Are you for getting rid of (or reducing the threshold for) filibusters altogether?

[devils chaplain]

By this I mean not just for judicial nominees, but for the passage of laws.

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, stonewalling in congress is stymieing needed change.
	6 (100%)
	I'm for reducing the threshold from 60 to a lower number, perhaps 55 Senators.
	0 (0%)
	No, the 60 vote threshold is a good thing for passing laws.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Xipe Totec]

1. A presidential veto override is the only constitutionally mandated super majority

The rest is just inside politics.

[devils chaplain]

2. Yep... and the filibuster created for another era. n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. No. It would be pointless in this session since House will always be gatekeeper

With GOP majority. Same with Supreme Court nominees. It is unlikely this will come into play until after 2014 elections and new session. So it is better for Dems to get what they can use and still be seen as moderating behavior and not totally throwing existing rule out.

[devils chaplain]

5. I more just meant as a general principle. I seriously doubt it will change anytime soon. n/t

[BainsBane]

4. Or at least make it so they need to do a real filibuster

Where they have to hold the floor to block the vote.

[devils chaplain]

6. Pretty much as good as none though, right? No one can talk forever, although some seem like it... nt

[TheKentuckian]

7. I'm fine with going to "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" style rules.

You know actually having a filibuster rather than not and everyone pretending one.

[Nye Bevan]

8. I find this a very difficult question to answer.

I keep wanting to say "yes" but then I keep thinking back to when the repubs controlled the senate and wondering what they would have done without any filibuster. Sorry, I wish I could give a firm answer but I can't.

[devils chaplain]

9. Understandable...

The GWB WH/GOP House/GOP Senate of the mid-2000's was a scary thing... on the other hand, I can't see anything like single-payer health care ever happening with the current filibuster setup in place.