What good is the filibuster anyway?

[pecksniff]

Obstruction is good.

It cools and tempers the temporary passions of the mob.

That might apply to a direct democracy, but not a representative one. The British Parliament, which has never been hampered by institutional obstructionism (or even constitutional limits on its power), has never been an example of dangerous mob passions. And even among direct democracies, it really only applies to the face-to-face town meeting form, not to legislation by referendum.

 

[pecksniff]

You misunderstood the phrase is all;

the original intent of the filibuster.

I presume the original intent of the filibuster -- which both houses had at first -- was simply that "unlimited debate" sounded like a good thing at the time.

 

[vastiesmith100]

It keeps

dems from controlling everything and making this a country less democratic.

 

[KeithD]

dems from controlling everything and making this a country less democratic.

You don't follow who has been overstepping control limitations and being obstructionist in the Congress for over a decade, do you?

 

[Sean Renaud]

I presume the original intent of the filibuster -- which both houses had at first -- was simply that "unlimited debate" sounded like a good thing at the time.

While I'm not sure how sane unlimited debate is when you have 435 people who gonna be closish to 50/50 its not difficult to tag in and tag out literally forever. A lot of what the Founders planned was fine for thirteen loosely connected states. Its insane for fifty very interdependent ones.

I'm against the concept that one side can just say "We aren't discussing this." But I think we can table this conversation since its clear the right has no interest in a functional government. People might like government if they knew it worked as advertised.

 

[pecksniff]

A lot of what the Founders planned . . .

. . . did not include the filibuster rule.

 

[Champakian]

Let us put it another way, the filibuster is a check on the tyranny of the majority.
In a system of compromise, if your ideas and goals are so unpalatable that they
cause a filibuster, then you are truly not reaching out, listening or attempting to
work with the minority, usually under the auspices of hubris that simply assume
that you will be the majority in perpetuity and fear not unintended consequences.

 

[Champakian]

The tyranny of the majority see the filibuster as a bug
and those of more subtle thought see it as a feature...





If your ideas are superior in their totality,
then you will win enough representation
that the filibuster no longer becomes an issue.
When there is no clear and prevalent sense
of right action with the general population
then it is not a necessity that your ideas/goals
be advanced over the objections of a slim minority.
In other words, if your majority can easily be
transformed to minority status in the next election
then the filibuster is a protection against, oh what
is the current popular phrase? the nuclear option.

 

[pecksniff]

Let us put it another way, the filibuster is a check on the tyranny of the majority.

Any such tyranny would depend on a stable majority, which rarely exists in politics.

 

[Rightguide]

Ask any Democrat Senator when they are in the minority.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The republic distinction isn't being nitpicky, it's a very valid argument. The electoral college exists for the reason that you want as much of a consensus as possible. A society where 51% can silence the other 49% is one step above mob rule and won't last long.

This is actually false. The EC exists because of racism.

 

[pecksniff]

This is actually false. The EC exists because of racism.

Not originally -- in 1787 the slave states had a majority even if only whites were counted -- but that does help keep it in place.

 

[Rightguide]

This is actually false. The EC exists because of racism.

You are irreversibly ignorant and what intellect you have left is dedicated to racist based propaganda of the communist left. Racism has nothing to do with the existence of the Electoral College, none whatsoever. All you have to do in order to understand the enormity of your ignorance, is to read Federalist 68.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not originally -- in 1787 the slave states had a majority even if only whites were counted -- but that does help keep it in place.

No they did not. The North was much more densely populated if you only counted white people. That's why they wanted to count their slaves which gave them a huge population advantage. The North were the ones who wanted what would become the Senate because counting your slaves as people is bullshit but that's where the 3/5s compromise comes from.

If the South had an advantage in just whites why bother trying to include the slaves when they knew that was going to be a hard sale?

 

[Champakian]

Any such tyranny would depend on a stable majority, which rarely exists in politics.

That is pretty much a non-sequitur which has nothing to do with my remark.

A majority does not have to be "stable" to do great legislative harm
before the public has an opportunity to correct it, however,
they did elect the means to retard the process
until their will could be known.

 

[pecksniff]

Former Senate majority leader explains why Democrats need to ‘abolish the filibuster once and for all’

The 81-year-old Reid explains, "An arcane Senate rule, the filibuster imposes a 60-vote threshold on the majority of legislation, and it allows just one senator of the minority party to effectively block any and all progress by simply sending an e-mail indicating their opposition to a bill. Our Framers envisioned the Senate as a deliberative body where the issues of the day could receive thoughtful consideration, and where a simple majority was needed to conduct most business. What we have today is a gridlocked body where there's more obstruction than debate."

Reid adds that as the Framers saw it, "debate was to be encouraged in the Senate." But in 1917, Reid notes, the "filibuster rule as we know it today was introduced" as a "means of cutting off extended and tedious debate."

"Just as he did in the Obama years when I served as majority leader, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has exploited and weaponized the filibuster, turning it into a tool to stifle President Joe Biden's legislative priorities — a platform that won him the White House by more than seven million votes," Reid laments. "The filibuster has become an anti-democratic weapon wielded by the minority to silence the will of the people."

Whether a Democratic bill is addressing climate change, voting rights or reproductive rights, Reid argues, the filibuster is getting in the way of Biden's agenda.

"Just as he did in President Obama's first term with nominations, Mitch McConnell and his fellow far-right Republicans are again making clear that they will stop at nothing to steamroll Democratic priorities — even when it means grinding the Senate's proceedings to a halt," Reid writes. "The sanctity of the Senate is not the filibuster. The sanctity of the Senate — in government as a whole — is the power it holds to better the lives of and protect the rights of the American people. We need to get the Senate working again. It's time Senate Democrats act with the urgency that this moment demands and abolish the filibuster once and for all."

 

[pecksniff]

That is pretty much a non-sequitur which has nothing to do with my remark.

A majority does not have to be "stable" to do great legislative harm
before the public has an opportunity to correct it, however,
they did elect the means to retard the process
until their will could be known.

None of that would have anything to do with a "tyranny of the majority."

 

[pecksniff]

The filibuster is the only thing preventing this country from full blown chaos.

I cannot see how chaos would follow its abolition. Other republics do fine without any such thing.

 

[Cubantripod]

I cannot see how chaos would follow its abolition. Other republics do fine without any such thing.

We're not other countries.

 

[BidudeinWi]

I have always wanted that rule abolished, regardless of who controlled the Senate at the time. It is nothing but a formula for obstructionism. There is a good reason why its most famous usages were by Southern senators blocking civil rights legislation.

It’s awesome cuz it forces the two Party’s to come together and compromise.

 

[LittleDixie]

I have always wanted that rule abolished, regardless of who controlled the Senate at the time. It is nothing but a formula for obstructionism.

The Fillibuster is a tool that can be used by a minority to combat tyranny of the majority. If a Senator feels strongly enough against a piece of legislation to hold the floor indefinitely, then I think it should be allowed.

I am in favor of the filibuster. I am not in favor of the procedural version. I say that senators need to actually stand there and talk and talk and talk.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You are irreversibly ignorant and what intellect you have left is dedicated to racist based propaganda of the communist left. Racism has nothing to do with the existence of the Electoral College, none whatsoever. All you have to do in order to understand the enormity of your ignorance, is to read Federalist 68.

Please explain the 3/5s compromise to me instead blacks simply not counting as people at all? If it is I who is ignorant not you, you should able to point this out. Not direct me to the lengthy papers without even a referense so I can google it.

I've played this game long enough to know when someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[pecksniff]

We're not other countries.

We're not so different.

That is a very important thing to keep in mind at all times.

 

[coati]

If the filibuster could be suspended to ram through Trump's Supreme Court nominees, it can be suspended for all votes. The Senate already gives equal representation (2 Senators) to all states, no matter how many people live in each state. That's enough of a nod toward the "Republic".

Quit dicking around, and eliminate the filibuster. As Leonard Cohen said, "Democracy is coming to the U.S.A."

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Fillibuster is a tool that can be used by a minority to combat tyranny of the majority. If a Senator feels strongly enough against a piece of legislation to hold the floor indefinitely, then I think it should be allowed.

I am in favor of the filibuster. I am not in favor of the procedural version. I say that senators need to actually stand there and talk and talk and talk.

Then you are functionally against the fillibuster. Nobody is talking about ending it entirely. We just don't want to explain each and everytime we discuss the situation the nuance between the talking and the procederal. That is what conservatives do. They with all "and then?" until you just pass out.