Eliminate Filibuster and With it the Need to Debate Republicans

[babsbunny]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39624

By David Swanson

From the pains Democrats take to out-argue and/or to compromise with the fringe minority party called the Republicans you'd think no other course of action was available, specifically you'd have to assume that the filibuster -- the power of senators representing 11 percent of us to block all work by the House and Senate -- is written in stone. In reality, 51 senators could eliminate the filibuster or change the number of votes required to use it. This nation got along for many years without the filibuster and could do so again. It is no more a part of our Constitution than the CIA, enemy combatants, corporate persons, or the political parties that allow the filibuster to wreak such havoc with our so-called democracy.

For the most part we no longer have representatives in Congress, because of the corruption of money, the weakness of the media, and the strength of parties. There are not 535 opinions on Capitol Hill on truly important matters, but 2. Our supposed representatives work for their party leaders, not for us. Luckily, one of the two parties claims to want to work for us.

[msongs]

1. umm which "..of the two parties" claims to work for us? end fillibuster = good nt

[Demoiselle]

2. Absolutely YES!

Elections have consequences. Or, at least,they bloody well should.

[jwirr]

3. Does anyone know the history of the filibuster? I remember pugs

using it in the 50s but I do not know if the Democrats have ever used it and for what?

[Juche]

5. Dems used it to block right wing judges a few years ago

Conservatives (of both parties, but mostly dems) used it back in the 60s to stop the civil rights movement.

Mike Gravel (former presidential candidate) used it to help stop the draft

Its been used for good and bad.

[ixion]

4. no. it's a bad idea now, just like it was a bad idea when the rethugs proposed the SAME THING

I don't know why it would suddenly be okay now.

[guruoo]

6. From the History of failed regimes - part XXVII: The 'Nuclear option'...

The 'Nuclear option'

'In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[Duckhunter935]

7. My god some of you have short memories

Yes this will work graet when we are in the minority again some day. Some of you need to think more than just today.

rant over

[Maven]

8. Agree. It could only help Dems since they're so fucking frightened to use it

when they're in the minority, and terrified of the Repugs using it when they're in the majority.

[backscatter712]

9. Works for me.

The filibuster has historically been used far more often for evil than for good.

Dems don't have the spine to use it effectively when they're in the minority, but it's been used for decades to block civil rights legislation, and it took monumental arm-twisting from the likes of LBJ to jam the Civil Rights act through. We've seen it used to water down the stimulus bill, it was used to block all sorts of reform.

When we tried using it to block the likes of Alito and Roberts and other right-wing nutball judges, the Rethugs threatened us with the nuclear option.

I'm pretty much convinced - the filibuster does more harm than good. Either knock the cloture threshold to 55 votes, or abolish the filibuster altogether. Leaving it in place will ensure that nothing useful gets done.

[ThomWV]

10. Fillibuster is the sole protection of the miniority from the 'tyrany of the majority'

It is what distinguishes the Senate from the House of Representatives and it is the only protection the miniority has againis what has been called 'the tyrany of the majority'. It is not enough that the miniority might be shielded by the Court after a bad law is passed; it is far better that the miniority have a tool from stopping bad law in the first place.

[TahitiNut]

11. See David Swanson's own thread posting this article at ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5006459&mesg_id=5006459