The filibuster has been around for a while. Has it outlived its usefulness or does it still serve a useful purpose? Or is it simply being used by the Republicans in an irresponsible way to block passage of things just for the sake of blocking?
Here’s one view:
Senate Republicans made a persuasive case for abolishing or reforming the filibuster on Tuesday night when they blocked a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board that had been held up since April.
[…]
“I’m in my thirty-sixth year. I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination. Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.
Here’s another:
I go back and forth on what I think about the propriety of the filibuster for legislative purposes, although I’m inclined towards the view that the filibuster is on the whole a good thing under those circumstances.
The announcement by Sen. Ben Nelson that he would not only oppose but filibuster Obama’s nominee for the National Labor Relations Board, however, provides an opportunity to discuss an area where I think the filibuster is not only inappropriate but also undermines the spirit, though perhaps not the letter, of the Constitution.
In circumstances such as executive and judicial nominations, the filibuster is to my mind utterly inappropriate and even outright toxic. The power to nominate and appoint federal executive and judicial officers is Constitutionally vested in the President under Article II, although certain appointments are to be made with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.
I see we have red team vs. blue team going on again. All of this just proves – government doesn’t work. But no matter what, they’ll still get paid. But don’t be fooled, legislation is passed everyday. Legislation that takes away our liberties. But keep arguing for one team or another about the right to filibuster. That’s what they want.
I agree with the previous post. If they’re gonna keep the filibuster they should actually have to do it instead of just phoning it in. Also, I don’t think these holds should be secret. If 1 guy is putting a hold on an appointment or a bill that needs to be public information.
#27 I bet you have an Obama poster you kiss and bow to every night..
No, not so much anymore. However, I do listen to Obama’s weekly radio podcast on his position on things and what he’s doing for the American people.
So, do YOU listen to our President, Commander in Chief and most powerful man on earth regularly?
No, I’m not talking abut O’Reilly or Limbaugh. Talking about Obama. You should at least listen and round out that one sided egg head of yours.
By obviating the need to actually do the filibuster, it has encouraged Senators to use it. I think that actually having to filibuster would reduce the times when they’d use it.
#26
It considers everything that the Democrats do to be “extreme legislation”, even things that have the support of the majority of Americans (e.g. healthcare reform).
This liberal tactic is seriously getting old. “Everyone wants their highways repair right? So, we’ll triple your gas tax. If you vote against it, you oppose highway repair.” It is BS argument. Everyonewants health care reform. It is the details of the reform that are questioned.
#35-Dallas-I do listen to Obama’s weekly radio podcast on his position on things and what he’s doing for the American people.
You must mean what he is doing “to” the American people.
To be fair I did listen a few times. It didn’t take long to discover that his “words just words” are only “lies just lies.”
#26 “The Republican party has hijacked the Senate, plain and simple.”
Yep, and I reckon the voters will vote those rascals out of office just like they did in Massachusetts and…
Um..
Wait a minute…
Phydeau, you don’t think the Democrats filibustered in opposition to things other than judicial nominees(for which they filibustered more than a few). Get your facts straight. The Democrats did the same thing. The only thing they can be given credit for, is that before they started doing it, some of them like Tom Harkin proposed getting rid of the filibuster.
Requiring supermajorities for votes is what sent Californa to bankruptcy.
Let’s just ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t say whatever we want it to…
There’s a reason filibustering is in there. Do your homework.
Until we enact term limits and outlaw political donations from non-human legal constructs, who care.
who cares, that is.
Congress has the power to create rules to dictate how laws are passed.
Article 1, Section 5:
[…]
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
[…]
The problem is it takes 67 votes to change the rules. And even though those in the majority gripe about it, they like the ability to obstruct.
Well, kiddies, its real simple. The fillibuster violates the Constitution AND it is anti-democratic, AND it is now being overused by the Repugs as a first response to any issue==just as they do with war.
History and common sense are against all those who “support” the fillibuster in its current form.
Last week some congressperson talked about a bill to change fillibuster to a process that could ONLY slow down consideration of a bill==NOT PROHIBIT IT.
Over and over again, what we have to ask the Repugs and their Intellectual Masters the Teabaggers is: “Why do you hate America?”
I’m all for it, as long as they actually do it.. not just threaten… I want to see these pricks standing there for hours spewing their garbage..
I’d bet if it came down to it… They’d all fail.
#46 Over and over again, what we have to ask the Demon Rats and their financial wing (George Soros) is: “Why do you hate America?”
Demonrats didn’t mind the filibuster when they were using it to block Bush’s judicial nominations. The Demonrats also didn’t mind the filibuster when Robert KKK Byrd (Demonrat from W. Virginia) blocked voting on civil rights for over fourteen hours.
So Bobbo, get off your high horse. The Demonrats used the filibuster for evil reasons(blocking civil rights) and they aren’t riding unicorns in the sunshine here.
The Republicans are not against health care reform. They are against the current bill that favors unions over everyone else, requires every individuals to purchase insurance whether or not they can afford it, and will raise the cost of health care instead of lower it.
The Demonrats pushed the Republicans from the processes, so there can be no compromise. No Republican ideas like medical tort reform or allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines have been considered and no Demonrat made an offer to add them in the bill. You would have compromise there if that was the case.
So I asked the the Demon Rats and their unhinged spokesman bobbo once again: “Why do you hate America?”
#47–Pedro==keep going out of your way to post stupidly and I’m gonna have to start agreeing with Phydeau. Ummmm. Well, since I have always agreed with his insightful review of your decline on this blog, I will only have to chime in.
To wit: shouldn’t we ALL BE in support of the Constitution and democracy? Pedroitopicco–please expressly state “the other side” that you impliedly support? Failure to do so will be evidence you are ONLY a knee jerk bumper sticker reader. Please show us how wrong we are.
#49–Now Benji==even if by some measurement “the Democrats didn’t care” the relevant analysis and the point of this thread would demand an answer to this question: so what?
Do YOU Benji think the fillibuster is:
A==Constitutional, and
B==Democratic.
THAT IS THE RELEVANT ISSUE! You can be relevant can’t you? My horse and I would like to know.
PS: “The Republicans are not against health care reform” /// Hee, hee. What a BS eating maroon. I know you have “heard” that but what stops you from removing that turd from your intellectual diet?
Get rid of it as it isn’t Constitutional and lets the racists block equality..r u that fing stupid that u can’t realize that is why it exists..Reb or Dem?
Why don’t the Dems force the Repubs you act on the filibuster. Turn it into a last man standing. You’ll get the Repubs up there blabbering on mindlessly for days, eventually they will cave, and the whole time they are going to look like morons. I think it’s pathetic that just the threat of the filibuster brings thing to a halt.
Obama said it best when he told the Repub’s they’ve made him out to be an enemy and passing anything he agrees with is politically dangerous, it doesn’t allow any conversation on issues.
Both sides use the filibuster, its purpose is to give the minority some power. I like the idea of having it and have no problem with anyone using it (whether or not I agree with their view point). The only thing I’d like to see changed is that it be required for the person filibustering must actually hold the floor open, not just declare a filibuster and go home. Actually make them stay there.
The founding fathers tried to create a system that didn’t allow a majority to oppress the minority.
This iteration of the filibuster, is not in the spirit of the filibuster. All they do, is say that they will filibuster, instead of voting for cloture. If either party wants to filibuster, they should be able to show the stamina to filibuster, as was the original intent of the rule. Talk it out, tell ALL your points, and then vote. Give as much time as either side deems necessary.
It’s absurd that the Republicans have broken all records of filibuster, without breaking a sweat. I want to see them on the floor, stating their reasons, IN DETAIL! Let them take all the time that they deem necessary, then VOTE damnit!
It depends on whether or not you think having Congress in grid lock is a good thing.
Yes in theory a simple majority gives the best government.
In my personal experience any time a political party has the power to do so they claim they have a mandate from the people and do a lot of stupid things that are bad for the country and bleep the voters off quickly resulting in their majority vanishing.
Nine out of ten things that congress does are wrong (does not achieve the stated goal, takes to long, and/or costs too much). It would therefore seem reasonable that anything that might slow them down (such as the filibuster) could prove profitable for the American people.
Such ignorance. No wonder the right wing nuts hate America. They don’t have an effen clue how Congress works.
There is nothing about a filibuster in the Constitution. The Chambers may change their rules at any time. The current Senate rules require a 60 vote majority to over rule any procedural hold or filibuster.
As for the Democrats doing the same, please list a few of the filibusters and holds they had. (Its already been mentioned, but you have to love Senator Shelby’s blackmail for pork. $70 BILLION in pork)
One almost thinks this has something to do with the loss of a “filibuster-proof” majority.
RBG
#52–Pedroitopicco==So, you AGREE the filibuster violates the Constitution, and you MUST KNOW (ie–the FACT of the matter) that the Repukes are filibustering their own introduced bills. To think it is somehow “slanted” to SLAM the repukes for their ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC actions is to equal a large evil with a small evil, a small evil with a small good and so forth. You have no sense of proportionality–a necessary element of any analysis. Without it, one is left a kneejerk ditto head.