End the filibuster UNLESS you suppose we will forever be in the minority.

[LimpingLib]

Here is a link that talks about this
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/4/26/162629/880#comment_top

I cant understand the left.This GOP filibuster ending idea would be the best thing for progressives literally anytime in my lifetime , easily th best thing since the 93-94 timeframe.

Even if just for judicial nominees , the precident it would set would be amazing. WE all know that Democrats , being the party that has the most progressives, have opposed the filibuster (infact severly chopped it down in the 77-81 session from requiring an impossible 67 votes to "only" neeing 60)BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT the big preciedent here will be the GOP finally admitting that it is lousey Senate procedure.

Whats really fucking funny is that the GOP has noticed that the ONE issue the status quo is against them on (abortion)also happens to be the most important issue for BOTH partys. The Supreme Court is important for alot more than just abortion mind you but the single issue Pro-Choice Democratic base (Id say its the biggest part of the party, at least the most vocal anyway)has no clue.I read all the guest articles posted on Blogs during the election, and entire articles devoted to the "importance of the sumpreme court" only touched on ONE issue.I asked many activist friends and passer-byers about the SC and all they could pull out of their heads was the abortion issue.

Granted this might seem like a good deal for the GOP since they have the status quo on every other issue (not to mention the fact that they can easily get 60+ votes on most regulatory, economic , foreign policy , banking, medicare, civil rights , etc. they want to change further to their delight)and now they want simple democracy on the issue they have trouble changing.I doubt they will be able to overturn Roe V Wade , infact its nearly impossible.They would need 3 justices to retire and then manage, for the first time ever, to appoint 3 anti-Roe judges with no room for error.Reagan only managed to get 1 out of 3 and Bush just 1 out of 2. Even with 5 chances, they couldnt get even half "right".

I think in reality what this will do is take the Senates Democrats favorite "treat" from their gameful hands and with no bone to throw their dogs (the Democratic base) , it will require them to find other areas to "win" on.I would suggest to them that if the filibuster is SOOOO important then maybe they can not squander it on every major piece of legislation when the GOP peels enough Max Baucaus and Liebermanns from liberal states to end a filibuster.

Anyway I want to be in the majority some time , so I will consider this the best victory for the left in the last decade if the GOP "wins" on this one.Their win will be the biggest blunder for them ever.

[MAlibdem]

1. maybe...

problem is...it's pretty much all we have NOW.

[RoyGBiv]

2. It'll be a blunder, probably ...

Problem is, I oppose this on principle, not just because my chosen party will suffer from it currently.

Some things actually are bigger than party, and this is one of them. The tactic has no other purpose but to stifle meaningful opposition. I don't want *any* party to have effective dictatorial powers.

[LimpingLib]

4. Its the filibuster that stifles.

The GOP has gotten around the filibuster thanks to legions of conservative DEmocratic Senators but make no mistake , almost all of the endless GOP legislative victorys would have been stopped if we had more Democrats that werent total corperate whores.

Assume we actualy have Democratic Senators who are in touch with the nation , the entire Senate would be stalemated.

With such an ideological divide in our nation , we can never get 60% of Senators to support evn modest liberal legislation. Epecially since most small states are far right wing.

[ohioan]

8. The filibuster is not the problem -

The filibuster has been around for 214 years. The problem is the current makeup of the Senate - it's controlled by a group of right wing thugs. But this, too, shall pass.

In the meantime, we should not tolerate the majority breaking the rules in order to change the rules to suit their current political whims, even if we think that one day, the rule change might work to our benefit.

[RoyGBiv]

9. Stifling ...

The filibuster stifles the majority, which is the point.

The tyranny of the majority is and always has been a real threat, and parliamentary devices like this one are put in place to check it. It needs to stay, despite what we think we might do with it one day. It's trite but true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter how good the intent.

[LimpingLib]

18. So 300 million people are in absolute unison on every issue?

God save us from...(GULP)...Democracy!

300 million people might legislate that we all have to eat corn flakes for breakfeast.

People just want to live their lives.

Elites want to control our lives.

[RoyGBiv]

22. Quick question ...

Are you familiar with any of the concepts upon which this nation is founded, and do you understand the purpose of the Senate?

[LimpingLib]

26. Yea , it wanted wealthy landowners to control the peasants and serfs.

The filibuster is all that the elites have left.

All ancient democracys started out with only land owners having the right to vote.

We are a little behind the curve but our nation is only 200 years old.

[RoyGBiv]

35. This is getting weird ...

All the elites have left? You're aware, I would hope, that the "elites" are in fact the ones pushing for the removal of the filibuster as an option. Or do you mean intellectual elites? Do you have a problem with this for some reason?

For some strange reason you've taken to trying to bill this notion of yours as a little guy vs. the big guy battle in which the little guy is somehow the benefactor of the majority, which is exactly the opposite of the actual case.

If you would be so kind, I would appreciate a list (or maybe just a couple examples) of "democracys" that are within or ahead of "the curve" with regard to their institutions of government and their proceedures and why you think this is the case. I'm not denying they exist, but I question your reasoning and so do not wish to assume it is based on sound logic.

[LimpingLib]

43. Canada , U.K. , France, Spain, etc.

The eliets oppose ending the filibuster and academic elites are irrelevant (didnt even mention them)in the USA.Especially the USA.

People go to the polls and vote , then the party with the most seats implements its manifesto.

The campaign proposals voters support results in their party of choice getting their vote.

Then once the election is over the ISSUES the voters support manifests itself into law.Via parliamentary votes.

Then the voters get to see the results and then decide what they want to vote on next time.Options include repealing all past laws including thsoe recently passed.

[RoyGBiv]

53. Your forgot to provide reasoning ...

BTW, in Canada, the first country on your list, the filibuster is used, so try again.

Stay on topic and give me something to work with here. You keep saying the same thing, but you're not building a case, and you're diverting entirely from your proposition regarding the filibuster. You're simply throwing out assertions, without bothering even vaguely to connect them to your position on the filibuster, as though they have the power of absolute truth. They don't.

[LimpingLib]

67. Canada has a filibuster?

Well , thats a strike against me then.

How powerful is it?

[RoyGBiv]

68. Yes ...

And I don't know. I'm not intimate with Canadian parliamentary procedure. I know Tories have been threatening it lately.

[ohioan]

3. Fortunately, Democrats respect the process and don't just go for

short term political gain, unlike the Republicans.

You don't protect the long-term interests of the country by going along with attempts to destroy its institutions and minority-protection principles just because one day it might benefit us.

That's one of the reasons I'm a Democrat.

[LimpingLib]

7. Thats all this is man: "short term political gain".By DEMOCRATS

Every major filibuster limiting proposal has been by Democrats from 1977 all the way up to 1995 when Harkin and Liebermann offered legislation that was rejected by the MAJORITY GOP Senate even though it would have benefited them.

Harkin even told the GOP that he wouldnt consider them self centered if they would agree to his reforms. It was rejected 75-25 with only Democrats supporting the bill.

Its when the GOP is in the majority that we need these Nixon going to China moments.

Now Democrats are selling us down the river only to save their own shitty faces from all the recent legislative disasters they have helped the GOP impose on the nation.

[ohioan]

12. There's a big difference between LIMITING the filibuster and ELIMINATING

it.

The GOP plan eliminates the filibuster ONLY for judicial nominations - nothing else. It would still be in place for legislation and executive nominations. SAnd since judicial nominations are the ONLY appointments the president makes for life, it is incumbent upon anyone who cares about process, democracy and separation of powers to fight to retain the checks and balances that the filibuster provides.

[applegrove]

5. Rove will run the fight again to get the outcome he wants. He will

do it every year until the end of time. Ignore him and filibuster away. They obviously didn't hear about it the first time they put the judges through.

Things are as they are. If Rove wants to change the Constitution and go nuclear - let him try.

[kevsand]

6. The concept of a super-majority

is well founded and has a long history in parliamentary law. In this context, the filibuster is simply a form of super-majority, and should be retained. Some things should require more than a simple majority.

[LimpingLib]

10. "Parliamentary law" OOOO that sounds so academic.

Just like when we were told for the last 2 months how this was an integral organ of our constitution.

Where did that oft-repeated bogus claim go?

Anyway, what other nation has a filibuster? The great European paraliaments are a good place to look. Where do they limit democracy? Just show me one example please. Even use Canada.

[ohioan]

13. How does a filibuster limit democracy?

[LimpingLib]

14. U.K. turnout 80% Canada turnout 80% US turnout 36%-58%.

Either the people rule or the elites rule.

Ill take the people anyday.

[ohioan]

16. The "people" rule in the House

The Senate is not a proportionally represented body and never was supposed to be.

[RoyGBiv]

20. 'Scuse me?

And this relates to the filibuster in what way? :popcorn:

The problem with the filibuster, imo, is the reform measure put in place that allows Senators to invoke it without having to stand hours on end maintaining the floor. I would favor putting that requirement back in place, which would in fact be an effective limitation on its abuse. A Senator or group would have to be truly committed to a cause in order to do this. It would also partly address your rather odd point above. It brings drama and intrigue back into the workings of the government, something that gets people's attention directed toward whatever issue is being challenged. Uses of the filibuster prior to "reforms" are famous, for good or ill. People paid attention to them.

[LimpingLib]

33. People dont feel like they have any control over our own destiny.

Nations with majority rule (democracy) see an engaged populous.

Legislation passes quite rapidly.

Italy is an example of the checks and balances that exist even in that type of system. 25 Prime Ministers in about as many years , though it has slowed down lately.

I guess I dont fear the peoples will. I fear a bunch of elites operating in dark rooms and with unlimited government $$$.

That in a nutshell is why I oppose the filibuster.

[RoyGBiv]

37. So, in your view ...

Removing the filibuster will somehow equate to changing our entire system of government, including all the election laws, all the institutions, all the corporate influence, etc.?

Okay. I think there's an operator missing in your equation, replaced by some variation of the function "and then a miracle occurs" but if you truly believe this, that's your right. I simply wish I could make sense of it.

[ohioan]

38. :-)

[LimpingLib]

49. Whatever powers have been preventing= where we need to look

It all depends on who you think the elites are and who has the most to loose by ending the filibuster.

Anyway if the status quo was on my side then I would want the ability to stiffle any attempt at reform and the filibuster is the 800 pound gorilla.

Look at it this way.

Clinton had a 57 vote majority bt the filibuster prevented Health Care Reform. He got 61 votes of the Assault Weapons Ban.

When will we ever in the near future come anywhere near having even 57 votes again?

The small states managed to get the AWB repealed.

What did we gain by the filibuster?

Most Americans support Health Care and most oppose Assault Weapons ban?

But at least those issues are talked about.

The electoral reforms are "fringe issues" especially to the media and SEnate.

[ohioan]

52. The solution to the filibuster?

1. Change the opinions - or at least the votes - of Senators;
2. If that doesn't work, work to elect more Senators who agree with you.

This makes SO much more sense than changing the rules everytime the other side manages to use them to their advantage (especially when such a rule change requires that the rules be broken in order to achieve that end).

[RoyGBiv]

63. The current filibuster ...

The current procedure of the filibuster is, indeed, broken, due mostly to the "reform" I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that allows Senators to invoke it without maintaining a hold on the floor. Bob Dole's Senate used this to their advantage, effectively requiring a 3/5 majority vote in the Senate for anything to pass, as he promised to invoke the filibuster against any measure that did not pass Republican muster. This led Democrats to float measures to get a test vote for the real issue, and anything that didn't get 60 votes was tabled.

Once again, the answer to this is to revert back to old, traditional rules that don't allow the Senators to leave and go shopping rather than stand up and make their fight in person, continuously.

I am not saying the filibuster isn't abused. I am saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[flaminbats]

108. Clinton had a small majority behind his healthcare bill..

Only 56 Democrats were in the Senate during the healthcare debate. It was Democrats like Nunn, Shelby, Johnston, Lautenburg, Bryan, Boren, and Deconcini who never supported the bill. But Jim Jeffords did support it, giving Clinton 50 votes for the bill. Forty Senate Republicans and Richard Shelby..who was a Democrat at the time, prevented the bill from coming to the floor.

I still believe if Clinton had compromised on the employer mandate he could have won support from Senators like Chaffee, Cohen, Lautenburg, Boren, and even Nunn. This would of resulted in a better bill, while crushing the filibuster. When shall Democrats realize..we must stick together and fight like hell when in the minority, but compromise and work with the minority party when in power...

When a filibuster succeeds, clearly the bill can be improved. Also remember that basic spending measures and federal budgets cannot be filibustered. Why ban the filibuster if it doesn't effect funding for basic government operations? Why didn't Clinton seek to abolish the filibuster..even after Republicans used it repeatedly against him?

[kevsand]

47. I'm not sure we should be using Italy

as a model for good government. Or any parliamentary system of government, for that matter. A new president every six to eighteen months seems pretty counterproductive to me.

[ohioan]

48. Not so fast - that new president after six months works for me. :-)

[kevsand]

57. LOL!

Okay, maybe just this once...

[ohioan]

59. Yeah - just this once, then we'll go back to the old way. :-)

[RoyGBiv]

65. We promise!

(wink wink, nudge nudge)

:-)

[Selatius]

42. The filibuster cuts both ways. It can aid or harm any cause.

For instance, the filibuster was used to try to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I believe it was the longest filibuster in US history.

Just as a filibuster can be used to, for instance, prevent extremist judges from assuming seat, it can be used, as another example, to prevent passage of something such as a universal health care bill.

[RoyGBiv]

50. It does cut both ways ...

Which, again, is the point. The institutions of government, including its parliamentary procedures, should not benefit one faction over another. They should be neutral, or as close to neutral as possible. We have enough procedures and laws in place that already so favor those in power. We don't need another.

As for Strom Thurmond's famous filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, yes, it was the longest in Senate history. But one can view this with a wider lense and note how his and the tactics of his political allies brought attention to the immorality of their position in such a manner that it provided more momentum to the Civil Rights Movement. Quietly killing a bill in committee or with an up/down vote doesn't have quite the same impact on the national stage.

[ohioan]

56. BEAUTIFULLY said!

[LimpingLib]

60. You support 30% of states telling blacks they have no rights?

The filibuster could have prevented blacks from freedom even to this day though thankfully it was FINALLY beaten after 200 years.

You want the minority to have the right to veto.

Id rather just trust the people.

You would rather trust the minority.

Whats another 50 years for health care , civil rights , personnel freedoms, etc?

They are just blacks. They are just poor people.

The elites will ensure I AM PROTECTED as well as the ret of my fellow 30% of racist whites (o.k. Im not racist but pretend)in states with 42 senators.

[RoyGBiv]

66. Don't be obtuse ...

I will not answer this obvious and inflammatory strawman.

[LimpingLib]

70. Blacks werent strawmen.MY POINT IS.....

.....how much longer will we have to wait to get enough public support for the fundamental right of health care?

Till we get what...75% public support instead of 55%? 20 or 30 years from now, can we scrape even 60% support?

If the vast majority hates balcks then nothing can be done even in a democracy.

Its a question of how many decades we have to build support.

[RoyGBiv]

73. I'm sorry ..

I no longer believe you are attempting to make a coherent point.

You started with a position and have diverted into varied and generally unconnected criticism of the American system of government. That's fine if that's what you want to do, but pick a topic, please.

Nothing in my post to which you replied even in the least way indicated I believed 30% of the states had the right to tell blacks they have no rights. In point of fact, if you were actually to consider what I've been saying rather than continue with your reactionary, increasingly shrill, and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric, you'd note that my position would argue that when the majority of people oppose rights for some group and want to effect legislation to limit them, the filibuster could be used, by a dedicated Senator, to prevent this from taking place. (Of course I realize our current slate of Senators don't seem to have that degree of backbone in them at the moment, but that's beside the point.) My position in that specific message was to note that Thurmond's filibuster raised awareness of the plight of blacks in this nation and motivated Civil Rights workers even more.

In any case, your comment was an attempt to label me, by use of a strawman, a term that I had hopes you understood, as a supporter of racists. Please do take that comment and poke it up your bottom.

[LimpingLib]

78. My point has stayed EXACTLY the same since my OP.

HOW LONG????!!!!!

HOW LONG MAN!

HOW MUCH LONGER?

Take any issue and tell me how much longer somebody will need to wait for a super-majority of Americans (in addition to overlooking that fact that 25% of states can veto anything even if 100% support is generated in other states)to support their issues.

I wasnt using strawmen , but infact real life examples.

I asked if you support the effects of LONG DELAYS even when the majority has moved in the direction of progressive values that happen to contradict the status quo.

[RoyGBiv]

87. Definition ...

A little information for you...

"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent."

[LimpingLib]

91. I asked if you support the effects of your position.

You have diverted ever since you took my post title out of context.

[RoyGBiv]

94. Now you're projecting ...

Good grief.

Your question has been addressed admirably by others and so nothing further need be said on this point. Your position with regard to the filibuster is empty.

One more point, and then I'm done for the evening.

You've taken this "ramifications" tangent, but, to spring from ohioan's point, you've apparently chosen not to consider the effects of removing its use to prevent judicial appointments in the opposite direction, such as how it will be used by those currently in power to control the course of government and legislation even if the Democrats regain control of the legislature or executive.

Judges have a last impact, and that, specifically, is what this is about, but you've ignored that entirely. A court system packed with judges indefinitately who oppose these measures you champion can declare them null and void due to their extreme interpretation of the Constitution. They want every "Great Society" and "New Deal" act ever passed thrown out, burned, and never ressurrected, and if the Republicans get their way entirely, that's exactly what will happen. After that, the filibuster or lack thereof, won't help us.

I could use this moment to turn your charge around on you, but I won't do so. I'll just lay down my arms and let you consider that yourself if you so desire.

[LimpingLib]

96. I also used MYSELF as an example of the 30% of whites in the post FYI

You seem to have missed that while you obsess over my post title.

You just dont want to anwser the question , do you?

[RoyGBiv]

98. Good night ... n/t

[The Doctor.]

80. Oh, but I will...

Limpy, You seem to have missed one lovely point made by RoyGBIV.

The attention brought by Thurmond's actions were something of a catalyst in the debate. That's the sort of attention that helps a Democracy function.

The minority can only utilize such a tool for a short period before the issue becomes a point of national focus.

I must agree with Roy that we should return to the 'classic' filibuster.

[RoyGBiv]

83. Thank you ...

That was much better stated than anything I could have produced in my momentary state of extreme irritation.

[LimpingLib]

84. About 75% voted for civil rights.

If it could get that much support from the Senate and congress then it could have gotten 51% decades earlier.

[ohioan]

85. Oh, really?

Please give us the vote breakdown.

Surely you have it.

Of course, if 75% would "vote for civil rights," no filibuster could be mounted.

But, if you were thinking, you would have figured that out, wouldn't you?

[LimpingLib]

89. I remember only about 6 Republicans voted against it.

I also remember about 2/3s of Democratic Senators supported it.

So I say about 75%.

The filibuster didnt do much good once the public AND SEnate were clearly for civil rights.Thats why it came up for a vote.

[ohioan]

92. What you "remember" means nothing - what were the actual #s?

And if the filibuster didn't do much good because "the public and Senate were clearly for civil rights" (whatever the hell that means), obviously, the filibuster isn't nearly the problem you're claiming it is, is it?

[LimpingLib]

95. Life didnt begin in 1965? Around when the legislative process started.

n/t

[The Doctor.]

102. Your non-answers are tedious.

This is an actual reality-based place, the DU that is...

So go find some facts.
I get challenged here all the time... and if I can't find facts, construct good logic, or cast a reasonable argument - I cede.

[LimpingLib]

103. So why has my main point been ignored then?

That whatever slim hopes we have of getting legislation passed with 51 votes turns into an impossibility if we need 60 (which we do BTW but if we can FINALLY get the GOP to go along with a precident to limit filibusters, then there will be some good ground in the future to get things passed with less than 60)?


What difference does her nit picking point have to do with the difference between 51 and 60?

She is not picking between 67 and 75 and TRUST YOU ME, we might as well give up if thats the bar.


I look forward to your smear , false accusations, and none-anwser.

LOL talk about precidents , maybe he can set one by anwsering the question for a change.

[The Doctor.]

105. That's a bit better.

You suggest that without a filibuster, a minority has a better chance of passing legislation. That's a fair point.

But I believe that there is an early post in this, your thread, which suggested that this 'none-filibuster' rule will only apply to judicial nominations. I'd say that's worth investigating.

I would personally like to see the filibuster remain in place. Not because I am 'anti-Republican', but because such a precedent would clear the way for many other sweeping changes without the shelter of... you guessed it... the filibuster.

I think of it more as an emergency break-wall than a mere tool.

[ohioan]

69. Your rhetoric is now getting ridiculous

The filibuster, the last I checked, is still operational. Other than the filibuster of the civil rights bill - which was overcome - how often has the filibuster been "used to prevent blacks from freedom" since then?

[ohioan]

55. Yes - the filibuster was used to try to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964

And it didn't work.

The bill's supporters got on the stick and generated enough public support to shift the votes in the Senate.

THAT'S how democracy works.

[LimpingLib]

71. How many more years did blacks have to wait though for OVERWELMING

public support to thwart the filibuster?

Thats my point.

Its nice to be able to look in a long term historic sense but people only live one 70 year life.And most opportunities come in the early part of it.

[ohioan]

74. Please go read your history before you continue this argument

If you had, you'd know that the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was thwarted in FIVE DAYS. It was launched on June 5, 1964 and its supporters mustered the votes to overcome it and passed the bill on June 10, 1964. Lyndon Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964.

Since then, not a single civil rights bill has been filibustered, so you really should stop trying to throw this red herring around. I ain't buying it.

Oh, and by the way, the nuclear option applies only to judicial nominations. It would leave untouched the right of a Senate minority to filibuster any legislation it likes, including civil rights bills.

You seem obsessed with using civil rights for blacks as a justification for your position. But I defy you to find a single civil rights leader who in response to the 1964 filibuster, demanded that the filibuster be eliminated. If the people who were on the front lines fighting and dying for the cause weren't calling for the elimination of the filibuster, then you probably are a little out of line using their struggle as an excuse for your harangue against a process you clearly don't understand.

[LimpingLib]

76. Im not talking about Democratic-Republican votes.

Im talking about why it took so long for blacks to get civil rights when the majority was in support for a long time?

You are seeing everything from an elite perspective.

"Lower yourself" for a second and look at the issue from the perspective of the people. DEMOcracy.

[ohioan]

77. What makes you think "a majority was in support for a long time?"

Not true.

Please stop wasting time arguing about something you are so clearly ignorant about. Go back and read the history - it's all over the internet if you don't want to get the books.

[LimpingLib]

81. Blacks were discriminated against in all states-yes.

But support for civil rights would have come fast if just 51 votes were needed.

Im certain of that.

It wouldnt have ended racism, but the fight would have not been subject to the intimidtion of the Senate's "super-majority".

[RoyGBiv]

79. Well put ...

Your last paragraph gets to the heart of the matter.

When faced with obstacles, representatives with conviction and moral courage turn to overcoming those obstacles with superior ideas, not cheap shots at the institutions of government. The current Republican regime works from the opposite angle: When faced with opposition, change the rules so that the opposition doesn't have a voice.

Those who overcame the filibuster in 1964 rose their own voices and stood behind their principles, convincing in turn an entire nation that what they were doing was the right thing to do. Republicans don't care about convincing anyone. They just want power ... all of it.

[kevsand]

46. It's not academic.

It's Robert's Rules, which is about as common man as it gets in regards to fairness in running a meeting with civilized discourse.

I never said anything about other countries. I'm using "parliamentary" in the generic sense, as in "parliamentarian," ie, someone who can be called upon to answer a point of order. You've probably had one in any number of groups you may have been in.

I never said anything about filibusters being in the Constitution. Anyone who did was obviously wrong.

The concept of a super-majority for important decisions does not limit democracy, it enriches it by helping to protect the rights of the minority. It's not something that should be used in every instance, only in the big stuff.

Let's make the filibuster harder to exercise, if need be, but don't ever eliminate it.

[LimpingLib]

54. Almost all democracys around the world are the most free.

Find me one example of a child being put to death by the state in any European democracy?

[kevsand]

61. That's illegal here now, as well.

And I fail to see the causal link between that and the filibuster. Perhaps you could explain it?

[Selatius]

62. That's a cultural issue.

Where Europeans have turned away from the death penalty, Americans have not.

[bemildred]

11. I agree.

It is one of the major instruments used to thwart democratic (small 'd')
rule in the country, and it will not be found in the Constitution.
How many progressive laws have been thwarted without a vote because of
the filibuster rule? If the Repukes are dumb enough to end it, I say
more power to them, "bring it on".

[ohioan]

15. The filibuster does NOT thwart democratic rule - it helps guarantee it

Democratic rule is not straight majority rule. It ensures that the minority also has a voice. The filibuster is a tool for providing that minority voice.

You're right, the filibuster is not found in the Constitution. But you know what? There's also no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate must give an up or down vote to the president's nominees. It does require that it even GIVE a vote at all to the president's nominees.

The Senate is a purposefully anti-majoritarian body. It is full of anti-majoritarian procedures designed to protect the rights of the minority.

Among the Senate rules and procedures that, under your argument, would have to be eliminated because they "thwart" a vote:

1. Committees - a handful of Senators - sometimes as few as three or four - can completely stop a piece of legislation or a nomination by keeping it from going to the floor for a vote.

2. Anonymous homestate hold - individual senators have the power to singlehandedly block consideration of a nominee from their homestate, without explanation or a vote. Unless they say yes, the nomination usually dies.

3. Unanimous consent - most pieces of legislation can only be brought under the process of unanimous consent. If even one senator objects, it doesn't move forward without complicated procedures.

Moreover, the very Senate itself "thwarts" democracy in that it does not proportionally represent the people. The 1 million citizens of Rhode Island are represented by the same number of Senators as the 35 million citizens of California.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The GOP changed anonymous homestate hold

They LOVED using it when Clinton was in power but they nixed it when Bush came in and when they regained control of the Senate.

[ohioan]

27. They curtailed it, but didn't eliminate it

Democrats are still often using it very effectively.

Case in point - John Edwards used his homestate hold to block three North Carolina judicial nominees right up until the day he left office.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Ending the fillibuster gives too much power to the majority leadership

It's not so much that the Senate will move at the will of 51 Senators, it's the the Senate will move at the will of the Majority Leader which is hardly anymore democratic than the fillibuster. The GOP blocked Clinton's nominees just as we are blocking Bush's nominees, only they did it with the gavel of the judiciary committee instead of the fillibuster. A group of 10 Senators deciding to deny a floor vote to a judge who could get confirmed, is even less democratic than an entire minority party deciding not to give a judge a floor vote.

Ending the fillibuster also ends the Senate's principal of unlimited debate and possibly of unanimous consent. The Senate will be run like the House which has become the least democratic institution in the federal government.

Other than the Supreme Court, the fillibuster is the only safeguard to keep the country from moving at the tyranny of the majority. So far the country has only fallen apart once in over two hundred years of existance and I'm inclined to believe that the Senate has a good bit to do with that.

[ohioan]

21. "Other than the Supreme Court, the fillibuster is the only safeguard"

And if the filibuster goes, the Supreme Court falls right behind it.

[LimpingLib]

23. The House has members far more in touch with the people.

The Senate has members so out of touch with their states it is unreal.

The only reason conservative legistlation passes the house is that there are about 50+ conservative Democrats on top of the GOP majority of 232.

The conservatives can pass whatever they want to on almost any issue as they get over 60 Democrats in the Senate and easily get a majority in the House.

The filibuster can be overcome by the GOP but it is fatal to progressives.

[ohioan]

32. You DO realize that the Senators are not SUPPOSED to be as

in touch with their constituents as the House members are - it's impossible given the numbers. Two Senators per state, regardless of the state's population vs. 1 House member for every 435,000 people.

The Senators - like the judges - are not SUPPOSED to have the same degree of accountability to their constituents that House members have. This helps to insulate them from shifting and sometimes dangers public emotion and gives them a greater ability to make reasoned and dispassionate decisions.

That's why they run every six years, not every two.

That's why their terms are staggered so that no more than 1/3 of the Senate changes hands in any two year period - that way, we are protected from a wholesale sweep of the Senate and that any effort to turn them all out is a slow process spreading out over 6 years and 3 election cycles.

That's why there are two Senators per state, regardless of the state's population and both Senators represent their entire state, not specific districts or sections thereof.

With all due respect, you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of how the bicameral legislature works and why the two houses operate completely differently.

The Senate is NOT the House and isn't supposed to be.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Ironically the House has become the Senate and vice versa

Senators are now the ones fearing dirty attack ads every time they cast a major vote. House members are insulated from this because of gerrymandering.

[ohioan]

24. You DO realize that, if the Dems let the filibuster die,

under some misguided notion that we will one day be in the majority and will want to govern with no minority opposition, we'll never get the chance?

1. With the Senate, House, White House, federal courts (including the Supreme Court) firmly in Republican control, it will be a cold day in hell before the Democrats are ever in power again;

2. And when that day arrives, the lameduck Republican Senate will have two months between the election and the new Congress to vote in a rule change that restores the filibuster.

THINK, people!

[Hippo_Tron]

28. OMG you are so right about #2

Not to mention all of the court packing that the congress and the POTUS will do as lame ducks.

[RoyGBiv]

29. Precisely ...

Why people would support this is beyond me. Whether its some misguided sense of vengeance or a thirst for short term power, the idea that people would be accepting of this fills me with horror.

We're talking about parliamentary procedure, folks, something that can essentially be changed on a whim by those who care less about effective government than they do about their own power. If the Repubs are allowed to do this, they and their corporate masters are the only ones that will benefit from it.

[ohioan]

34. You are so right

I strongly believe that one of the things that makes us (Democrats) so different from the current crop of Republicans in control is that we are not willing to do whatever it takes to achieve and maintain power. The notion that the ends justify the means is EXACTLY what drives the other side - they truly believe that they are right and, thus, anything they do to achieve their goals is justifiable. If we take that same approach, we become no better than they are.

[RoyGBiv]

39. End justifying the means ...

Exactly and well said.

That was the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq, and I will have none of it. As I said originally, I oppose this on principle.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. BTW if you want genuine rule by the people, FIX THE HOUSE

The House of Representatives is the body that I'm more truly concerned about. It is supposed to be the peoples' house and instead it is Tom DeLay's house. The minority have absolutely no voice in the process and it is very hard for it to change party hands because of gerrymandering. Furthermore because of gerrymandering, 400 out of 435 representatives aren't even really liable to their constituents. If they are the incumbent in a safe district, they are automatically re-elected because the establishment backs them and nobody backs a challenger.

The Senate is ironically more the peoples' body than the house is. Until we fix the house so that it is under the control of the people and not under the control of Tom DeLay, I'm not ready to make any changes to the Senate.

[LimpingLib]

30. Thts a state legislative issue.Support referendums.

BTW, The Senate has a history of being inthe hands of state legislatures. And that was constitutional too.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. I'm aware of that, but now the House is in the hands of state legislatures

The fact is that House members are by in large NOT LIABLE to their constituents because most of them will be re-elected no matter what. At least when a Senator casts a major vote, he/she often has to worry about the political ramifications. House members DON'T.

The House is in no way representative of the people. As you mentioned in the post above, there are many conservative democrats in the House. If the House were truly representative of the attitude of the American people, the Dems would control virtually 49% of the seats and almost all of them would be as liberal or more liberal than Kerry.

[LimpingLib]

40. I find it amazing you want reforms yet support the filibuster.

Do you honsstely think that getting reforms will be achieved with a veto of 41?

I like parliamentary systems with proportional representation.

It has a 0% chance under a majority rule Senate and a SUB 0 chance under a veto of 41 Senate.

Ever been to the center for voting and democracy? www.cfvd.com or something. I used to go there all the time but gave up years ago as I noticed reform has no chance in an undemocratic system.

The peoples agenda has no a voice in the Senate but small quirky movements take root in the House. Even if they start with just a few votes, they grow to 30 then 60 at least.

Never sees the light of day in the "serious" Senate where "nonesense" is "un-becoming"

[ohioan]

41. "I like parliamentary systems with proportional representation"

Do you realize the filibuster is a form of proportional representation?

[LimpingLib]

44. No I dont lol.

n/t

[ohioan]

45. Well, it is . . . the filibuster ensures that the minority has a voice,

even though they're outnumbered. That's the very essence of proportional representation.

[LimpingLib]

51. Proportional representation.

Actualy give the minority no power due to being proportionaly too insignificant.

It only helps in giving the majority power.

The filibuster in that type of system (doesnt exist anywhere though Israel has a veto in that type of system, it elects Prime Ministers by a seperate popular vote)doesnt exist and if it did then it would eliminate majority rule.

[ohioan]

58. So, the filibuster is actually MORE effective than proportional rep?

Since it DOES give the minority a say in the legislature.

Hmm.

And your constant references to other nation's governments really doesn't help your argument. Totally irrelevant.

[LimpingLib]

64. What would you say if all the small states were opposed to civil rights?

28% of states say blacks were sun human? Lucky , the smaller states werent ALL like that even if conservative.

Those states can pull together 41 votes.

Forget that we FINALLY got equal rights for our ethnic African citizens.

Lets say we came up short and the states that blocked it fortified their views inton heard nosed insistance that their elected Senators NEVER support ending the veto of the minority called the filibuster.

What say ye to that?

[ohioan]

72. I'd say that we came through a period in which a significant number

of states felt that blacks were inferior and their representatives fought tooth and nail to stop legislation that protected their rights.

And they lost.

And we won. And even the Senators who led the filibuster against the civil rights bill ended up voting for the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

As Dr. King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

But, of course, you're talking hypotheticals, I'm citing history. Perhaps you should go check it out before you continue this argument, since you're getting absolutely nowhere.

You apparently don'r realize how ridiculous it is to use the fact that the Civil Rights Act was filibustered in the past to justify getting rid of the filibuster today. Why? Because the effort to eliminate the filibuster is driven, not by the view that it's anti-democratic, but by a desire among the right wing (and the racists among them) to pack the court with judges who will eviscerate the protections the Civil Rights Act guarantees.

[LimpingLib]

75. The LONG march for civil rights still hurts blacks to this day.

How many blacks had their lives ruined by the veto of the minority? How many are still suffering the effects?

The majority supported civil rights LONG before it finally passed.

How many years passed in the gap between majority support for civil rights and the defeat of the filibuster?

As I said earlier people dont live forever (about 70 years , perhaps a bit less for African Americans), but almost all opportunitys come in the early part of a persons life.

Its is relavant today because health care is something a majority of Americans think in a human right , but has no chance in hell of passing thansk to the filibuster.

That is just one issue but add a whole host of issues that gurantee people a shot a a good and productive life. How much support needs to be built and how long will it take to generate overwhelming super majoritys?

20 more years? Thats the difference between middle and teenage?

30 more years? Many teenagers wont live that long, especially disadvantaged or unhealthy ones?

[ohioan]

82. Oh, please. Don't lecture me about what's good for black people

Have you noticed that you don't see any African Americans (other than the few apologists the right wingers have managed to scrape up) who are coming anywhere close to the arguments you're making on this subject? Why do you think that is? Are you more enlightened on the history of civil rights than they are? Do you have some special insight into the needs, desires and political circumstance of blacks that black folks haven't yet begun to fathom?

As an African American woman who has significant knowledge about and experience with this subject, I find your lectures on this topic condescending, silly and utterly without merit. You obviously don't know anything about the topic, yet continue to babble on about it with abandon.

Spare us.

[LimpingLib]

86. So there is no difference between 75% support and 51% then.

Both are a proverbial piece of cake?

The difference is all the same?

[ohioan]

88. You are now completely non-responsive and bordering on incoherent

[LimpingLib]

90. I have watched votes that failed on previous congresses come up later.

They go from 46%-49% support to 51% support over a span of 2-10 years or much longer.


I can assure you and most who dont understand the ramifications of the filibuster that to go from needing 51 votes all the way up to 60 is a monumnetal task.

Like moving mountains.

[ohioan]

93. Thank God we have you to educate us on the ramifications of the filibuster

Whatever would we do without your perspective?

If only the NAACP, SCLC, the Urban League, all 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black Leadership Forum, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, and the other 100s of civil rights group and leaders who have spoken out against the nuclear option were as well-versed and insightful as you are about how their interests are harmed by the filibuster.

Let's hope they read DU in time to be enlightened.

[kevsand]

104. Ouch!

Are those crickets I hear? Nicely put...

[The Doctor.]

106. My new name for you...

"Sardonicus"

[ohioan]

110. :-) nt

[Carolab]

97. Thanks but I prefer to take Senator Robert Byrd's position on this.

He actually UNDERSTANDS the Constitution and its system of checks and balances.

[Clarkie1]

99. The filibuster has nothing to do with the constitution.

It's just a senate rule.

[ohioan]

101. But he understands that the filibuster is not unconstitutional, as the

nuclear option crowd is claiming.

[LimpingLib]

100. And he understands how it helped him deny blacks civil rights till 1965.

Byrd also voted to overturn Roe V Wade in 1983.

Byrd also had the filibuster brought down to 60 votes from 67 in the 70s.

Byrd also said in 2001 that he wants to see a more conservative bench.


Byrd is right on alot of issues , but isnt a saint on constitutional matters.

I strongly agree with the constitutional amendment he and Fritz Hollings offered in 1997 to enable far reaching campaign finance reforms.

[Patchuli]

107. Aww b.s.! nt

[AndyTiedye]

109. If The Filibuster Ends, We WILL Be Forever in the Minority

With total control of the Federal government, they can mandate
Diebold Republican Electing Machinez everywhere, and all of our
objections end up in the Supreme Court, and you know what that means.

It would mean the end of the two-party system in this country.

It would be all Fundies and robber barons, all the time,
until they piss off the rest of the world enough so they :nuke: us.

With their control of the media, they can easily convince most Americans
that there is a majority somewhere that voted for the regime.

Or they crank up the draft and do martial law.



We Never Rest, Until Every Vote has Been Delivered to the pResident