End the filibuster?

[ZiprHead]

It is time to end the fake filibuster.

FTFY

I'm not against a filibuster, I'm against the virtual filibuster, which just needs to be suggested to happen. If people had to actually follow through, instead of just threaten, then that would likely reduce the number of them. At least try that first.

Oh, I understand that. But the fact is that the senate operated for fifty years before the idea of the filibuster came about. It is supposed to operate by an up/down majority rules vote. No where in the constitution that created the senate is minority rule allowed.

 

[lpetrich]

President Biden on Twitter: "We’re witnessing an all-out assault on our democracy — and we need to act swiftly to protect the sacred right to vote.

We need the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act." / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Abolish the filibuster." / Twitter


Sen. Kyrsten Sinema daftly doubles down on filibuster support

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema has a very strongly held belief in compromise. And because she is essentially alone in this belief among members of the U.S. Senate, the For the People Act, which offered sweeping protections against voter suppression, will not pass. And there will not be a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection of Jan. 6. And states like Arizona will pass a series of Jim Crow-like election laws, aimed at increasing restrictions on voting and making it more difficult for minority or marginalized communities to participate in the democratic process.

But, hey, the senator will have stuck to her guns. Held firm in her beliefs. Even though she is a sponsor of the For the People Act and believes in the creation of a Jan. 6 commission and is very much against restricting voting rights.

Her and Sen. Joe Manchin

The two of them made a special appeal to their Republican brothers and sisters, asking them to support the Jan. 6 commission.

They got snubbed.

You could practically hear Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chortling in the cloakroom.

What will ever make them say "Forget about the Republicans"?

Sinema added, “To those who say that we must make a choice between the filibuster and ‘X,’ I say, this is a false choice.

“The reality is that when you have a system that is not working effectively – and I would think that most would agree that the Senate is not a particularly well-oiled machine, right? The way to fix that is to fix your behavior, not to eliminate the rules or change the rules, but to change the behavior.”

How does she plan to do that?

 

[lpetrich]

Kyrsten Sinema Says Senate Filibuster Fosters Bipartisanship. Since When? - "The Arizona Democrat's view on the history and effects of the Senate procedural device is simply not connected to reality."

Noting
Joe Manchin Supported Filibuster Reforms in 2011 - "The second guy backed filibuster reform. So should the first guy."

Among the list of procedural reforms Manchin considered was Senate Resolution 10, which he co-sponsored. It would have...

...eliminated the filibuster on motions to proceed to a debate on the substance of the bill; eliminated secret holds; allowed both the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader to offer up to three amendments on behalf of their members after cloture has been filed as long as the amendments are relevant; required that Senators who wish to filibuster a bill must actually take the floor and make remarks; and expedited the process for nominees that require Senate confirmation.

The bill failed.

Back to the first article.

Last week, we asked Senator Manchin's office whether he still supported the kind of filibuster reforms he did back in 2011, when he declared that "West Virginians deserve a government that works for them, and they are understandably frustrated with the way things get done—or don’t—in Washington." We didn't get a response, but that was somehow better than what Senator Sinema served up on Wednesday. In a press availability alongside Republican Senator John Cornyn, with whom Sinema has embarked on a road trip in order to demonstrate the glories of bipartisan comity, the Arizona Democrat offered a defense of the filibuster that amounted to little more than make-believe. The history and real-world effects of the Senate mechanism that Sinema offered here simply have no connection to reality.

...
But on that last point, there are also the just entirely made-up effects of this procedural device Sinema presented here. The senator claimed the filibuster was "created"—again, a tenuous view of history—to "create comity and encourage senators to find bipartisanship and work together."

I was baffled by that also. I'd like to challenge her to find the filibuster in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

 

[Patooka]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

By then, all state and federal districts will be so fucking gerrymandered, and voter disenfranchisement will be so commonplace, the presence or absence of a filibuster will means precisely jack shit. Republicans aren't even worried about saying the quiet part out loud anymore.

 

[Elixir]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

By then, all state and federal districts will be so fucking gerrymandered, and voter disenfranchisement will be so commonplace, the presence or absence of a filibuster will means precisely jack shit. Republicans aren't even worried about saying the quiet part out loud anymore.

Right wingers routinely forget that the filibuster no longer applies to "helping the Democrats" or to thwarting the right wing extremist agenda of corrupting democracy.
That's why we have three Trump appointees including a drunken rapist and a christian godder on the SCOTUS.

 

[Rhea]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

It sounds like you think the GOP will respect the filibuster if they regain the majority?
Why would you think that?

 

[RVonse]

It is time to end the fake filibuster.

FTFY

I'm not against a filibuster, I'm against the virtual filibuster, which just needs to be suggested to happen. If people had to actually follow through, instead of just threaten, then that would likely reduce the number of them. At least try that first.

+3. I also agree with you and Laughing Dog.

 

[laughing dog]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

Do you have an actual point?

The original filibuster where someone had to actually work was rarely used to deter or derail legislation. The virtual filibuster which requires only a threat to actually work is made legislation makes it effortless to thwart the will of the majority. It makes compromise much more difficult since it only takes a relatively small number of hardliners to maintain the filibuster under current Senate rules.

Given that there are many states with small populations, under current Senate rules, Senators from the 21 smallest states (a combined population of less than 40 million people out of a population of over 300 million) could theoretically prevent legislation from leaving the Senate. The current structure of filibuster rules makes a mockery of national elections when 41 senators can block almost any legislation. It creates smouldering frustration and resentment across the nation which helps to divide not unite our country.


Eliminating the virtual filibuster is a reasonable compromise. It permits actual filibusters which allows a minority to deter or derail legislation by engaging in actual work.

There are other options. The Senate could keep the filibusters and change the cloture rule to permit 51 votes to end a filibuster. Or have a 51 vote to end virtual filibusters and keep the 60 vote requirement for actual filibusters.

It is way past time to end the virtual filibuster.

 

[Elixir]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

It sounds like you think the GOP will respect the filibuster if they regain the majority?
Why would you think that?

Because they have been so honorable in the past.
You know, like laying down the rule of no new SC Justices in the 6 months before an election, then eliminating the filibuster and slamming one through 2 weeks before an election...
"The people have spoken and we told them to go fuck themselves. Proudly."

 

[ZiprHead]

Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the Committee. My name is Sarah Binder. I am a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the history of the filibuster.

I want to offer three arguments today about that history.

First, historical lore says that the filibuster was part of the original design of the Senate. Not true. When we scour early Senate history, we discover that the filibuster was created by mistake.

Second, we often say that the 19th century Senate was a golden age of deliberation. But the golden age was not so golden: Senate leaders by the 1840s were already trying to adopt a cloture rule. But most such efforts to bar the filibuster were filibustered.

Third, creation of the cloture rule in 1917 was not a statement of the Senate’s love for supermajority rules. Instead, it was the product of hard-nose bargaining with an obstructive minority. Short-term, pragmatic politics shape contests to change Senate rules.

The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.

Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

Conventional treatments of the Senate glorify the 19th century as the “golden age” of the Senate: We say that filibusters were reserved for the great issues of the day and that all senators cherished extended debate. That view misreads history in two ways.

First, there were very few filibusters before the Civil War. Why so few filibusters? First, the Senate operated by majority rule; senators expected matters would be brought to a vote. Second, the Senate did not have a lot of work to do in those years, so there was plenty of time to wait out the opposition. Third, voting coalitions in the early Senate were not nearly as polarized as they would later become.

All that changed by mid-century. The Senate grew larger and more polarized along party lines, it had more work to do, and people started paying attention to it. By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism: for instance, over civil rights, election law, nominations, even appointment of Senate officers—only some of these “the great issues of the day.”

There is a second reason that this was not a golden age: When filibusters did occur, leaders tried to ban them. Senate leaders tried and failed repeatedly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries to reinstate the previous question motion. More often than not, senators gave up their quest for reform when they saw that opponents would kill it by filibuster—putting the majority’s other priorities at risk. Unable to reform Senate rules, leaders developed other innovations such as unanimous consent agreements. These seem to have been a fallback option for managing a chamber prone to filibusters.

We can draw at least three lessons from this history:

First, the history of extended debate in the Senate belies the received wisdom that the filibuster was an original, constitutional feature of the Senate. The filibuster is more accurately viewed as the unanticipated consequence of an early change to Senate rules.

Second, reform of Senate rules is possible. There are conditions that can lead a bipartisan supermajority to agree to change Senate rules. The minority has often held the upper hand in these contests, however, given the high barrier to reform imposed by inherited Senate rules.

Third, and finally, the Senate adopted a supermajority rule not because senators were uniformly committed to the filibuster. Senators chose a two-thirds rule because a minority blocked more radical reform. Short-term, pragmatic considerations almost always shape contests over reform of Senate rules.

The filibuster arose from a mistake. I say correct that mistake and make the senate a small d democratic body again.

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

By then, all state and federal districts will be so fucking gerrymandered, and voter disenfranchisement will be so commonplace, the presence or absence of a filibuster will means precisely jack shit. Republicans aren't even worried about saying the quiet part out loud anymore.

Not an answer.

And when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats?

Do you have an actual point?

Yes,[removed insult]

 

[Swammerdami]

Many states are passing laws and encouraging illegal practices to make it harder for blacks to vote. Gerrymandering means the Rs control some states where the Ds have a majority of voters. We need tough new federal laws to help combat such cheating.

If bills like HR.1 are not enacted, American democracy is dead. There aren't 60 Senators who will vote for such laws. Ending the Senate filibuster, or allowing a simple majority to pass a cloture motion, is the only way to save American democracy.

It is a distraction to distinguish between an actual and "virtual" filibuster. The latter evolved as a time-saving measure. Instead of Ted Cruz standing up for an hour and reading from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and then saying "I've got to telephone Tricia's Teenage Trix to confirm my date, so I'll ask Josh Hawley to continue the reading of Atlas Shrugged," Cruz could just say "Do you really want to listen to Ayn Rand for an hour?" Do you really think Cruz will drop his opposition to HR.1 if it means he's forced to stand up for a few hours and bring the Senate to a standstill?

It is shameful if there are not 50 Senators who support reforms like HR.1. And it is incredible that Senators who want to protect American democracy will not change the filibuster rules to do so.

If Manchin and Whats-hername are going to let us down, what about Murkowski or Romney? One gets the impression that Lisa and Mitt believe in America and democracy, that they know the difference between good and evil. But if they don't join in saving democracy I will detest them more than I detest subhumans like Cruz or Hawley. At least Cruz and Hawley openly brag about being hate-filled contemptible swine.

 

[laughing dog]

Many states are passing laws and encouraging illegal practices to make it harder for blacks to vote. Gerrymandering means the Rs control some states where the Ds have a majority of voters. We need tough new federal laws to help combat such cheating.

Gerrymandering is irrelevant to the US Senate, because each state gets 2 Senators regardless of its population or its distribution.

It is a distraction to distinguish between an actual and "virtual" filibuster. The latter evolved as a time-saving measure. Instead of Ted Cruz standing up for an hour and reading from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and then saying "I've got to telephone Tricia's Teenage Trix to confirm my date, so I'll ask Josh Hawley to continue the reading of Atlas Shrugged," Cruz could just say "Do you really want to listen to Ayn Rand for an hour?" Do you really think Cruz will drop his opposition to HR.1 if it means he's forced to stand up for a few hours and bring the Senate to a standstill?

You miss an essential point. Eliminating the filibuster (actual or virtual) is not about getting support for legislation- it is about reducing obstruction. The virtual filibuster requires no effort which is why its use has mushroomed.

Keeping the actual filibuster while eliminating the virtual one allows those who promised to keep the filibuster to agree to a compromise.

 

[Patooka]

Not an answer.

It is. Just one you are not willing to accept. But that's okay.

Many states are passing laws and encouraging illegal practices to make it harder for blacks to vote. Gerrymandering means the Rs control some states where the Ds have a majority of voters. We need tough new federal laws to help combat such cheating.

Gerrymandering is irrelevant to the US Senate, because each state gets 2 Senators regardless of its population or its distribution.

Not necessarily. If you gain control of the state through gerrymandering, and then pass laws that disenfranchise voters from a particular party, your party gets to pick senators with a huge thumb on the scales. Gerrymandering directly leads to 7 hour long voting lines and rat fuckery like unequal distribution of polling booths or the banning of giving people water.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Gerrymandering is irrelevant to the US Senate, because each state gets 2 Senators regardless of its population or its distribution.
.

Which is itself a form of gerrymandering given the wide range of state populations.

 

[Swammerdami]

Gerrymandering is irrelevant to the US Senate, because each state gets 2 Senators regardless of its population or its distribution.

The "For the People Act", which is the bill whose passage I was calling for and which may be defeated by filibuster, will help prevent cheating in ALL elections, including elections for the House of Reps and for state legislatures. Were you under the impression that the Senate is or should be only concerned with elections to the Senate?

It is a distraction to distinguish between an actual and "virtual" filibuster. The latter evolved as a time-saving measure. Instead of Ted Cruz standing up for an hour and reading from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and then saying "I've got to telephone Tricia's Teenage Trix to confirm my date, so I'll ask Josh Hawley to continue the reading of Atlas Shrugged," Cruz could just say "Do you really want to listen to Ayn Rand for an hour?" Do you really think Cruz will drop his opposition to HR.1 if [preventing its passage] means he's forced to stand up for a few hours and bring the Senate to a standstill?

You miss an essential point. Eliminating the filibuster (actual or virtual) is not about getting support for legislation- it is about reducing obstruction. The virtual filibuster requires no effort which is why its use has mushroomed.

Keeping the actual filibuster while eliminating the virtual one allows those who promised to keep the filibuster to agree to a compromise.

YOU miss MY point. I've enlarged it and colored it red for you.

 

[Swammerdami]

When the Fox News anchor calls out a Democratic Senator for not supporting the Democratic Party, maybe it's time for said moron to listen:

If you were to keep the idea that maybe you would vote to kill the filibuster, wouldn't that give Republicans an incentive to actually negotiate? By taking it off the table, haven't you empowered Republicans to be obstructionists?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is. Just one you are not willing to accept. But that's okay.

The reason it is not an answer is because it doesn't address the question. Telling me "because birds have feathers" doesn't answer when I say "when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats".

 

[Rhea]

It is. Just one you are not willing to accept. But that's okay.

The reason it is not an answer is because it doesn't address the question. Telling me "because birds have feathers" doesn't answer when I say "when the Senate changes hands, and the filibuster that currently impedes the Democrats is no longer available to help the Democrats".

Why do you think the Republicans, who, as outlined above, rammed through a Justice after just saying Justies shouldn’t be rammed through, would allow the Democrats to benefit from the filibuter?

Why do you think they’d respect it? Do they seem honorable to you?