Filibuster - An Interesting Observation

[bdaghisallo]

Interesting fact:

The Senate filibuster was used 328 times in 2020 - once by Republican senators and 327 times by the other guys.

[lavi]

Interesting article. I never fully understood how something like the filibuster came into being. The article is a good history lesson.

What I don't understand is how these type of rules are made up. I'm guessing there are rules and voting and such.

So the McConnell Filibuster requiring 60 votes to pass a bill: how/when did this come into being? And, with it being such a clog to legislation, why was it "voted" in? If this came to be while McConnell was the minority leader, how does he have that power.

In other words, educate me.

I have a hard time following politics (of any brand) as I think it largely bullshit and about money and power. Actually caring for constituents seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Don't even get me started on campaign finance "rules" or lack thereof. And CERTAINLY don't mention how the pricks in Senate have their own retirement system, don't pay into SS, and get to vote for their own pay raises. OH, not to mention no term limits. Such BS!

[bdaghisallo]

The filibuster has been around since 1806 in the US Senate. It is not new. The concept originated in the Senate in Ancient Rome where the length of time senators could speak was not limited.

In modern times it is a mechanism to enhance the power of the minority in debates. Compare it to the rules and procedures of a Westminster style parliament, like the UK and Canada, where all one needs to do anything is 50% plus 1 vote. The minority in Westminster parliaments has very little power.

It is not a "McConnell rule".

[fastupslowdown]

I'm not quick to end the fillibuster. Seems we' wind up with the law changing every 2-4 years but I do think Senators should have to work a little harder. I would like to see a marathon speech being given at the very least. Right now its just too easy -Mike G

[bcm119]

I can see good reasons for keeping as well as ditching the filibuster. I lean towards keeping it. I suppose my fear of republican policy is greater than my love for progressive policy.

[bdaghisallo]

I can see good reasons for keeping as well as ditching the filibuster. I lean towards keeping it. I suppose my fear of republican policy is greater than my love for progressive policy.

There's a good rule of thumb when considering rule changes - always consider if you'd wish your opponents to wield the power the change you want to make will afford.

[theflashunc]

Ditch it. It isn't as if the GOP hasn't done away with it when necessary for their own policy needs -- primarily judicial appointments.

If they want to pass wildly unpopular policies and then have to face voters at the ballot box over it, so be it.

If we keep it, at least make someone stand there and talk for as long as they can. But so much legislation being DOA because of these Jim Crow-era rules hurts more than it helps the country.

And there's really nothing more important right now than consistent, national voting rights. That's worth sacrificing the filibuster imo.

[smontanaro]

The Senate filibuster was used 328 times in 2020 - once by Republican senators and 327 times by the other guys.

Sure, you play by the rules you have before you. When The Republicans were in the minority they used it every chance they could to stymie Democratic efforts to pass legislation. The expectation that they will filibuster everything now is what makes this discussion timely.

Adam Jentleson was deputy chief of staff for Harry Reid. After he left the Senate, he researched and wrote a book, “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy." He was interviewed on the Ezra Klein podcast a couple months ago. Ezra Klein has also been hanging around Congress as a journalist for a long while and also has a book, “Why We’re Polarized." The interview is more like a back-and-forth conversation. I highly recommend it. They discuss reconciliation, and why it's a poor substitute for normal legislative processes. Here's an extended quote about how we even got the filibuster (emphasis mine):

And just to level set on this, the framers did not intend the minority to have the right to unlimited debate in the Senate. They were very clear about this. I’m not an originalist, but I think it’s important to establish this because this is where the conversation often goes. They implemented many rules and procedures that would allow a majority to end debate when it had become obstructionist and ceased to be about persuasion and just about blocking things. One of the major rules got taken off the rule books by mistake in 1806. No one noticed for decades, and then [John] Calhoun ["spiritual godfather of the Confederacy"] in the 1830s realized that taking away this ability to end debate created the potential for unlimited debate. And so he started to say that this was what the Senate is about. And it’s about the minority’s ability to always speak as long as they wanted. [James] Madison was alive, and at one point, he wrote to Calhoun and responded to his ideas. He wrote in response to Calhoun’s ideas that this is not what he intended at all. But then he died, and he was the last of the framers to go. And so then, Calhoun sort of had the floor to himself to reinvent the idea of the Senate.

I am happy to discuss this stuff, and I think it can be done without rancor. I do think it's important to understand the underpinnings of the system we have today so we can understand what the heck is going on in the Senate, "the world's greatest deliberative body" (my eye).