Filibuster Reform

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    Link

    To anyone opposed to this change, here's a link to the US Constitution. I defy anyone to show me where all legislation must have a supermajority to pass one house of Congress. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    The problem is that parties that are in the majority try to make the changes to this, so that it mitigates the minority parties ability to block a bill.

    Have there been abuses, sure but its really the only weapon for a minority party. Back in 80s, I vaguely recall the republican party pushing for a change in the filibuster rules because they were the majority party at the time.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    There have been changes over the years to lower the requirements to overcome a filibuster. The changes that they are proposing now seem to merely be requiring those who want to filibuster to actually have the votes and actually do something beyond anonymous holds. It would put the requirement on the people wanting to filibuster as opposed to the people trying to overcome it.

    Obviously, since nothing concrete has been proposed, this is really just a lot of speculation.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    I don;t know. When the shoe is on the other foot, the filibuster sure has done a lot to save us form some scary stuff.
     
  5. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    Except, I have no opposition to, and I would suspect Democrats would line up the 40 votes to publicly oppose legislation.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    I see how that could be helpful. I don't know. I think it might be better to put enough pressure on some of them who re on the fence to change their minds. We saw that happen with DADT.
     
  7. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Except public support for the filibuster would expose who the 40 votes were.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    In theory but at the same time you can just assume that the one not on the 60 are against it.

    This would be what I would call a nuclear option and I do not see it happening because the Dems will be in the minority in the future and in that case it will be used against them. Not a question of if it is a question of when and if things do not really improve in terms of unemployment and jobs in the next 2 years it will be happening in 2 years.
     
  9. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #9
    I think changing filibusters to require that someone actually speaks, like Bernie Sanders did , is a common sense change. There's no place for anonymous holds in the senate, and if you're ready to cause a gridlock in the senate, you'd better be ready to spend your entire day there.

    (I love how Mitch McConnell anonymously tried to reinstate DADT the day after it was repealed via an amendment to the defense bill)
     
  10. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #10
    The way filibusters are now is retarded. It's basically "Oh, now you need 60 votes in the Senate instead of 51. It's never been that way, this wasn't how anyone intended filibusters to work, and we're clearly abusing it, but that's that." What's funny is that the people filibustering everything right now claim to be constitutionalists. :D
     
  11. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #11
    you will find senators that will vote to end the filibuster but will vote against the bill.

    Often times you will see 60+ votes for no filbusters but less than 60 votes for the bill.
     
  12. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana, US
    #12
    But lately that has become pretty rare. Usually only one or two senators if that is even the case. Now it has been used more as "I disagree with the bill" other than "I want further debate on the bill" as filibusters were intended.
     
  13. coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #13
    Which is a common sense change.

    They are not proposing eliminating the filibuster, as that has been a recognized minority right in the Senate for a long time. But the way it is now where basically every bill is filibustered with no effort is just nonsensical.
     

Share This Page