The filibuster should be scrapped from the senate

[WI_DEM]

It has a pretty bad history too. Thanks to the filibuster Civil Rights legislation as simple as a anti-lynching bill were filibustered to death for years and years. I'm sure some people can point out things that were bad that were defeated by the filibuster but I still think that overall it's history is very negative. To think that for the majority to pass anything they need 60 votes.

[SteppingRazor]

1. But weren't we crying foul a few years ago when the GOP threatened to do just that? n/t

[WI_DEM]

2. I don't know. I don't care. I think it's a bad thing in the wrong run.

[Clear Blue Sky]

3. Leave it alone. We won't be in the majority forever.

[WI_DEM]

4. And how often did our leaders use it when we were in the minority?

[ixion]

6. Not is not the fault of the Filibuster, it's the fault of poor leadership

the dems provided little to no opposition when they were in the minority. That's the fault of their leadership. Not the process.

[Clear Blue Sky]

15. Don't know. Ask the leadership at that time.

[ixion]

5. The Filibuster is an important tool, and should not be altered

it's one of the only leverages the minority group has, and I think it's important to leave it alone.

[WI_DEM]

7. and the minority has misbused it many times.

[ixion]

11. again: not the fault of the Filibuster, and my oringinal premise stands

n/t

[KharmaTrain]

8. It's Better Than It Once Was...

Before 1977, 67 votes were needed for cloture. Imagine trying to get that kind of consensus today. Forget it.

The fillibuster is a risky tactic...and one Democrats need not fear. Once the GOOP tries this stunt, the burden falls on them to both maintain it and ratchet up public pressure. The longer they try to delay and stall, the bigger a beating these people will take in public opinion. Let them play with this fire...and once they get burned, let's see if they try again. It's time to call their bluff or they'll keep obstructing.

[onenote]

13. a traditional filibuster is risky for both sides

since its actually very easy for those filibustering it to maintain it and very hard on those opposing it to stop it -- the pressure often falls on those opposing the filibuster to defend why they aren't willing to consider the compromises the filibustering side claims to be demanding.

The best solution, imo, is to move for cloture and force a vote that will put the repubs on record as not supporting the bill.

[KharmaTrain]

17. I'd Prefer Cloture As Well

It puts people on the record and having control of the agenda means this bill can be brought up again and again.

I'm not sure the burden on this one would fall on those opposing it. That's the fear...that there wouldn't be enough votes to break it, but I don't think that's the case. It would be something if the repugnicans still had 49 or 50 seats and could give 10, but we're talking about only one to three votes to break it...and this pressure would fall on moderates and those representing states Obama won...especially if his popularity rating and the demand to pass a package is showing up in their internal polling.

No doubt that if there was a fillibuster, there'd be plenty of behind the scenes dealing...it'll be interesting how this plays out this weekend.

Cheers...

[onenote]

19. the burden comes from the fact that 50 Democrats have to stay on the floor

to force a traditional filibuster to keep going. Otherwise the filibustering side, which only needs one person on the floor, can call for a quorum and everything grinds to a halt until 50 senators show up. So what would happen is that 40 plus repubs would be free to appear on all the news and talk shows spouting off about how they're willing to work on the bill but its the Democrats that are refusing to compromise? Nonsense? Sure, but the Democratsw will have a hard time responding since they'll mostly be on the floor of the Senate, where they will simply be sitting quietly since the filibustering side will control the floor.

If filibusters were successful in forcing compromises before 24/7 cable news and talk radio, they're likely to be just as successful or moreso today.

[KharmaTrain]

22. A Delay Is A Delay

If this was such a successful tactic, we would have never seen the Civil Rights Act of 1964 get passed Strom Thrumond and a different generation of obstructionists (some in the Democratic caucus).

Playing Devil's Advocate, Democrats, who were in the almost same position as repugnicans only 3 years ago were afraid to use this tactic for fear of it falling apart...of not being able to hold the floor and take a beating in the corporate media for obstructing. Obviously the GOOP has far less scruples than Democrats in this regard, but the downside is still the same.

Sure, they can force quorum and hit the stakeouts and talk shows, but Democrats can do the same. If there's not a quorum then the Senate shuts down...so what's the difference...the American people will know whose causing this. It's similar to Gingrich's shutting down of the Congress in '95...it backfired big time on him.

Cheers...

[onenote]

23. Filibusters successfully stalled Civil RIghts legislation for years

How successful were filibusters? Well, the cloture vote that finally broke the 57 day filibuster on the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the first time cloture had ever been invoked on civil rights legislation and the first time a filibuster on any type of bill had been broken 37 years.

As for the Democrats' fear of using the filibustering tactic (not the traditional stay on the floor tactic):

In 2003, when the Democrats were in the minority (narrowly),cloture motions were voted on 23 times, and failed (i.e., the Democrats succeeded) 22 times. Most were judicial nominees, but a few were on legisltive proposals. In 2004, cloture motions were forced 22 times and were defeated 12 times. Of the ten cloture motions that passed, its notable that most passed by enormous margins. Indeed, in one case only three senators voted against cloture -- all republicans. In several other instances the lopsided votes had only around a dozen or fewer votes against cloture, typically a mix of repubs and Democrats (for example, on a couple of instances in which around a dozen votes against cloture were cast, those voting against cloture included Feingold and McCain and in one instance, Feingold and Santorum -- odd bedfellows indeed).

And if the senate shuts down because the Democrats refuse to show up to keep it open, who is going to get the blame (not who deserves it, but who is it going to be pinned on?)

[onenote]

9. As I've posted elsewhere, its not going to happen

The Senate is a creature of its own traditions. Plus, it holds itself out as the world's greatest deliberative body based on the fact that the "minority" cannot be prevented from being heard by a simple majority. That of course doesn't mean that some tweaking of the rules isn't possible, but given the Senate's history, there is no chance the rules are going to dramatically change, and certainly not at this point in time. You are right that there was considerable public revulsion at the use of the filibuster to kill civil rights legislation; yet, it took over a decade (until 1975) simply to change the rule from requiring 2/3 to 3/5 to shut off debate.

[RoadRage]

10. If the Republicans had the majority right now..

I don't think any of us would agree with that statement. No need to get cocky - the pendulum always swings both ways eventually.. and we're going to want that power back someday if we're on the short end again.

[ThomWV]

12. It is the single protection from a tyrannic majority that the rules of our Congress allow.

[Nite Owl]

14. A majority isn't forever

and the 60 votes kept many really bad judges and legislation from making through the GOP congress. What we need to do is elect more progressive dems!

[Johonny]

16. I'm sick up the fake ones

Filibuster or not, don't threaten then table bills. Make them stand up and show reading us the phone book for 3 straight days is more important than creating jobs.

[onenote]

21. why do you think they'd be reading the phone book

The stimulus bill is a very big bill. It wouldn't be hard to spend hours reading it and discussing its provisions. And 50 Democrats would have to be present at all times (but only one repub).

[Johonny]

24. They're not smart enough to discus the actual bill

Have you watch any of them on the floor. They'd eat up their time with great visuals of the money stacked around the Earth.

[jody]

18. Agree, let's try to destroy the last vestiges of state rights. That will show NH, WA, OK, AZ, MI,

MO & MT what they can do with their demands.

[bluestateguy]

20. I would do this

Make the filibuster like timeouts or instant replay demands in the NFL: you get a certain amount per year; you have to use them sparingly, when it's most valuable to your side. When you are out of filibusters for the year, too bad.