End the filibuster?

[Jayjay]

How would the filibuster be eliminated in practice? My understanding is that in previous cases, the senate rules themselves were not changed, just their interpretation: someone calls for a vote for e.g. "the cloture doesn't apply to judicial nominations" and then the senate votes for that motion which can pass with a simple majority.

But to eliminate the cloture entirely seems like something that would require an actual rule change... what is the point of having rules if you can just overrule them at any time completely anyway? How can you have a rule that applies to nothing?

 

[fromderinside]

We are already practicing a two-level filibuster system. I argue that retaining two parties in a nation of about 330 million already forces many views into each party. Doing so leads to much shower change in the law. That pressure to achieve a compromise slows reaching a change point. The process is sufficient to exceed our natural tendencies to restrain social inertia, sustain the status quo.

I suggest we argue the issue on all its merits, not just genuflecting to tradition on a single cause.

 

[ZiprHead]

How would the filibuster be eliminated in practice? My understanding is that in previous cases, the senate rules themselves were not changed, just their interpretation: someone calls for a vote for e.g. "the cloture doesn't apply to judicial nominations" and then the senate votes for that motion which can pass with a simple majority.

But to eliminate the cloture entirely seems like something that would require an actual rule change... what is the point of having rules if you can just overrule them at any time completely anyway? How can you have a rule that applies to nothing?

Yes, it would be a rule change. It can be implemented by the party in charge with a simple majority vote. In fact, the filibuster rule has been changed 161 times since its inception.

 

[Jayjay]

How would the filibuster be eliminated in practice? My understanding is that in previous cases, the senate rules themselves were not changed, just their interpretation: someone calls for a vote for e.g. "the cloture doesn't apply to judicial nominations" and then the senate votes for that motion which can pass with a simple majority.

But to eliminate the cloture entirely seems like something that would require an actual rule change... what is the point of having rules if you can just overrule them at any time completely anyway? How can you have a rule that applies to nothing?

Yes, it would be a rule change. It can be implemented by the party in charge with a simple majority vote. In fact, the filibuster rule has been changed 161 times since its inception.

Then how do you explain that the republicans removed filibuster for supreme court nominations in 2017, but the latest senate rules seem to be from 2014?

 

[Toni]

How would the filibuster be eliminated in practice? My understanding is that in previous cases, the senate rules themselves were not changed, just their interpretation: someone calls for a vote for e.g. "the cloture doesn't apply to judicial nominations" and then the senate votes for that motion which can pass with a simple majority.

But to eliminate the cloture entirely seems like something that would require an actual rule change... what is the point of having rules if you can just overrule them at any time completely anyway? How can you have a rule that applies to nothing?

Yes, it would be a rule change. It can be implemented by the party in charge with a simple majority vote. In fact, the filibuster rule has been changed 161 times since its inception.

Then how do you explain that the republicans removed filibuster for supreme court nominations in 2017, but the latest senate rules seem to be from 2014?

I believe that they made an exception for Supreme Court nominations in 2017--while they held a majority.

 

[Jayjay]

How would the filibuster be eliminated in practice? My understanding is that in previous cases, the senate rules themselves were not changed, just their interpretation: someone calls for a vote for e.g. "the cloture doesn't apply to judicial nominations" and then the senate votes for that motion which can pass with a simple majority.

But to eliminate the cloture entirely seems like something that would require an actual rule change... what is the point of having rules if you can just overrule them at any time completely anyway? How can you have a rule that applies to nothing?

Yes, it would be a rule change. It can be implemented by the party in charge with a simple majority vote. In fact, the filibuster rule has been changed 161 times since its inception.

Then how do you explain that the republicans removed filibuster for supreme court nominations in 2017, but the latest senate rules seem to be from 2014?

I believe that they made an exception for Supreme Court nominations in 2017--while they held a majority.

Yes, the "nuclear option". Which is procedurally the same that democrats did in 2013. But the point is, there is no change in standing rules for either. But I'm not so sure that the same procedure can be done for the whole cloture vote because that would not be an "exception" to a rule, but abolishing the rule entirely.

I'm also seeing some inconsistent information about the rule change procedure. The wikipedia page linked above says 2/3rds are required, but I also thought it takes just a simple majority (although the rule change has to go through a committee first).

 

[Trausti]

I'm also seeing some inconsistent information about the rule change procedure. The wikipedia page linked above says 2/3rds are required, but I also thought it takes just a simple majority (although the rule change has to go through a committee first).

Manchin Reiterates: It Takes Two-Thirds of Senate to Change the Filibuster Rules

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm also seeing some inconsistent information about the rule change procedure. The wikipedia page linked above says 2/3rds are required, but I also thought it takes just a simple majority (although the rule change has to go through a committee first).

Manchin Reiterates: It Takes Two-Thirds of Senate to Change the Filibuster Rules

Then how did McConnell eliminate the filibuster for SC Justices?

 

[ZiprHead]

Per Wikipedia

In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend Senate rules.

The nuclear option can be invoked by the Senate Majority Leader raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then deny the point of order based on Senate rules and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote, establishing a new precedent.

The nuclear option is always available. It can be used to eliminate the filibuster completely.

 

[ZiprHead]

McConnell vows retaliation if Democrats change filibuster

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed on Tuesday that Republicans would retaliate if Democrats change the legislative filibuster, threatening to gum up the chamber and cause major he…

thehill.com

McConnell, speaking from the Senate floor, argued that changing the requirement that most legislation needs 60 votes to advance would "silence the voices of millions and millions of Americans" represented by GOP senators.

"We will make their voices heard in this chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority and this White House than what anybody has seen in living memory," McConnell said.

"What would a post-nuclear Senate look like? I assure you it would not be more efficient or more productive. I personally guarantee it," he added.

The Senate operates throughout the day on unanimous consent — meaning deals that have buy-in from the entire chamber. But McConnell warned that Republicans would be willing to block those routine agreements, making it more painful for Democrats to accomplish day-to-day steps like setting the schedule or allowing committee meetings.

"Do my colleagues understand how many times per day the Senate needs and get unanimous consent for basic housekeeping? Do they understand how many things would require roll-call votes, how often the minority could demand lengthy debate? Our colleagues who are itching for a procedural nuclear winter have not even begun to contemplate how it would look," McConnell said.

Schumer said fuck around and find out. (JK)

 

[Jayjay]

Per Wikipedia

In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend Senate rules.

The nuclear option can be invoked by the Senate Majority Leader raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then deny the point of order based on Senate rules and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote, establishing a new precedent.

The nuclear option is always available. It can be used to eliminate the filibuster completely.

How? The nuclear option so far has only been used to introduce exceptions to the filibuster rule. To ignore the rule completely requires next level mental gymnastics.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "3 insane but true facts about the filibuster:

1. The Founders didn't create the filibuster, and many directly opposed it. The Senate was designed and initially operated with simple-majority rule. The filibuster was essentially a mistake. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Is Aaron Burr really the father of the filibuster? - National Constitution Center

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "2. Between 1969 and 2014, the filibuster was reformed 161 times.

So the idea of creating an exception in the filibuster for voting rights or civil rights legislation — as many are now asking for — isn't new or radical. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Fixing the Senate Filibuster | Brennan Center for Justice

The filibuster itself has been changed numerous times. Between 1969 and 2014,  161 exceptions to its supermajority requirement were created. Senate majorities from both parties have approved carve outs and other changes related to executive branch and judicial nominations, budget reconciliation measures, and more. Even the 60-vote threshold has not always been a defining feature of the filibuster. In 1975, the Senate voted to lower the threshold from 67 votes to 60, as one response to the demand for reforms in the aftermath of Watergate.

Another consequential change in the mid-1970s was adoption of the “two-track” policy, which functionally eliminated the “talking filibuster.” Before this rule change, senators were required to hold the floor to execute a filibuster, blocking all Senate business until a cloture vote could be held. To better utilize time, the new rule established the dual-tracking system, allowing the Senate to work on multiple bills at once. Any bill being filibustered would move to a “back burner” until a cloture vote could be held, while the Senate focused on other bills instead. This change made it easier for a minority to kill a bill by simply indicating a desire to filibuster, thus blocking it before it ever can reach the Senate floor.

So most of those changes are one-time exceptions. But then again, this shows that there is a long tradition of creating one-time exceptions to the filibuster.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "3. The filibuster has been used consistently to defeat civil rights. Of the 30 measures defeated by the filibuster from 1917 and 1994, exactly half addressed civil rights. And, as recently as 2020, the filibuster was used to delay an anti-lynching bill. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Frustration and Fury as Rand Paul Holds Up Anti-Lynching Bill in Senate - The New York Times

 Filibuster in the United States Senate notes that the filibuster is *not* in the Constitution, and lists where the Constitution specifies supermajorities:

• Overriding a veto by the President: 2/3 of both chambers
• Expulsion of a member: 2/3 of the member's chamber
• Impeachment of the President: 2/3 of Senate
• Constitutional amendments: 2/3 of both chambers, then 3/4 of states

Not for day-to-day business, however, and the Founders preferred majority vote. In Federalist Paper 22, Alexander Hamilton rejected unanimity or near-unanimity as making it too easy for some troublemaker or stubborn person to obstruct business.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "3 insane but true facts about the filibuster:
1. The Founders didn't create the filibuster, and many directly opposed it. The Senate was designed and initially operated with simple-majority rule. The filibuster was essentially a mistake. (link)" / Twitter

One of the big reasons the original articles of confederation was rejected was because it required super majorities.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram: “The Senate MUST end the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation. Our democracy depends on it. …”

The Senate MUST end the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation. Our democracy depends on it.

19 states passed laws that restrict the right to vote in 2021, disenfranchising millions of Americans. How many more will follow suit this year? We can't wait to find out.

She then uses Instagram as an alternative PowerPoint, something that I've often seen.

"3 INSANE BUT TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER"

1.

The Founders didn't create the filibuster, and many directly opposed it. The Senate was designed and initially operated with simple-majority rule. The filibuster was essentially a mistake.

(National Constitution Center)

...problems with filibusters weren't lost on the Founding Fathers, which is why the filibuster isn't spelled out in the Constitution.

"As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, 'If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority ... [the government's] situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy."

"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,' [political scientist Sarah Binder] said.

Source: constitutioncenter.org/blog/is-aaron-burr-really-the-father-of-the-filibuster

pertinacious = stubborn

2.

Between 1969 and 2014, the filibuster was reformed 161 times. So the idea of creating an exception in the filibuster for voting rights or civil rights legislation as many are now asking for isn't new or radical.

(Brennan Center for Justice)

Fixing the Senate Filibuster

The filibuster has in fact undergone many modifications over its history, which can be accomplished via rules changes that require a simple majority vote. As in the past, there is a clear path for senators anxious to preserve what they see as the main benefits of the filibuster to do so while still moving forward with much needed legislation to secure voting rights, end extreme gerrymandering, and combat corruption.

Source: brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fixing-senate-filibuster

As I'd mentioned, the reforms are mostly one-time exceptions -- a long tradition of one-time exceptions.

3.

The filibuster has been used consistently to defeat civil rights. Of the 30 measures that were blocked by the filibuster from 1917 to 1994, exactly half addressed civil rights. And, as recently as 2020, the filibuster was used to delay an anti-lynching bill.

(History.com)

6 Times the Filibuster Helped Senators Kill Big Bills The senate filibuster has been used by Senators in a variety of issues, including the gold standard, the New Deal and wartime production, to name a few. It has also been prominently wielded against civil rights and voting rights bills. Here are six major bills that the Senate filibuster has helped kill in U.S. history.

1891: Federal Elections Bill
1922: Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill
1934: Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Bill
1942: Anti-Poll Tax Bill
1946: Fair Employment Practices Bill
1970: Amendment to Abolish Electoral College

Source: history.com/news/filibuster-bills-senate

 

[blastula]

McConnell, speaking from the Senate floor, argued that changing the requirement that most legislation needs 60 votes to advance would "silence the voices of millions and millions of Americans" represented by GOP senators.

The filibuster "silences" many more millions of Americans than ending it. The Senate is in large part controlled by minority rule at the moment. The House had recently been run by minority rule and the White House too. Republicans love minorities when it's them in power.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've given mine if that helps.

What's your opinion on the filibuster, Jason?

Sure you have. Anyway,

My opinion is that anything that impedes legislation is good. I don't care which party is in charge of the Senate, as long as the minority party has the filibuster. My only worry is that a party might get 67%.

 

[lpetrich]

I've given mine if that helps.

What's your opinion on the filibuster, Jason?

Sure you have. Anyway,

My opinion is that anything that impedes legislation is good. I don't care which party is in charge of the Senate, as long as the minority party has the filibuster. My only worry is that a party might get 67%.

Make government ineffective, then grumble about how ineffective it is. That's what it seems like to me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've given mine if that helps.

What's your opinion on the filibuster, Jason?

Sure you have. Anyway,

My opinion is that anything that impedes legislation is good. I don't care which party is in charge of the Senate, as long as the minority party has the filibuster. My only worry is that a party might get 67%.

Make government ineffective, then grumble about how ineffective it is. That's what it seems like to me.

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

 

[Swammerdami]

Can't we just pay Joe Manchin money to vote with the Democrats? For just $30 million or so he'd become wealthier than Mitch McConnell; that should be enough, no? Surely saving our democracy is worth that much. If every hard-working Democrat contributed just a few dollars, we could raise the funds. Or — why not? It's what the GOP does — pay him from the public treasury by making Joe Manchin a National Monument or something.

And if Joe or KS holds out for too much, I'm sure a couple of GOP Senators could be found to sell out QAnon-Trump for $10 million each or thereabouts.

Is anyone still pretending that it's not all about personal enrichment for these "Senators"?

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective ...

The word "Democrat" has three silent k's.

So, if the libertarians^* have their way, they will be "too" effective at restoring free and fair elections to the U.S.A.? The horror! ... The horror!

* "Libertarian" -- apparently the definition Jason is going with now is "a person who supports civil rights (including women's rights, gay rights, and voting rights) and may or may not do drugs."