Filibuster - An Interesting Observation

[jclay]

It seems pretty accurate from where I sit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...PBi7uyNXomLwcg

[dennis]

Our understanding of politics is shaped by the point we entered the timeline. At 53 I cannot remember a time there wasn't gridlock in the senate. Kind of assumed it was always like that. Hard to imagine it being a functioning body at some point. Interesting article.

[smontanaro]

Our understanding of politics is shaped by the point we entered the timeline. At 53 I cannot remember a time there wasn't gridlock in the senate. Kind of assumed it was always like that.

Cue obligatory quote: "Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it."

A lot of my recent political reading looks back as far as the near-Civil War era. It's kind of amazing that many of the arguments being made today were the same ones being advanced 150 years ago. Things like, "redistribution of wealth," "states' rights," etc. Nothing really new under the sun I guess (to borrow another well-worn phrase).

[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.

[jclay]

Ditch it.

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

Bingo.

It's hard for me to imagine how the current, large scale voter suppression efforts of Republicans could be any more obvious; or any more obviously targeted at non-whites. Allowing it to continue will, ultimately, not end well for this country.

I could not be more disappointed with those who still support Republicans, than I am. The actions of the Republicans who are advancing these voter suppression efforts are truly despicable; so are the individuals.

I just ran across this and I don't dare say what I feel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Odell_Jones

To say that it makes my blood boil is an enormous understatement.

[bdaghisallo]

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.

Harry Reid, when he was the Majority Leader, did away with the filibuster for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level. If you recall, McConnell warned him against doing so.

And to be sure, though the current narrative says otherwise, the Senate filibuster is not a Jim Crow era rule. It establishment predates that era by a good 60 years.

[jclay]

Harry Reid, when he was the Majority Leader, did away with the filibuster for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level. If you recall, McConnell warned him against doing so.

And to be sure, though the current narrative says otherwise, the Senate filibuster is not a Jim Crow era rule. It establishment predates that era by a good 60 years.

I think it more a question of how it's been used than when. And McConnell has used it masterfully for obstructive purposes.

Perhaps removing the filibuster as an option for a broader spectrum of issue categories, obviously including things as important as H.R. 1, would be preferable but regardless of that, being able to simply suffocate legislation seems like a pretty corrosive arrangement.

[bdaghisallo]

I think it more a question of how it's been used than when. And McConnell has used it masterfully for obstructive purposes.

Perhaps removing the filibuster as an option for a broader spectrum of issue categories would be better but regardless of that, being able to simply suffocate legislation seems like a pretty corrosive arrangement.

Was McConnell more masterful in taking advantage of the single Republican filibuster in 2019 than the Democrats were in their 327 uses of it in that time? If so, it sounds like the D's need some smarter politicians.

The whole point of the filibuster is to obstruct the passage of legislation and slow the actions of the majority. That's by design.

[theflashunc]

Harry Reid, when he was the Majority Leader, did away with the filibuster for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level. If you recall, McConnell warned him against doing so.

And to be sure, though the current narrative says otherwise, the Senate filibuster is not a Jim Crow era rule. It establishment predates that era by a good 60 years.

Because surely Mitch would've respected the comity of the body by not doing so when he had a chance to pack the federal judiciary -- including the Supreme Court -- with Federalist Society acolytes all the way down. If anything, Harry didn't go far enough. Mitch simply did the finish work when he had the chance.

And yes, the filibuster predates Jim Crow, but beginning in Jim Crow and ever since it's become weaponized to a degree it has now effectively stopped the Senate as a functioning body of government. It's weakened the power of the Legislative Branch against the other two branches, and stifled any real solutions the country desperately needs on a range of issues.

Now, we're staring down the barrel of brazen GOP attempts across the country to return to an era of actively suppressing the vote of non-whites to effectively ensure white minority rule going forward amid unprecedented demographic change. Anyone who thinks there won't be at least one election result in 2024 that's thrown out by GOP state legislatures as a result of the laws being rammed through now, well, I've got a bridge to sell them in Brooklyn.

This is not the time to worry about one dysfunctional institutional norm that would be thrown out anyways when the GOP could assert a Congressional majority again.

[bdaghisallo]

Because surely Mitch would've respected the comity of the body by not doing so when he had a chance to pack the federal judiciary -- including the Supreme Court -- with Federalist Society acolytes all the way down.

Had the roles been reversed, would Chuck Schumer have undoubtedly done the same thing. McConnell tried to warn the Democrats that they would rue their elimination of the judicial filibuster but the D's made the mistake of believing that they would forever be in control. They either could not see or did not care about the long term. The short term imperative was all that mattered.

[Sino]

This is not the time to worry about one dysfunctional institutional norm that would be thrown out anyways when the GOP could assert a Congressional majority again.

From 2015 to 2019 republicans held the majority in both houses, under both Obama and Trump, and there was never a mention of removing the filibuster.

How do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously? You all have completely bought into unfounded fear-mongering and short sidedness.

[theflashunc]

From 2015 to 2019 republicans held the majority in both houses, under both Obama and Trump, and there was never a mention of removing the filibuster.

How do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously? You all have completely bought into unfounded fear-mongering and short sidedness.

They removed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. And ram-rodded through two Justices that were completely at odds with McConnell's own rhetoric on appointments, then a third with questionable and credible claims of sexual assault in his past. McConnell then ignored the tradition of blue slip approvals on District and Appeals Court nominees from home state senators.

The Tax Cut plan in 2017, the only signature bill of that era, was passed via reconciliation, not needing to pass the filibuster hurdle.

The fact is both parties are using a procedural loop hole in the Senate and that's really the only way things are getting done in that body. The filibuster is already functionally dead. Might as well just make it all the way dead.

It's not fear mongering, it's recognizing the reality of the situation. You have state GOP groups actively looking to subvert the outcome of elections they don't like, and passing legislation that gives them the very tools to do that. The response in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere is clear: The only valid election outcomes are those where Republicans win. All the rest are by default somehow "stolen." There is no greater threat to our democracy right now than the continued undermining of wide access to the franchise, all thanks to the Big Lie that somehow the 2020 election was the result of fraud. If we have to kill the filibuster to get another Voting Rights Act passed, so be it.

[Sino]

It's not fear mongering, it's recognizing the reality of the situation. You have state GOP groups actively looking to subvert the outcome of elections they don't like, and passing legislation that gives them the very tools to do that. The response in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere is clear: The only valid election outcomes are those where Republicans win. All the rest are by default somehow "stolen." There is no greater threat to our democracy right now than the continued undermining of wide access to the franchise, all thanks to the Big Lie that somehow the 2020 election was the result of fraud. If we have to kill the filibuster to get another Voting Rights Act passed, so be it.

Uh huh. So what about Clinton declaring "never accept Trump as President" and the completely unfounded and unproven "Russian" interference in an attempts to subvert the election? Those are just two blaring examples of literally thousands.

Again, you're just buying into fear-mongering and short-sidedness.

[Todd Amunrud]

[QUOTE=Sino;1043905]Uh huh. So what about Clinton declaring "never accept Trump as President" and the completely unfounded and unproven "Russian" interference in an attempts to subvert the election? Those are just two blaring examples of literally thousands.

Wait, these are just what aboutism’s that have no bearing on the filibuster. Sorry to step in, but can you clarify the value of this within this discussion? I’ve appreciated your input so far, but please clarify.