has been a one sided affair, just like actual effective legislation.
Posted By: jgw Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 06:13 PM
Hopefully The Dems will do this. First, however, they have to take time to eat another of their own, this time the Governor of New York. Once they get that done THEN they might proceed.
Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/07/21 10:25 PM
If they don't eat their own then they have no high ground to complain about republican shenanigans.

Should be fairly simple for old white powerful men to stop harassing women for sex.
Posted By: Irked Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 01:58 AM
The filibuster hasnít been used to encourage debate or compromise in a very long time. If ever. Is there even one example of the filibuster being used and leading to a bipartisan, compromise bill? I very much doubt it and can think of none myself. The filibuster has always been used as a way for the minority to foil the majority by sending a bill to its death.

The whole thing has become an absurdity, if it ever was anything else: A device to require a super-majority to end a debate that is not happening. Sort of like praying to a deity that doesnít exist to get the deity to stop doing something it has no control over.
Posted By: perotista Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 02:13 PM
I suppose looking at it from a strictly partisan view point, trying to gain as much short term political gain as possible, then it doesn't matter.

How did the first use of the nuclear option, setting the precedence for it use play out in the long term for Reid and company? Kavanaugh, Barrett.

ending the filibuster will probably have the same long term effects. Democrats will pass legislation, then when the GOP regains power, they'll repeal all that legislation and pass their own. Then the democrats come back into power and repeal all Republican legislation and pass their own. The country being jerked from far left to far right to far left again.

It doesn't matter, what will happen will happen. Now if we had leaders like Daschle and Lott, Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, there would be no talk at all about ending the filibuster. It's all about the intransigent of our current political leaders. But this seems what the people want, or do they? Perhaps it only what both major party's want. Americans or a majority want compromise and the party's working together whenever possible. Keep in mind I said, whenever possible.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

There's a reason for the ever growing number of independents as both major parties shrink. Independents have grown from 30% in 2006 up to 41% as of 12 Feb 2021. Democrats have dropped from 37% to 32% of the electorate while Republican have fallen from 31% down to 26%. I find it interesting we had wave elections in 2006, 2010 and 2018. There was one in 1994 and then you have to go all the way back to 1948 for the next one.
Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 02:58 PM
Quote:
How did the first use of the nuclear option, setting the precedence for it use play out in the long term for Reid and company? Kavanaugh, Barrett.

Nothing really wrong with Kavanaugh or Barret. Unless you're a hyper-partisan.

Quote:
The country being jerked from far left to far right to far left again.


Wrongo, mate! The country gets jerked back and forth within the narrow confines of a centrist worldview, never moving right or left. Removing the filibuster will allow both parties more freedom to implement their agendas. Voters will determine later whether these agendas are acceptable or not. When one party over-reaches they will be removed from power...witness the 2020 election...when an autocratic ruler was defeated and sent packing. Despite Republicans coming out in record numbers to support him.

Ideally, once government is given the freedom to govern rather than being hobbled by an archaic and inefficient "rule", then voters will choose which direction they want to go.
Posted By: jgw Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 06:36 PM
Actually, when one side tries to remove the legislation of the other side it rarely goes well. That was proven with the ACA which they tried and tried to get rid of and failed. The same will happen with much of what the Dems want. The Trick will be to force an actual filibuster, let it play out and then pass the whatever.

I believe the reason for the parties losing members is because each party has tended to simply go too far! I think everybody is sick and tired of the too far, on either side. It was much better when the sides were able to sit down and pass legislation both sides could live with. I think that Biden is trying for that again. I also think that's the way its supposed to work!
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 07:45 PM
The more I think about it, the more I believe the filibuster is unconstitutional. According to that document, senate decisions are all decided by simple majorities with the VP breaking ties. The only supermajorities in it are about impeachment conviction and restoring the right to hold office after insurrection. Seems to me any law that declares the senate vote should work differently, should be voided. And the filibuster is not even based on a law! It's just a "gentlemen's agreement". Since "gentlemen" seem to be quite absent from the congress anymore, it's time to jettison it.

It doesn't matter if Democrats keep it out of fear Republicans will retaliate later if they hold the majority: Because Republicans are willing to do anything legal (or even illegal) if it benefits them. Some time in the future, if they need to dump it to pass a bill, they will in a second. McConnell refusing to give Garland a hearing proved that.
Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 07:47 PM
Quote:
the reason for the parties losing members is because each party has tended to simply go too far!


Nawp. It's because neither party has gone far enough. Neither party has accomplished anything, no meaningful legislation has been passed.
We're still talking about the ACA and it was passed 12 years ago.

Voters have lost faith in either party delivering equitable legislation. Why side with one or the other when neither delivers the goods.

Posted By: Greger Re: The Filibuster - 03/08/21 08:31 PM
Quote:
The more I think about it, the more I believe the filibuster is unconstitutional.


I like the way you think.

But like most laws it's not so much unconstitutional as extra-constitutional.
Posted By: jgw Re: The Filibuster - 03/09/21 06:13 PM
On reflection we may both be right. I think that the Republicans have gone too far with their politics and you believe that not enough legislation as been passed. Now we will see as Biden seems to be trying, very hard, not to go too far politically and actually pass some needed legislation. If he fails I think that the other side is going to get blamed on both areas.

If the Dems do it right I think they just might actually really gain the congress and do good works.
© ReaderRant