Let's get something straight about this "End the filibuster cr@p"

[FBaggins]

Do you love your kids? Your grandkids?

Republicans will control the senate for MANY of the next 50 years. It's an unavoidable byproduct of any legislative body that gives Wyoming and Kansas the same number of senators as New York and California. There are simply too many small deep-red states. The filibuster is an absolutely necessary defense of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And we WILL be the minority at some point. Tuesday should have made that clear.

It sucks to lose elections and it sucks to lose bills that have majority support.

It sucks more to lose your country.

< /soapbox>

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. There's no point doing it now.

Nothing worth passing will come from the lower house anyway.

[DrToast]

3. If it's worth doing, then it's worth doing anytime

And it's worth doing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. No. It's not.

Republicans have the power to obstruct anything, regardless of senate filibuster rules.

I might have agreed that it was worth doing during the HCR debates, but not any more.

[DrToast]

5. That's absurd. You can't pick and choose the structure of your government based on who is in power

Have you no values?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Of course I do. Democratic ones.

I have no motivation to make it easier to repeal the civil rights bill, HCR or privatize social security.

If you consider that view reflective of a lack of values, then you should rethink why you are here.

[DrToast]

8. Meanwhile the country is falling apart because our government is broken. Great plan!

[DrToast]

2. Shorter: Democracy is bad!

Sorry, I'll take my chances. The tyranny of the minority seems far worse.

[FBaggins]

6. You've confused unlimited majority power for "democracy"

n/t

[last_texas_dem]

9. I know the filibuster serves a purpose, but I do wish there was some way

to limit the amount it's "abused." And, yeah, I know "abused" is a subjective term, and I'm not sure how any legislation could clearly do this, but... I guess I'm just kind of thinking out loud (well, via typing...).

To me, the filibuster should be more about a minority of Senators or a single senator being able to stop or stall legislation they believe to be particularly egregious. But the place we've come to in recent years, where, essentially, every major piece of legislation requires 60 votes because the Republicans essentially filibuster everything (and, sure, it did increase with the Democratic Senate minority under Bush, but not nearly to the levels it's reached under the Republican minorities of the last couple of Congresses) seems to have moved beyond what the filibuster was intended to be.

I've tended to agree with those who've proposed moving the filibuster back to the "old school" way it was conducted, in which a Senator with an objection had to actually talk the bill to death instead of this "silent" filibuster crap. When that was the method by which filibusters were generally conducted, their occurrence was few and far between. At the same time, I've heard arguments that to go back to that style of filibustering would bog things down too much in the modern Senate. Also, I *think* I remember reading on here that conducting the filibuster in that way *was* the custom back in the day, but the "silent" filibuster was always an avaiable option even back then? I may have not completely understood, though.

Anyway, just rambling... I basically agree with your post regarding the question of actually abolishing the filibuster outright, but wouldn't mind seeing something done (if there's anything that can be) to limit it being used in excess. (That "Gang of 14" compromise back when the Repugs had the majority in the Senate surely didn't seem to have any sort of lasting effect; elephants seem to forget fairly quickly...).

[FBaggins]

15. There IS a way to keep it from being abused.

When they abuse it on popular legislation, you make them eat it in the next election.

But you can't play games with it. You can't cut deals and twist rules to pass a watered-down version of what you think the public wants. You have to be willing to put your best plan forward and LOSE the vote. Then that's what you make the election about.

Instead you "win" the vote on something that isn't what you started with... and WHO ends up with the electoral issue?

[Bitwit1234]

10. The only problem with your analysis is

T-H-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S do not use it.

[FBaggins]

12. Sure they do!

They certainly use it when republicans hold the white house and both houses of Congress.

They don't NEED to use it when they're in the majority.

[Teaser]

11. the filibuster will destroy the planet

with respect to global climate change legislation.

that trumps almost any other concern for me.

[FBaggins]

14. Nonsense.

And if we save the planet, how do we keep them from reversing that the next time they're in power?

[Teaser]

18. Nonsense? Please, we have about a 1% or greater chance of runaway climate change

due to methane outgassing.

That isn't nonsense. That's enough of a probability to be scared shitless about. It's my job to know this stuff.

And if we had managed to get cap and trade installed, the economy would have become invested in it, as would most corporations. That is what it was structured to do. Reversing it would not have been in anyone's economic interests, and as such, would have no advocates on the R side.

As it stands, all that is left us is EPA regulations. Which is very reversible and about which the economic elite will always scream.

[madinmaryland]

13. It's Obama's and the Clenis' fault. nt

[Hawkowl]

16. Then institute the filibuster in the House as well

Why not? Why not enable one stinking Congressman to hold up the entire country? Because that is what we have now. Fuck the filibuster. It is an anachronism when Senators were statesman and didn't represent BP, or Walmart, or the Koch brothers. The filibuster concentrates power in the hands of the tiny minority ruling this country like their personal piggy bank. End it this Congress and if you don't like it, bring it back for the next. It is an arbitrary rule--not part of the Constitution or any law.

[FBaggins]

17. It used to BE part of House rules.

The problem was that the House got so large that unlimited debate became unfeasible. There's also a difference in intent between the two bodies. The senate, with it's longer terms and smaller numbers, was intended to be the more deliberative of the two, while House members are closer to the voters and answerable to them more frequently.

It's part of the design of our republic. The founders didn't want 51% in one election to be able to rule completely. The "checks and balances" go far deeper than just having three branches of government.

There are LOTS of Democratic senators who recognize this who might allow tweaks around the edges, but not wholesale changes to the filibuster rules. And they've all been given an unpleasant reminder that they could be in the minority themselves one day and may need the filibsuter to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority.

[joshcryer]

19. The Republicans can only take the Senate if the Democrats cannot show that progressive policy works.

Period.