Thinking outside the box on the filibuster

[genxlib]

I have mixed feelings about eliminating the filibuster because I don't assume that Democrats will always be in power. Thus I am concerned about handing assholes a weapon and an excuse to bludgeon us with it.

Having said that, it sucks and makes it hard to govern.

So I think a compromise is in order. I think it should be like a coaches challenge for instant replay in sports. You get a certain number of opportunities to use them and that's it. With such a quota, Senators would have to pick their battles and couldn't just lock everything up.

I know is sounds insufficient but the filibuster isn't going away. We don't have the numbers for it even if I loved the idea. I would like to see it reformed so it wasn't abused so badly.

Aside from that, the concept of individual holds where a single Senator can block something just needs to go.

[servermsh]

1. We don't have to have this discussion yet. Only the Organizing Resolution.

We only have to get rid of the filibuster on the Organizing Resolution. This should not be controversial.

Are there previous examples of the Organizing Resolution being filibustered? I'm not aware.

[bullimiami]

2. If the filibuster is so vulnerable to change it is really no protection. Just an impediment.

Impedes those who will respect it. Just another minor speed bump for those who won’t.

[targetpractice]

3. Al Franken's recent podcast with Norm Ornstein...

... Discussed an compromise idea... Force the Republicans (or Democrates) to come up with 41 votes to MAINTAIN a filibuster.

Currently, Republicans (the minority) can just mention they plan to filibuster and the Democrats are forced to do all the work and find 60 votes... While the Republicans stop showing up for work for days and weeks... So, force them to attend and vote FOR the filibuster not against it. If they are gonna obstruct everything, make them do the work.

I thought this was a clever way of shifting the burden if the filibuster if it is kept.

But, ultimately, it needs to go.

It's really NUTS that the 50 Democratic Senators represent 50 million more American people than the Republicans, but Republicans have veto power over alll Democratic legislation.

[WA-03 Democrat]

5. Yes I really like this idea!

Allow it to start but if it’s not widely supported, down it goes.

[katusha]

4. can I pose a question?

can someone give me some examples of when the dems used the filibuster to stop republicans on anything major recently?


*not being facetious or anything I am genuinly drawing a blank.

[targetpractice]

6. They haven't proposed legislation in a long time...

... I believe Trump's tax cut was passed using simple majority reconcilliation.

Republicans don't DO ANYTHING. They are against governing.

Like katusha, refresh my memory if I'm forgetting something.

[katusha]

7. i'm drawing a blank

Iraq war?
Patriot Act?
anything?

closest example i could find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#George_W._Bush

In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain sufficient Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 "fiscal cliff," with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.