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.
The question should be:
“Should the PEOPLE do away with CONGRESS?”
Riiiight, because only Republicans use it in an “irresponsible way”
Where was all this talk when Dems pulled the same stunt?
It’s a stupid argument… if the Dems had their stuff together, they would have been able to override the filibuster before Brown was elected.
That is rich coming from Pat Leahy, who filibustered all those judicial nominations. Obama did that too, so he can’t complain.
Keep it, but mandate Filibusters to be done wearing only panties and high heels.
#2 & #3…you might do well to look at how the two parties have used and misused the filibuster in recent history.
Majorities should still carry the day, regardless who’s in that majority.
I’m open to keeping the filibuster cheese steak for judicial nominees, as they are lifetime appointment, so it can’t be undone (unlike laws or executive appointments).
Even with the Dems’ judicial filibusters, we still got that turd of a First Amendment ruling last month…
The filibuster is a stabilizing invention that helps keep members of a reckless Congress in check.
If freedom is to exist long may the filibuster and government gridlock survive.
Dr Dodd – if you’re a fan of government gridlock then you must be in heaven right now.
The filibuster and much of the Senate’s operation relies on gentlemen’s agreements, with senators voluntarily doing the honest and proper thing.
The Republicans have shown themselves to be dishonest and dishonorable. So maybe it’s time to limit the filibuster, and some of the other customs, like Richard Shelby putting a hold on over 70 appointments because he didn’t get enough pork for his home state.
How about making them actually stand up and filibuster instead of just having to threaten to do it? If the Senator actually had to do some work, I think it would put the kabash on much of it.
Not only should we keep the filibuster, we should change the 60 votes needed to break one to more like 70. Keep them gridlocked so one party can’t push through a 2,000 page bill and we’re safer for it. Rule by consensus is always preferable to rule by majority.
#8-derspankster-if you’re a fan of government gridlock then you must be in heaven right now.
Yes, Yes I am. But like a fine wine… it never lasts.
Democrats filibustered Bush’s judicial nominees. Of course we are arguing with the “it’s unfair to use our own tactics against us” crowd here in DU.
#7 A little gridlock keeps more unpopular laws from being passed. This is good. It is easier to pass a law than repeal one.
#10 Agreed. That was what frustrated me about the filibuster. No one filibusters anymore. The threat of a filibuster is enough to require 60 votes. If they threaten to filibuster then make them actually filibuster. Lets hear debate on why this is a bad law or some judicial nominee is a bad judicial nominee.
In a truly free market society, we wouldn’t need the NLRB in the first place. This is just another example of government creating a problem, trying to fix it, and creating more problems than before they intervened.
What should be eliminated is official Party Leadership roles! We elect a Rep or Senator for their particular views and then they become completely subservient to someone with more seniority from a less dynamic state. The Party Leaders aren’t usually the compromisers and they give us these large swings of the political pendulum that we have to correct at the polls. I know that leadership roles will naturally exist, but many times Congress needs different leaders to champion different laws at a given time.
#16 little pedro, the D’s threatened to filibuster a couple of Dubya’s more obnoxious judicial appointees. That’s it.
The R’s are filibustering everything the D’s are doing. Bills, appointments, everything.
Even a moron like you should be able to see the difference. Take your time.
And psst… little pedro… if you want to maintain your silly-ass little charade that you hate the R’s as much as the D’s, you might want to pretend to condemn some of the more obnoxious R tactics… like Richard Shelby blocking over 70 Obama appointees because he wants more pork for Alabama.
Just sayin’… you seem so attached to your little delusion. 🙂
Watch what you ask for. The Massachusetts’ special election law bit the dems in the ass when they could not flip the law AGAIN in time. Do you think the Governor would have appointed Brown?
Wouldn’t “banning filibusters” open the door to blocking reasonable debate?
So far, what’s established in this thread is the Republican sheep rejoice at government gridlock.
The same sheep complain on the next breath that government is ineffectual.
Get rid of it…how stupid is it that the party in the majority can’t pass anything even though the citizens of this country gave them the power to do so. While we are at it lets dump the US Senate. Who ever heard of a state like Wyoming having as much voting power as California.
@#22 Because founding fathers placed this limit with a purpose (and it was 2/3 of votes, not just 60, which is 20th century erosion). What filibuster does is intentional gridlock if either party attempts to push extreme legislation. In other words, they have foreseen parties as they are today and said, if you are extreme you’ll cause gridlock and be kicked out of office by the people for doing nothing. So, this rule is intended to make dominant party mindful of others. Gridlock right now is not only result of R opposition but D arrogance few leftists want to see.
WY/CA question: Congress is there to represent PEOPLE (and number of congressmen is indeed proportional to populations of these two states). Senate is there to represent STATES (equal entities when it comes to founding United States). Learn your history and politics first.
#21 lol how true Dallas!
Republicans complain that government doesn’t work… then they get elected and prove it! 🙂
#10: Yes I’d like to see REAL fillibusters not agreements to acknowledge threats to fillibuster, not shared fillibusters. No bathroom breaks either (maybe catheters). It shouldn’t be a comfortable act.
…but maybe even real fillibusters aren’t worthwhile: they just mean the senator cares enough (about the item…or maybe just staying in power) to actually hear himself talk for an excessively long time…..hmmm; maybe that wouldn’t help much after all for most of the senate? In the case of some of these guys it would be an excessive punishment to the poor souls at C-Span (but they knew the job was dangerous when the took it).
The history of even the actual fillibuster has some VERY nasty stuff: trying to block the Voting Rights Act holds the record for longest fillibuster. Not exactly Mr Smith Goes to Washington in my book.
#23 What filibuster does is intentional gridlock if either party attempts to push extreme legislation.
Unfortunately, the Republican party has gone off into the weeds. 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).
The Republican party has hijacked the Senate, plain and simple.
#21-Dallas-The same sheep complain on the next breath that government is ineffectual.
The only person complaining about government being ineffectual is you. That’s because you dream of a scheming, backstabbing, lying politician being your lord and master.
I bet you have an Obama poster you kiss and bow to every night.
#27 Simply mindboggling. The constant wingnut refrain is that government is inefficient, doesn’t work, blah blah blah. And then when it serves their purpose, they pretend they don’t say it. How convenient to live in an alternate reality like that.
Reminds me of one Daily Show episode. Stewart showed about a dozen video clips of Dubya saying “we gotta stay the course”. Stay the course stay the course stay the course. And then the last clip showed Dubya saying, “It’s never been about stay the course.” Mindboggling. 🙂
#28-Phydeau-The constant wingnut refrain is that government is inefficient…
You must have me confused with one of your leftist friends. I have never complained about an inefficient government.
If it were efficient we would already be slaves.
What I have complained about is that there is too much government with the expressed purpose of forcing the people serve them.
Ya know the Whigs and the Federalist no longer exist. Maybe the Democrats and the Republicans need to disappear too as they no longer represent most of the countries ideals anymore.
#26 Phydeau, I bet that you’ll want the filibuster back when the Republicans are back in power. Just wait until 2010. Mwahahahahaha!