When is a filibuster right - only when you believe in the cause?

[Drunken Irishman]

I mean, honest question - when is it and when isn't it appropriate to filibuster? We all realize this is a contentious debate, and you may certainly side with an argument for or against it, but does that make it a legitimate reason to filibuster? Was the Civil Rights filibuster good? I doubt anyone here will defend it - but why? Because you personally don't agree with it? But does that make it any less valid if you're going to support and get behind a filibuster against something you actually oppose? I know that sounds like a false comparison considering most any sane person would dismiss the idea of such a filibuster today - but the point stands: when is it okay to filibuster?

Would it have been okay for the Republicans to filibuster Susan Rice had she been Obama's Secretary of State? To everyone here on DU, it would not have been. To everyone on the right, it would have been. They would've rallied and defended it the exact same way they're defending Paul's filibuster - by saying we needed to have a discussion. But does that legitimize the filibuster?

Would it have been appropriate for the Republicans to filibuster Obamacare in 2010 or the stimulus in 2009? To them, it's absolutely justifiable ... right? But would it have been appropriate?

That's the problem with a filibuster because it opens a whole host of questions and potential for redrawing the political landscape. If Rand Paul can filibuster Brennan, who's to say he won't turn around and do it when Obama appoints a Supreme Court justice sometime in his second term? What if he has to replace a dead Scalia or Kennedy - are we going to be saying, "right on!" when he does it? Or any Republican for that matter?

It's a slippery slop, folks.

So, again, what is a legitimate filibuster - something only you agree with?

[TwilightGardener]

1. A cabinet nominee should only be filibustered if there is a clear ethical problem or

something about the candidate that makes them wholly unqualified for the job. Like Bolton having a seething contempt for the UN, or John Tower having conflicts of interest with defense contractors, and a drinking problem. Otherwise, since the cabinet member leaves office when the President does, and can be fired, the President should get his choice, even if the opposing party doesn't agree with all of that nominee's political stands or philosophies. Oops, edit to add, UN ambassador wasn't a cabinet post when Bush was President.

[onenote]

2. Tower wasn't filibustered.

He was defeated on an up and down vote.

[TwilightGardener]

3. That's true, you are right.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. CIA director isn't a cabinet post, nor is UN Ambassador

UN Ambassador is currently cabinet-level, I believe. CIA director might be cabinet-level, but I'm not sure.

Regardless, the cabinet is technically only the department heads.

[ljm2002]

4. The filibuster is a legitimate political tool...

...ensuring that the minority has some recourse when they have a strong principle to stand up for.

However, the pocket filibuster of recent years is far, far from said legitimate tool.

Also, the Republicans decided to go all in and use the filibuster at whim, just to obstruct any forward movement in the Senate. This overuse of the filibuster coincided with the swearing in of our first black President. Surprise, surprise.

It is beyond distressing to witness the corruption of all our political processes, and the misuse of the filibuster is but one of many such symptoms.

[winter is coming]

5. Actually, I think the filibuster would have been overused for any Democratic President.

Seems to me that the GOP has indulged in a steadily increasing amount of rule "gamesmanship" (abuse) since Clinton took office.

[ljm2002]

11. Right you are...

...about the gamesmanship since Clinton took office. Of course, back before the election of Barack Obama, some people used to refer to Clinton as our "first black President". So I guess that makes me right anyway...

[beerandjesus]

7. Nailed it.

Filibuster away, the stamina limitations of old men will provide for a natural separation of wheat from chaff. But knee-jerk obstruction is inexcusable.

[Revanchist]

6. I believe that Congress has the right to Filibuster...

but the rules should be rewritten so that they can only talk about the issue at hand, not reading from the phone book and any sort of silly games like that.

In my opinion, the only valid purpose of a filibuster is to try to convince others to reconsider the issue in the hope that they switch sides and support your argument.

[zipplewrath]

8. It's not

It is an imperfect tool for an imperfect institution. As such, the real question is how should one utilize it. I think the simplest guidance is that it has two purposes. The first and foremost is to force people to pay attention. It is to bring attention to something that is otherwise sailing through without the appropriate input and consideration. But something like that must end at some point. Once people have put down their blackberrys and paid attention, it's over.

The second is a little more difficult. In this case you have to go in with a way for your opponents to offer something, other than total capitulation, that can end your obstruction. That can be a vote on an amemdment, or some other action that will create reconcilliation, without capitulation.

Of course there is a third, but it is fairly rare. When the congress is out to do real "evil", then ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Better be careful that this is the case of course, and not just "I don't agree with you".

[MjolnirTime]

9. Obama-haters are all Pro-Filibuster now, eh?

How surprising!

[bemildred]

10. When it is used to demand attention or enforce full debate, it is right.

When it is used to prevent the US Congress from taking action by majority rule, in due course, it is wrong.

IMHO.

[BanTheGOP]

12. GOP has NO right to filibuster, Democrats and progressives have EVERY right to filibuster

Hypocrisy? Not at all. When the vast majority of Americans are high-information progressives, there should be no reason for low-information hypocrites to bluster their way through shit that is OBVIOUSLY a ploy to energize the racist, sexist, classist republican base.

Keep in mind that the GOP is now energized in ways that we had SHUT DOWN due to our excellent strategies in positioning ourselves through the criminal GOP politico morass of laws and regulations. We took the high road, though, and allowed the filibuster rule to continue. The filibuster is as archaic as the phonograph machine. But in this case, it is FAR WORSE...it has ENERGIZED A BASE THAT WE HAD QUASHED.

Now, it may be a bit late. The cow is gone; closing the door by eliminating the filibuster is done. THIS IS WHY I WAS ADAMANT about CLOSING THE FILIBUSTER, it was NOT about policy, it was about ENERGIZING THE HATE.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

14. Just had an idea - why can't an opposing view be used to express the filibuster . . .

of a silent filibuster? i.e., a Republican filibusters an Obama appt, and does it "silently", so a Democrat should be able to "steal" the filibuster and orally present the reasons for it as well as use that time to get a message out about what is happening in the Senate to those who are clueless.

?

[MillennialDem]

15. When it is used to influence the court of public opinion and other senators - for better or worse

I think the filibuster (talking) will grab enough attention that the minority party will only use it on an issue that will not cause them public fallout. If they want to filibuster and it loses them elections because of the attention it grabs, fine. Hell, I'm ok with a 2 month chained filibuster if the republican party wants to do it, but yes they should have to be reading from phone books and whatnot so that it gets wall to wall news coverage. Even better would be if they were forced to discuss the issue at hand.

Pocket filibuster = crap.

[dsc]

16. frankly I don't think there should be a filibuster at all

but if there is going to be such a thing, then it should be a real pain in the ass to do, and it should put the person doing it in a spotlight. Changing the rules to require 40 votes in the chamber at all times to keep the filibuster going and to require talking would be hugely helpful. After that, if you can get 40 Senators to keep up that kind of effort for days at a time, then OK, I can live with that.