Ending the fillibuster...Good idea or bad...discuss.

[Cant trust em]

I'm still trying to make up my mind.

I think that in theory this gives some power to the party in the minority.

But if it's just going to be used on every issue, then it doesn't really have any value.

[NJmaverick]

1. If we didn't have it, I shudder to think about the sort of judges Bush would have been able to

appoint to the Supreme Court. Judges that hate liberty and fairness even worse than Scalia.

[Alexander]

16. Democrats didn't exactly stop a lot of them even with the filibuster.

[NJmaverick]

19. No but I think the threat prevented worse choices

[Alexander]

24. How many times was a Democratic filibuster even successful during Bush's terms?

I remember many times they tried, and failed, because of the same DINOs who are currently holding up health care.

[safeinOhio]

2. These things ALWAYS come back

to bite you in the butt.

[FourScore]

3. whatever happened to the nuclear option? n/t

[BolivarianHero]

4. I'm sorry...

But when I think of the filibuster, I think of White supremacists trying to deny civil rights to African-Americans and other minorities. It should have been destroyed the moment Strom Thurmond opened his worthless fucking yap.

[TheWraith]

5. Doesn't really matter--we can't do it.

To change the Senate rules requires a supermajority of 67 votes.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. actually changing Senate rules only requires a simple majority

but it still shouldn't be done!

sP

[FBaggins]

12. Senate Rule 22 requires a 2/3 majority vote to change the rules.

And, of course, the debate over the change can itself be filibustered.

The option that allows for a simple majority to change the rules involves the Senate parliamentarian ruling that filibusters are not allowed (which, of course, would be a lie). Then it only requires a simple majority to uphold the parliamentarian's ruling (which everyone would know was a lie).

This sets up a constitutional crisis since the courts could get involved on what was clearly a violation of the rules... except that Congress sets their own rules.

It most certainly wouldn't pass the smell test with the voters. We would very quickly discover that we got rid of a tool that we ourselves needed to use.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. it can be done via simple majority

via parliamentary procedure. while it is not a technical rule change, it would set precedent and the Senate would move forward using that. referred to as nuclear option...it works...and should not be used...

sP

[FBaggins]

21. That's what I was refering too... and it really doesn't work

because the "parliamentary procedure" is to make a ruling that the Sun orbits around the Earth and then getting 51 Senators to agree with that ruling when it is challenged (and getting the courts to ignore the obvious).

There's no gurantee that the republicans would have succeeded in court with their "nuclear" option... but their parliamentary trick would be to claim that the filibuster doesn't apply in a particular situation because the Senate can't, by rule, ignore their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

As I said... no gurantee that it would have made it through a challenge, but it was at least a plausible argument. No such plausibility exists to claim that the filibuster rule doesn't include normal legislation.

And yes, it should not be used even if it could be.

[FBaggins]

6. Why discuss? It isn't an option. n/t

[Cant trust em]

8. Actually I just got an e-mail today from the chair of the CA Dems

They're asking members to send an e-mail to Harry Reid pushing to change the rule.

[FBaggins]

10. Popularity among those of us who care as much about winning as about process

isn't evidence that something is do-able.

There is just about zero chance of successfully getting rid of the filibuster rule.

And it could be devastating electorally. Most Democratic senators up for election next fall can likely be quoted at great length re: the importance of the filibuster. To kill it would be blatant hypocrisy.

[Cant trust em]

14. Fancy that. A discussion.

And on a discussion board no less.

[LynneSin]

7. VERY VERY VERY VERY bad idea

There are plenty of judges that never made it to the higher bench thanks to the filibuster.

Trust me, the tides will turn and we'll want that filibuster even if we hate it right now.

[FBaggins]

13. This is true

We should be under no illusion that our Senate majority will endure forever. The simple structure of the Senate (giving an equal voice to every state) means that Republicans are likely to retake control in years/decades to come. There are simply more red states than blue ones.

The filibuster was worth its weight in gold a few years ago... it shall be again.

[timeforpeace]

11. As long as it automatically comes back when the Repukes have the majority again, no problemo.

[Caliman73]

15. The problem isn't the filibuster.

The problem is the weakness of the Senate Majority leader. There are 58 Democrats, 1 independent who always votes with the Democrats o procedure, and that asshole Lieberman. If Reid cannot hold that coalition together on procedural votes then someone else needs to take his place. All this negotiating to get a procedural vote is crap.

[The Revolution]

17. Would it be possible

to get rid of the fillibuster for standard bills, but leave it in place for court appointments?

[FBaggins]

20. In theory... sure

In practice it would be a tougher sell. The Senate at least arguably has a constitutional duty to act on judicial appointments... there is no similar argument for regular legislation.

Besides... judges are at least as important. Your feelings on one vs the other will likely change if even a barely acceptable nominee is filibustered.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

22. Better idea end the Senate

It is by its very structure and rules not a democratic institution. Senators representing as little as 10% of the population can block legislation. One Senator represents 700,000 people the other 10 million and they have the same power. Abolish the electoral college while you are at it.

[JVS]

23. Yup. Anyone who thinks the Electoral College is bad, should hate the Senate.

:thumbsup: welcome to DU