Is it time to end the Wilsonian practice of the procedural filibuster?

 

Cloture votes only date back to 1917, which essentially allowed bills to be killed by cloture votes. Prior to 1975, 67 votes were required for cloture. Currently, 60 is required.

 

Some people are proposing moving the goalposts further back to just 55 senators required for cloture.

 

I'm all for filibusters. I think they can provide a necessary safety valve to delay and kill bills that a minority party may find irresponsible. But I don't think it should be as simple as a vote for cloture. I think the filibuster should actually happen.

 

If we take away the threat to fake a filibuster, as we've done increasingly over the last 20 years, I think we can still see the principled stands that we've seen in the past, without the "principled" stands of moderate senators who are only moderate because it pads the paycheck. (i.e. Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln).

 

What do you think?

Yes, definitely end it, at least in its current form.

If the Minority wants to filibuster, they should have to maintain their membership on the floor and shut down the rest of the Senate in the process.

Is it time to end the Wilsonian practice of the procedural filibuster?

 

Cloture votes only date back to 1917, which essentially allowed bills to be killed by cloture votes. Prior to 1975, 67 votes were required for cloture. Currently, 60 is required.

 

Some people are proposing moving the goalposts further back to just 55 senators required for cloture.

 

I'm all for filibusters. I think they can provide a necessary safety valve to delay and kill bills that a minority party may find irresponsible. But I don't think it should be as simple as a vote for cloture. I think the filibuster should actually happen.

 

If we take away the threat to fake a filibuster, as we've done increasingly over the last 20 years, I think we can still see the principled stands that we've seen in the past, without the "principled" stands of moderate senators who are only moderate because it pads the paycheck. (i.e. Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln).

 

What do you think?

 

I am not sure which alternative I prefer, but the current system is definitely a disaster. I agree that a filibuster should be a real filibuster, that takes real time and energy. Not just the cloture vote, which as far as I'm concerned should just go away.

 

 

Be honest, you're all for it if it benefits your cause.

Be honest, you're all for it if it benefits your cause.

It would have been really useful to have had this filibuster standard in 2001.

It would have been really useful to have had this filibuster standard in 2001.

You did.

You did.

Actually no, we didn't. It was still a tool that was only deployed sparingly at that point. Not a tool that was deployed on every vote.

Be honest, you're all for it if it benefits your cause.

Not really, no.

 

Not really, no.

At some point, the Senate's profligate use of these stalling techniques is going to wind up having a situation where there's a real emergency in judicial vacancies, or some Senate-confirmed office (i.e. FEMA head) is going to wind up unfilled during an actual emergency.

At some point, the Senate's profligate use of these stalling techniques is going to wind up having a situation where there's a real emergency in judicial vacancies, or some Senate-confirmed office (i.e. FEMA head) is going to wind up unfilled during an actual emergency.

Yeah, but its already done a ton of other damage.

 

Yeah, but its already done a ton of other damage.

Of course I'm not going to disagree. I'm just pointing out a possible worst-case-scenario.

Be honest, you're all for it if it benefits your cause.

Not at all, it's a half-assed way to govern, and the Senate wasn't intended to function this way.

Stand a deliver a filibuster. Hell if we can do it here and maintain real jobs, they can

And Kap is waaay more right than wrong. Both sides flip flop on what is right and wrong, the level of hypocrisy we accept from "our" side is too much, and the level we accept from the "other" side is too little.

It would have been really useful to have had this filibuster standard in 2001.

 

for which vote?

And Kap is waaay more right than wrong. Both sides flip flop on what is right and wrong, the level of hypocrisy we accept from "our" side is too much, and the level we accept from the "other" side is too little.

Not if he's talking about me specifically.

Not if he's talking about me specifically.

Not you specifically, but there's quite a few here that fit that mold.

And Kap is waaay more right than wrong. Both sides flip flop on what is right and wrong, the level of hypocrisy we accept from "our" side is too much, and the level we accept from the "other" side is too little.

Kap's right about that but he's wrong about saying that the 60 vote requirement we have right now for everything existed even 4 years ago.

Kap's right about that but he's wrong about saying that the 60 vote requirement we have right now for everything existed even 4 years ago.

It did. This procedural stuff has been around for a long time... the reason it seems like it wasn't is because there wasn't a government power grab for everything under the sun 4 years ago. And I'm talking about both parties, not the last 10 months.

It did. This procedural stuff has been around for a long time... the reason it seems like it wasn't is because there wasn't a government power grab for everything under the sun 4 years ago. And I'm talking about both parties, not the last 10 months.

if you're pretending that nothing changed after the 2006 election, where the Filibuster immediately went from something that the minority would use at least somewhat sparingly, to a 60 vote standard for every single vote, then really, we've got nothing left to discuss. I can't say "don't you love how blue the sky is today" and then form a coherent response when you insist it is actually yellow.

if you're pretending that nothing changed after the 2006 election, where the Filibuster immediately went from something that the minority would use at least somewhat sparingly, to a 60 vote standard for every single vote, then really, we've got nothing left to discuss. I can't say "don't you love how blue the sky is today" and then form a coherent response when you insist it is actually yellow.

Gang of 14 = 2005. And there were others against GWB. It's not every day that you see tax and kill (cap and trade) and bankrupt-care bills like this year has gone. It is fresh now because it has to be used in the sense there's no other way to stop things that frankly, are going to set this country back forever. And what's even funnier is that there's STILL no way to stop any of it if the Dems are united. See Saturday.

Gang of 14 = 2005. And there were others against GWB. It's not ever damn day that you see tax and kill (cap and trade) and bankrupt-care bills like this year has gone.

And the Gang of 14 was over the filibuster of 7 out of George W. Bush's total of over 320 Judicial nominees.

And the Gang of 14 was over the filibuster of 7 out of George W. Bush's total of over 320 Judicial nominees.

Yea, and we're probably going to be looking at the same #'s for Obama. You just don't hear about crap unless it's controversial. What about Hamilton who just got nominated? Just another example.

 

Yea, and we're probably going to be looking at the same #'s for Obama. You just don't hear about crap unless it's controversial. What about Hamilton who just got nominated? Just another example.

That actually sounds like about 90% of the non-crook activities Congressmen do every day.