What good is the filibuster anyway?

[pecksniff]

The Senate has the constitutional right o make its own rules.

That's my point.

There's a reason why you're so ignorant about its use and why you'll be crying for its return in November. Schumer's plan however may already be dead.

Republicans have controlled the Senate before. I never approved of Dems using the filibuster to obstruct them.

 

[pecksniff]

Four pages, and nobody has yet made any good argument for the value of the filibuster.

 

[Rightguide]

That's my point.



Republicans have controlled the Senate before. I never approved of Dems using the filibuster to obstruct them.

The existing rule has been the rule for over 180 years, but go ahead and wipe out the filibuster. What goes around comes around.

 

[pecksniff]

The existing rule has been the rule for over 180 years, but go ahead and wipe out the filibuster. What goes around comes around.

If the Pubs take the Senate in November and there is no longer any filibuster, I'll accept the consequences. The Dems never did much with it anyway, not since the 1950s when the Dems were not today's Dems.

 

[Rightguide]

If the Pubs take the Senate in November and there is no longer any filibuster, I'll accept the consequences. The Dems never did much with it anyway, not since the 1950s when the Dems were not today's Dems.

No you won't. National concealed carry law. Outlaw teacher's unions. Regulate Big Tech. National photo ID for federal elections and in-person voting only.

 

[pecksniff]

No you won't. National concealed carry law. Outlaw teacher's unions. Regulate Big Tech. National photo ID for federal elections and in-person voting only.

Do you really expect Dem filibusters would play much role in any of that? Based on their track record, no.

 

[jomar]

Who made the filibuster an email objection until further notice?

If they want to keep it they need to get back to one member only reading the phone book and peeing through a tube until they pass out. No handing off.

 

[pecksniff]

Who made the filibuster an email objection until further notice?

If they want to keep it they need to get back to one member only reading the phone book and peeing through a tube until they pass out. No handing off.

Or maybe Green Eggs and Ham!

 

[Sean Renaud]

No you won't. National concealed carry law. Outlaw teacher's unions. Regulate Big Tech. National photo ID for federal elections and in-person voting only.

The first is too stupid to actually pass and once the Right loses the ability to hide behind dems they'll come to their senses and if they don't the inevitable spike in crim will just let us take it back.

Teacher's unions might get nixed but nobody will do the job for years after that so have fun.

We want Big Tech regulated, its you guys who oppose that one.

IF the ID is free. . .you'll still have to convince all the mothers, fathers and vets that the people defending our rights don't deserve to vote. Once you accept that fact you'll have to come back to explaining why people who cannot for a myriad of reasons drive or why kids shouldn't go out of state to college. It'll be funny to see the Right justify that and more.

 

[Cubantripod]

Four pages, and nobody has yet made any good argument for the value of the filibuster.

Because neither party is worthy of the trust of the American people.

 

[pecksniff]

Because neither party is worthy of the trust of the American people.

Is that any reason to have a system where either of them can effectively obstruct the other?

 

[Cubantripod]

Is that any reason to have a system where either of them can effectively obstruct the other?

Yes. If you can't work well with others, fuck off. Until each party stops trying to push through its dream legislation, they shouldn't be passing anything. They're not representing the American people.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes. If you can't work well with others, fuck off. Until each party stops trying to push through its dream legislation, they shouldn't be passing anything. They're not representing the American people.

That's not how politics works, hell that isn't even how ordering pizza works with a dozen people. The idea that neither side is representing the American People on any random topic is absurd anyway. There are lots of things that end up well into the 70's and 80's for approval by the pubic but until you get to 60 votes if you're a democrat and 50+ usually for a republican you can't get a whole lot of anything done.

This a pox on both houses nonsense really needs to get thrown out a fucking window though. That is one of the greatest reasons we cannot get shit done in this country.

The bottom line is the fillibuster does NOTHING positive and just leads to stagnation in a country that is already designed, mostly by accident, to stagnate and suffer.

 

[Cubantripod]

The bottom line is the fillibuster does NOTHING positive and just leads to stagnation in a country that is already designed, mostly by accident, to stagnate and suffer.

With the 12th amendment and the direct election of senators, the filibuster is the only thing that still forces parties to have to wok together. Get rid of that and we're one step above mob rule and closer to civil war.

 

[pecksniff]

With the 12th amendment and the direct election of senators, the filibuster is the only thing that still forces parties to have to wok together. Get rid of that and we're one step above mob rule and closer to civil war.

We're not going to have mob rule or civil war because of anything done by a de-filibustered Senate.

 

[GothTalk]

We're not going to have mob rule

He said 1 step above it...which is what simple majority democracy is. 50.1% = total psycho on the other and will only serve to rapidly accelerate us towards a hot civil war.

or civil war

Already underway culturally, economically, legally and politically.

Our polarization is even showing at the state level.... our population as a nation is politically self segregating. While no catastrophe in and of itself it's still a big red flag with "CAUTION AHEAD" warnings in yellow block letters.

All we need is 1 state get defiant enough to say "no, fuck you we're out, WHO'S COMMIN WITH US???? " to the opposing federal administration and that's going to be an official legal civil war and dangerously close to a hot civil war situation .

After seeing the reaction to Trump it could be either side too. Neither will submit to the other....and they shouldn't have to, live and let live > war. But that choice is going to have to be made, the sooner the better and more likely we are to opt for 'live and let live'.

Let us hope cooler heads prevail over the reactionaries.

 

[pecksniff]

Already underway culturally, economically, legally and politically.

No more so than in the 1930s or the 1960s, and we got through all that intact as a nation.

 

[GothTalk]

No more so than in the 1930s or the 1960s,

Maybe not but as I stated before we are seeing some things now that we didn't see before.

Most notable of which is our polarization is even showing at the state level.... our population as a nation is politically self segregating. While no catastrophe in and of itself it's still a big red flag with "CAUTION AHEAD" warnings in yellow and black stripe block letters.

and we got through all that intact as a nation.

That's no guarantee we will survive our partisan divisions today.

If one side gets too belligerent with the other, like if there is no filibuster?? That's going to drive wedges in our partisan divisions much deeper much faster.

It's not inconceivable a state, coalition of states or even a city state like NYC might get defiant and declare it's independence from the union.

 

[pecksniff]

If one side gets too belligerent with the other, like if there is no filibuster?? That's going to drive wedges in our partisan divisions much deeper much faster.

Urgent legislation being blocked by filibuster has a lot more divisive potential than that.

 

[GothTalk]

Urgent legislation being blocked by filibuster has a lot more divisive potential than that.

No, keeping the bully stick of federal authority to beat and abuse the other with, out of play is not more divisive.

Bringing the bully stick into it (getting rid of filibuster) would absolutely and immediately proceed with pouring gas on the polarization and civil conflict fire.

Absolutely NOT de-escalation of tensions.

 

[pecksniff]

No, keeping the bully stick of federal authority to beat and abuse the other with, out of play is not more divisive.

Bringing the bully stick into it (getting rid of filibuster) would absolutely and immediately proceed with pouring gas on the polarization and civil conflict fire.

Absolutely NOT de-escalation of tensions.

If we look at the historical use of the filibuster -- it was always divisive. Never did it heal tensions or resolve conflict. There is not a single episode at which we can look back and say, "Thank God there was the filibuster, or the country would have been torn apart!"

 

[GothTalk]

If we look at the historical use of the filibuster -- it was always divisive. Never did it heal tensions or resolve conflict.

No, and it's not meant to.

What it does do is stop it.

Much harder to have a conflict over something that doesn't happen.

There is not a single episode at which we can look back and say, "Thank God there was the filibuster, or the country would have been torn apart!"

Then it's doing it's job.

But I'm sure even that is bullshit on both sides.

Not long ago the (D)'eez loved the filibuster when (R)'s and Trump were in charge.

 

[Champakian]

Four pages, and nobody has yet made any good argument for the value of the filibuster.

There are plenty of "good" arguments that you disagree with
just as it would be so easy to say that you have no "good" argument
for ending it if your were to apply the same metric to yourself.

 

[pecksniff]

No, and it's not meant to.

The filibuster is not meant to do much of anything. It just kind of happened.

Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806, after he left office.[7] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[7] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

During most of the pre-Civil War period, the filibuster was seldom used, as northern senators desired to maintain southern support over fears of disunion/secession and made compromises over slavery in order to avoid confrontation with new states admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate,[8] most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Indeed, until the late 1830s the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised.

The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him.[9][10] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter a new national bank. After Whig Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via a majority vote, Democratic Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[7]

At the time, both the Senate and the House of Representatives allowed filibusters as a way to prevent a vote from taking place. Subsequent revisions to House rules limited filibuster privileges in that chamber, but the Senate continued to allow the tactic.[11][failed verification][dubious – discuss]

The emergence of cloture (1917–1969)

In 1917, during World War I, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[12] the Senate adopted a rule on a 76–3 roll call vote to permit an end to debate on a measure in the form of cloture.[13] This took place after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[14] The requirement for cloture was two-thirds of senators voting.[15]

Despite that formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.[16] The first cloture vote occurred in 1919 to end debate on the Treaty of Versailles, leading to the treaty's rejection against the wishes of the cloture rule's first champion, President Wilson.[17] During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.[12] In 1946, five Democrats — senators John H. Overton (LA), Richard B. Russell (GA), Millard E. Tydings (MD), Clyde R. Hoey (NC), and Kenneth McKellar (TN) — blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101)[18] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill.

In 1949, the Senate made invoking cloture more difficult by requiring two-thirds of the entire Senate membership to vote in favor of a cloture motion.[19] Moreover, future proposals to change the Senate rules were themselves specifically exempted from being subject to cloture.[20]: 191  In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Then Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[21] during which he read laws from different states and recited George Washington's farewell address in its entirety,[22] although the bill ultimately passed.

In 1959, anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate under the leadership of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.[19] Although the 1949 rule had eliminated cloture on rules changes themselves, Johnson acted at the very beginning of the new Congress on January 5, 1959, and the resolution was adopted by a 72–22 vote with the support of three top Democrats and three of the four top Republicans. The presiding officer, Vice President Richard Nixon, supported the move and stated his opinion that the Senate "has a constitutional right at the beginning of each new Congress to determine rules it desires to follow".[23] The 1959 change also eliminated the 1949 exemption for rules changes, allowing cloture to once again be invoked on future changes.[20]: 193 

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14-hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate successfully invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[24]

From 1917 to 1970, the Senate took a cloture vote nearly once a year (on average); during this time, there were a total of 49 cloture votes.[25]

The two-track system, 60-vote rule and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)

After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in 1970 under the leadership of Democratic Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Democratic Majority Whip Robert Byrd.[citation needed] Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one main motion pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation or nominations pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[26][27]

The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular motions became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[29][30][31] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.

In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators (60 votes out of 100) could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[32][33] However, by returning to an absolute number of all Senators (60) rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority's leverage to force an issue through extended debate.

Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[34][35][36]

As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[37]

Abolition for nominations: 2005–2013

See also: Nuclear option
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President's power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[38][39] Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word "nuclear" to describe the plan, and so it became known as the "nuclear option," and the term thereafter came to refer to the general process of changing cloture requirements via the establishment of a new Senate precedent (by simple majority vote, as opposed to formally amending the Senate rule by two-thirds vote).[40] However, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the "Gang of 14"—reached an agreement to temporarily defuse the conflict.[41][42][43]

From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[44] During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013, one temporary for that Congress and one permanent.[45][46] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) allowed, among other things, elimination of post-cloture debate on a motion to proceed to a bill once cloture has been invoked on the motion, provided that certain thresholds of bipartisan support are met. Despite these modest changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the "silent filibuster"—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[47]

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats used the "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court until 2017.[48] The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[49][50] and out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[49]

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[51]

Abolition for all nominations: 2017–present

On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[52][53]

In January 2021, following a shift to a 50-50 Democratic majority supported by Vice President Harris's tie-breaking vote, the legislative filibuster became a sticking point for the adoption of a new organizing resolution when Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution until it should include language maintaining a 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture.[54] As a result of this delay, committee memberships were held over from the 116th Congress, leaving some committees without a chair, some committees chaired by Republicans, and new Senators without committee assignments. After a stalemate that lasted a week, McConnell received assurances from two Democratic senators that they would continue to support the 60 vote threshold. Because of those assurances, on January 25, 2021 McConnell abandoned his threat of a filibuster.[55][56]

The House passed a bill to launch an independent commission to investigate the events of January 6, 2021, but on May 28, 2021, Senate Republicans blocked the bill with a 54 to 35 vote using the filibuster.[57] This represents 60% of senators present, but not of absolute number of senators, as required by the 1975 rule still in effect.

 

[GothTalk]

The is not meant to do much of anything. It just kind of happened.

But it now serves a purpose.

One Democrats very much enjoyed when they weren't in power and will no doubt use extensively again in the future.