In 2005 when the Republicans were in power, they threatened to end the filibuster rule and return the Senate to majority rule as the constitution intended. Now the democrats have an even bigger majority than the Republicans did in 2005 and some are considering the nuclear option to put an end to the filibuster rule. Rumor has it that Senator Al Franken and VP Joe Biden are discussing a plan to use it. In 1975 it took 67 votes to break a filibuster and that was reduced to 60. Should it be at least further reduced to 55?
Many Republicans are on record supporting the nuclear option. It will be interesting to see what they say about it this time when the Democrats want to end it.
Do you think the Democrats should end the filibuster and restore majority rule to the Senate?
The procedure for ending the filibuster is as follows (from when the Republicans were in power).
- The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
- At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
- Majority Leader Frist raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
- Vice President Cheney — acting as presiding officer — sustains the point of order.
- A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
- A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
- This vote – to table the appeal – is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
- With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.
No. And if they do, they deserve every bit of scorn lapped onto by the right wing– even from hypocritical Republicans. Although I seriously doubt they could even muster majority to do this.
But this will happen someday. It’s too much of a juicy target.
Do you think the Democrats should end the filibuster and restore majority rule to the Senate?
Only if they are also willing to return the election of the Senators back to the state legislatures, too.
Otherwise, you have mob rule and not a true republic.
Let them. Let’s see what happens in 2010.
The Democrat’s would have to set up machine gun nests to keep Obama’s foes from voting: http://nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20091024_3777.php
Yet the Democrats are not going to be voting in 2010: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/27/808503/-Weekly-Tracking-Poll:-New-Feature-Paints-Ugly-2010-Picture
It looks bad for the Democrats in 2010. Don’t count the Republican out though. They have almost a year to do something stupid to piss off the base.
The filibuster, like lobbies, and riders on proposed legislation which have nothing to do with the major intent of such legislation, should be illegal.
#3, Egads. If the Daily Kos is right, both of these parties are in trouble.
They won’t do it for the same reason the pukes didn’t do it. “What goes around comes around.” is more true in politics than anything.
One important difference article doesn’t mention: As far as I remember Rep’s wanted nuclear option for narrow issue of confirmations (particularly judicial) claiming that doing so would be proper interpretation of existing rules, not changing the rules.
That said, filibuster is designed into the system with purpose. I’d even say bring it back to the original proportion. Reason is simple: encouraging middle of the road legislation, not extreme right or extreme left, regardless who is in power.
What the Fillibuster allows is minority rule and it allows corporation to bribe less senators in order to block things like health care reform.
It seems that it’s very attractive to have majority only when *your* party is in the majority… But things get flipped, so you always have to think about the long term. If the Republicans had implemented it before, they’d be sh****ing bricks now.
That being said, isn’t majority rule the essence of a democratic process? And aren’t we always having to compromise legislation with pork because on-the-fence, special interest house members need to essentially be bribed to vote for legislation? I’d rather always have cleaner, narrow scope, no pork legislation, and if a majority rule would do that more often I’d be for it… However in practice that’s probably a pipe dream and can’t happen even if the president had line-item veto.
Yes they should.
Yes!!! The Dems need to stuff this intrusive Bill down our throats because the idea of having health care reform pass is more important than what it actually does. No debate needed. The millionaires Dems and their tort lawyer donors know what’s best for us.
BTW i only said yes right now because i read a report that one of the rep. has sent out letter on how to filibuster ever aspect of health care reform. as to stall talks and prevent anything from moving . do you that the rep. have already set a record this year of most filibusters.
The tax to pay for health care starts as soon as the bill is signed. The actual health care bill doesn’t start until 2012. Smart because you saddle the next group of Congressmen and the next President with the economic consequences of the whole thing.
I’m for the nuclear option.
Democrats need to run over the Republican speed bumps slowing down the change that voters wanted Obama to do.
Mow the MF’s down.
They want to nuke D.C.? Outstanding! I wonder if they know they’ll be killing themselves and the president in the process. And why hasn’t the S.S. been called in on this?
one more thing it might help if our president would help out in the health care reform. he hasn’t really made any move to support his own party or push dems that are willing to side with he reps. it’s really sad if you think about it.
I agree with Marc, the filibuster perpetuates minority rule and protects lobbying interests. I say end the filibuster and get on with heath care reform.
The system was built by the Founding Fathers to allow for deadlock. The more tyrannical or radical bills could not make it through Congressional Deadlock. Only less controversial issues could make it through.
It hasn’t always worked out that way.
The filibuster is a good tool to have when both sides are truly working in the best interests of the country, and differ only in how they believe the best interests of the country would be served.
Today’s Republicans clearly do not fit this description. The number one Republican in the Country has clearly stated he wants Obama and the Democrats to fail. The Republicans have made it clear they’re going to try to prevent the Democrats from getting anything achieved, regardless of how much the country needs it. The Republicans are willing to shut down the government out of spite from being voted out of office.
The Republicans have clearly shown they only have their own political power interests at heart, not the country’s. So I say get rid of the filibuster. If the Republicans ever reform themselves, maybe we could bring it back.
Gee I wonder why Al Franken is so interested in the legitimacy of the slimmest majority?
RBG
#21 Franken wants to get things done. He was elected to get things done for his constituents. The Republicans don’t want anything to get done, because if it does get done, the Democrats, as the majority party in government, will get most of the credit. And that’s something the Republicans simply cannot tolerate. So they are fighting their hardest to make sure nothing gets done.
Glad I could straighten you out.
#22 Well stated. At the end of the day, the GOP is terrified of any measure of progress associated with a largely democratic government.
The problem of course is that the Dick and Bush administration left things in such a sorry state that a better outcome is almost guaranteed.
It has only now occurred to me that the USA has no “leader of the opposition”, as with other Westminster style parliamentary democracies. That’s a role played by an opposition supremo, a prince in waiting, a candidate for the office of President in the next general election for the opposition. They are good for maintaining a consistent “style” and image of opposition, team building and steadying the more extremist elements of their own party.
No. Anything that prevents these bastards from passing still more laws is a good thing.
Thanks for providing the wingnut perspective, Abgeweit.
The problem with today’s Republicans is that they simply do not accept the legitimacy of any president without an (R) after his name. Look at how they attacked Clinton, before he even got into office. And then he had the nerve to get re-elected, and they went ballistic, tried to impeach him for lying about a blowjob. (And then they gave the entire Dubya regime a pass for lying to get us into the Iraq war. IOKIYAR.)
It doesn’t matter which Democrat had won — if Hillary Clinton had won, can’t you picture the slime and sh*t they’d be throwing at her?
The Republican “base” just doesn’t understand the concept of the loyal opposition. In their mind, only Republicans love their country or have any good ideas for governing. Even with the disaster of the Cheney/Dubya administration staring them in the face, they still don’t get it.
#19 Phydeau said,
“The filibuster is a good tool to have when both sides are truly working in the best interests of the country, and differ only in how they believe the best interests of the country would be served.”
Correct until you decide to say,
“Today’s Republicans clearly do not fit this description. The number one Republican in the Country has clearly stated he wants Obama and the Democrats to fail.”
Rush said that, but he is a talk show host and not a member of Congress. How many votes for Congress did Rush Limbaugh get again? Or maybe you meant Michael Steele. He said no such thing.
“The Republicans have made it clear they’re going to try to prevent the Democrats from getting anything achieved, regardless of how much the country needs it. The Republicans are willing to shut down the government out of spite from being voted out of office.”
The Republicans in Congress had three different healthcare plans. The Democrats didn’t want the Republicans to assist in the health care issue. They locked the Republicans out of the meeting rooms and physically changed the locks. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room The Democrats aren’t interested in a bipartisan bill, yet they don’t have enough votes for a bill to pass without least some compromise with some Republicans.
Tort reform, letting people by insurance across state lines, and tax credits for money spent on health insurance are just some of the solutions that Republicans came up with to make health care more affordable.
The Democrats can’t completely shut the Republicans out of the process and expect the Republicans to go along with them, especially when they have constituents yelling at them to stop Obamacare.
#26 Phydeau said, “The Republican “base” just doesn’t understand the concept of the loyal opposition. In their mind, only Republicans love their country or have any good ideas for governing. Even with the disaster of the Cheney/Dubya administration staring them in the face, they still don’t get it.”
How is this different then the Bush = Hitler base of the Democrat party. Besides, Sarah Palin was treated worse than anyone else in politics by the left, even after she left political office.
Benjamin – While it is true that Rush is not a congressman he is the mouthpiece of the Republican party. Now you might argue that he is not in this instance but when it suits your interest he is. How can you have it both ways?
Sarah Palin asked for it when she first opened her mouth. You guys go ahead and run her if that’s all you got.
This update: Senator Craig just handed this to me under the bathroom stall. It turns out he can have it both ways.
#27 Earth to Benjamin: No Republican dares cross Limbaugh. When they do, he chastises them and they come bowing and scraping to him to apologize. So yes, he’s the most powerful Republican in the country.
The Democrats can’t completely shut the Republicans out of the process and expect the Republicans to go along with them, especially when they have constituents yelling at them to stop Obamacare.
You mean like the Republicans completely shut out the Democrats while they were in power during the Dubya years? Sucks when it happens to you, doesn’t it. Boo friggin’ hoo.
Regardless, the Republicans just aren’t interested in true reform. Those bills do nothing to address the problem. And that’s just how Big Insurance and Big Medicine want it. And it looks like they’ve bought enough Democratic legislators to win, too.
#28 Benjamin, America gave Dubya a chance. Even though the worst terrorist attack in America happened on his watch, his approval was in the 90% range right after 9/11. Only after it became obvious that he was a world-class f*ckup did America turn on him. Let’s see… Dubya invaded foreign countries on trumped-up evidence, tortured and spied on people, threw people in jail without any recourse. Sounds like any number of tinpot dictators.
There are some fringe “Bush=Hitler” types in the Democratic party, but they’re not the base like the Obama-haters are in the Republican party.