Which is more important, getting needed legislation passed or preserving the filibuster?

[yurbud]

As Robert Parry pointed out, until very recently, even the Republicans were reluctant to use the filibuster except in rare cases, and now they threaten it on a regular basis.

I'm wondering why the Democrats are so concerned about keeping the filibuster when they never used it that I know of during the Bush years. Not only didn't they use it, they usually voted with the Bush administration no matter how corrupt and destructive their proposals.

At a time of extreme economic crisis like this, which was created by thirty years of conservative policies, which is more important, preserving the filibuster, or passing major reform legislation with major concessions to the GOP?

[BlooInBloo]

1. I don't appreciate the problem. Obama got almost *exactly* what he originally asked for passed.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. He did?

Gee that seems a bit of an overstatement.

[BlooInBloo]

30. Yes, he did.

[yurbud]

37. source?

[Still Sensible]

13. Actually, I think if it wasn't for the $70 billion AMT fix

that absolutely did not need to be in this package, your statement would be correct. Other than that, the arguments were over a very small percentage of the overall expenditures in the bill. Unfortunately that AMT fix, which is needed but would have been passed separately anyway, did displace $70 billion in infrastructure spending that would have certainly added to the effectiveness of the bill.

Most of the "tax cuts" in the bill are part of the middle class tax relief Obama promised during the campaign.

[BlooInBloo]

16. (shrug) I said "almost".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. There are no filibusters, just threatened filibusters.

Big difference.

I've got no problem with filibusters. I've got a huge problem with threatened filibusters that have all the gain without any of the pain.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Amen to that.

If they want to filibuster, fine. Get the cots.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Yep Yep

Because we certainly cannot count on having 61 every time.
Not with the Blue Dog caucus and the DLC.
If they want to get up and read phonebooks for days and days--and have their ignorant mugs on the cable teevee showing their obstruction, I say, go for it.
But having threatened filibusters and the Dems conceding needed programs to keep them from doing it, certainly smacks of empty arrogance on the minority party.

[ixion]

3. pass legislation to remove the possibility of a "nuclear option" on the Filibuster

grow a spine, and move on.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. huh?

The rules of the senate aren't actually legislation, they are the rules of the senate and the constitution says only the senate gets to decide what they are and how they are. As such they can be changed anytime. The nuclear option is a simple majority vote on 'a point of order', it has been used successfully to change the rules since 1957. Any legislation pertaining to senate rules is constitutionally dubious and could simply be overturned 'on a point of order' by a majority vote.

[ixion]

33. then I would change the simple majority to a super majority or even unanimous vote on

changing senate procedures and thus lock both sides out of being able to rig the rules in their favor.


My point being that I find it distasteful when the majority -- whomever that may be -- discusses changing the rules to make it easier for them to railroad the minority, or take away a tool of the minority.

Again, no matter who that may be.

I found it distasteful in the extreme when rethugs proposed the so-called "nuclear option" and effectively hamstrung the minority. I find it no less distasteful now, and would rather see the problem resolved so that it's no longer an option for discussion.

[drmeow]

6. One of the primary concerns

founding fathers was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I believe that this was one of the reasons for the filibuster. However, I do not think that it was intended to block government spending or taxation (unless said taxation was against a group of people who had not representation - for now we won't get into that). I think it was aimed more at the fundamentals of a free republic (i.e., attacks on our civil liberties). Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to have lost sight of that purpose while the Democrats failed to see it in the first place. The Repukes threaten to use it in an obstructionist ideological way and the Democrats failed to use it at critical (i.e., civil liberties attacking) times. In many ways the way each party uses or fails to use the filibuster neatly sums up why I have little to no respect for either party.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. There is no such thing as a filibuster in the constitution.

This is an evolved rule of the Senate that has no constitutional foundation.

[drmeow]

26. Regardless - it potentially serves to

uphold the founding father's goal.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. well in the sense that it preserved segregation for 70 years

that might be true. It is a senate procedural rule and has nothing at all to do with any 'founding fathers' bullshit.

[Doremus]

7. Get rid of faux filibusters. They want to obstruct, let them do it in the spotlight.

This "they said the word filibuster so we need 60 votes" is beyond ridiculous.

[yurbud]

8. that is the obvious solution, but Reid's got his testicles in a lockbox

either that, or the GOP has photos of him in bed with a sheep.

[ThomWV]

11. The filibuster is the sole vehicle by which the rights of the miniority are insured in the Congress

A simple majority of 1 can not rule the Senate as it does in the House.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. That worked out well from around 1878 - 1964.

As southern white Democrats in the Senate, particularly from the 1940's until the late 60's, used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation over and over again.

[yurbud]

18. what exactly is it's value when Dems were too chickenshit to use it during Bush years?

If they didn't use it when our Constitution was under attack, exactly what would make them get off their dead asses?

[ThomWV]

35. It is of no value to either Party when the Party is inhabited by chickenshits.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Cloture requirements were reduced in the past and should be

reduced again. The current 3/5 rule should be further reduced to 55% of the full senate. When one party has won both houses by wide margins and holds the executive branch, they should be free to implement their programs unobstructed.

It really is too bad that our party did not push back when Frist et al threatened to go nuclear. We would be completely in command right now.

[yurbud]

19. if you are going to reduce it, you might as well get rid of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I can live with 55.

I can also live with 51. Historically, as I noted elsewhere, the filibuster has primarily been used to obstruct progressive legislation. I'll take the risk that doing away with it will lead to some fundaloon nightmare.

[yurbud]

27. If you only lower instead of abolish it, you are tacitly implying something other than majority is

acceptable. If you want to change it, you've got to go all or nothing, or the public won't get the issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. As I said, I'm fine with doing away with it entirely

but would accept a further lowering of the limit (it was 2/3 at one point) as a compromise.

[yurbud]

36. I think a common mistake Democratic politicians make is saying what they will accept first

instead of what they want first. If you pre-compromise, you inevitably end up with less than your minimum acceptable outcome.

[leftofthedial]

15. weaken the fillibuster now.

then, if the repukes ever win back control of the Senate, strengthen it again before the term ends.

[pnwmom]

17. There is a 3rd way: make them carry out real filibusters.

No more of this "gentleman's agreement" that has us backing down the second they threaten one.

[Greyhound]

25. That is down to Harry and the whole "exclusive club" mentality in the Senate.

It is ridiculous to allow these ideologues to hold the nation hostage without suffering the consequences of their actions.

[JVS]

20. NUKE EM!

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Minority rights are important too...

when people feel they dont have any say in the system some people might turn to more violent means to have a voice.

Also remember things are cyclical it might be that one day we too might be the minority power again.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. That is why we have a constitution.

That is the protection for minority rights.

By the way the Senate minority party (or parties) are not 'minorities' as commonly understood in the phrase 'minority rights'. The Senate does not even represent people, it represents territorial regions instead. It is a massively undemocratic institution where the Senate majority party can represent a minority of the people and where Senators from states that constitute a small minority of the population can obstruct popular legislation by having control over 2/5 of the senate votes even if they their states account for far less than 2/5 of the population.

Get rid of the Senate entirely, it is as outdated and antiquated as the British House of Lords.

[Jack_DeLeon]

32. I disagree...

People living in certain states in the US sometimes do so because they do not wish to have laws forced on them by the majority of people living in other farther away areas. So the Senate does serve to protect the minority rights. Its been that way since this Constitution was adopted.

Smaller and/or less populated states would perhaps chosen not to join if they knew they would always be outvoted by people living in the more populus states.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. and again - the prime example of that is slavery and segregation nt.

[MiniMe]

28. I think will be would be correct

Once the GOP gets it's head out of it's ass