Should the Filibuster be eliminated?

[Odin2005]

I was a defender of the Filibuster for a long time, a mechanism for preventing small majorities from doing things to quickly. But now it has become merely a tool of obstruction by the ConservaDems, getting in the way of change.

the Filibuster needs to go.

[MrCoffee]

1. Absolutely not

[Bitwit1234]

26. Why not. The democrats

never use it. And it only does the republicans good. And just think, if there was no filbuster, Liberman would be kicked out of everything in the senate now wouldn't he.

[timeforpeace]

42. Sure, as long as it automatically comes back when the Repukes are in the majority again.

[LakeSamish706]

2. No, but the coward Dems should be eliminated. n/t

[BunkerHill24]

5. + 10000X

[moondust]

3. #1 or #4.

Probably #1 because 55 is just as arbitrary as 60. Why not 57? Or 53?

Undecided.

[pnwmom]

4. The filibuster provides some needed stability. Otherwise, Medicare and Social

Security would have been repealed in a previous Republican administration, probably Reagan's.

[WI_DEM]

12. MC and SS never would have been repealed even under Reagan

it would have been political suicide. I'll tell you though who the fillibuster helped. Southerners keep Segregation alive for 100 years after the Civil War. It's a disgraceful system.

[WI_DEM]

14. The Fillibuster is a disgrace. Kept segregation in place for 100 years after Civil War.

Get rid of it.

[Better Believe It]

17. That is total nonsense! Why Bush couldn't even get a partial privatization passed by

a Republican controlled Congress!

So when and how did the mere threat of a phantom Democratic filibuster prevent such legislation from being proposed, much less enacted?

Reagan and Bush never even suggested ending Medicare and Social Security. That would have destroyed their careers and the Republican Party. And millions would have marched on Washington. The Democratic Party of course would not have organized mass protests. They don't do that sort of thing. "Centrists" don't approve.

[pnwmom]

20. Reagan strongly supported ending Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Social_Security.htm

Wanted to privatize retirement, but never had opportunity

Social Security was always more tar baby than Teflon for Reagan. He told me when he was governor of California that Barry Goldwater’s campaign had demonstrated that Republicans could not safely discuss the issue, but Reagan could not stop talking about it. I have no doubt that he shared the view that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He was intrigued with the idea of a voluntary plan that would have allowed workers to make their own investments. This idea would have undermined the system by depriving Social Security of the contributions of millions of the nation’s highest-paid workers. In 1976 he said that Social Security “could have made a provision for those who could do better on their own” and suggested that such recipients be allowed to leave the program upon showing that “they had made provisions for their non-earning years.” This declaration sent shudders through the ranks of Reagan’s political advisers, who knew his true feelings about Social Security.“
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 243 Jul 2, 1991
Suggested in 1975 to make social security voluntary

In 1975, Reagan suggested ways to make social security voluntary. The demography of Florida made that as dangerous a position as Reagan could adopt on domestic matters. , Ford beat Reagan with 53% of the general vote, but with a crushing 60% of voters over sixty-five.

[Better Believe It]

29. Mere lip service. It wasn't going anywhere.

[pnwmom]

30. He paid lip service to Social Security when it was politically advantageous.

But he spent decades advocating against it.

[Zynx]

40. Was there ever the will in Congress, however? I don't think so.

[Better Believe It]

6. What filibusters? The bogus Republican ones? The Senate can end these phantom filibusters easily

Senator Reid has the power to force Senators to engage in "on the floor" real filibusters.

He's never done that.

And the Democrats can stop ANY Republican filibuster dead in its tracks with a simple parliamentary maneuver, sometimes called the "nuclear option".

[FBaggins]

16. The "real" filibuster is a nice idea, but would just be for show.

It's only effective if you think that they aren't happy publicly opposing the bill... They are.

The parliamentary route really isn't an option in this case. It isn't quite parallel to the "nuclear option" (that itself may not have survived a court challenge).

[BunkerHill24]

7. Your poll is demented...n/t

[Goldstein1984]

8. The filibuster is undemocratic

When 41 senators can thwart the will of 59 senators acting on the will of the people, democracy suffers.

[Pithlet]

43. Exactly. It needs to go. n/t

[elocs]

9. Imagine in the future when the roles might be reversed and Dems are in the minority

like the Republicans are now. Well, not that Democrats would ever actually filibuster to stop some Republican legislation. What did they ever stop during the Bushco years when they were the minority?

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yes. I don't care what the GOP did or didn't do. Fuck fair play. Take the

advantage when you have it, deal with the consequences (when we're in the minority) later. Because we all know damn sure that if the GOP were in power, they wouldn't play fair.

[branders seine]

11. time limit.

Republicans and DINOs should be eliminated.

[DireStrike]

13. So many people voting yes... disturbing. YES there are problems. NO, not the filibuster.

The problem is not the procedure that the members of the senate might use.

The problem is the way the members of the senate use, or DO NOT use, said procedures. How many times did the republicans need 60 votes to pass something? Never.

[racaulk]

15. Absolutely not.

The filibuster serves to protect the minority, regardless of who the minority party is. It wasn't that long ago that the Repuke leadership in the Senate were proposing the "nuclear option" to force our hand when we were the minority, and I opposed it then. I could not support its removal now that we are the majority party.

Edited for clarification.

[FBaggins]

18. What were the results of similar polls when republicans wanted to stack the courts???

Methinks too many DUers answer this one more on political expediency rather than principle.

[Odin2005]

19. That's why I used to defend the filibuster.

But this BS is PISSING ME OFF!!!

[moondust]

21. It didn't stop Roberts or Alito.

And now Roberts ALWAYS sides with the rich and powerful which is not justice but "might makes right." That was probably predictable but it still did not elicit a Democratic fillibuster.

[FBaggins]

23. They aren't the only judges that he appointed

It's a mistake to just look at the federal level.

Regardless... that's still not a principled argument. It's "I want my position to win... whatever system accomplshes that is the one I'm in favor of". It's the same reason some support switching to instant runnoff voting.

[moondust]

24. Wrong.

Requiring 60 votes favors lockstep voting. It discourages independent voting on behalf of constituents. It is undemocratic. That is as principled as it gets. It has nothing at all to do with selfishness as you presumptuously suggest.

[FBaggins]

25. Perhaps for YOU...

But when you see that DUers were overwhelmingly in favor of the filibuster a few years ago... properly outraged at republican attempts to gut this protection of minority opinions... and then look at how many of them now favor getting rid of it - you can't pretend that it's entirely principled.

It is undemocratic. That is as principled as it gets.

Sure... and yet the principles of the Founders were ALSO "undemocratic" in this regard. You speak as if that ought to be all that is considered. It's undemocratic and thus we should get rid of it? The very existence of the Senate is "undemocratic".

IOW... they may be "principles", but they aren't our founding principles... and I suspect they aren't the electorates principles.

[Warpy]

22. Yes, but with a very firm sunset clause

that would allow the rule reinstated after six months or so and need to be voted on to reinstate it down the line.

We can't afford the filibuster rule with a minority party that has its own power and not the interest of the country at heart. We can't afford it with a handful of grandstanding senators who are obstructing everything simply because they're drunk with power.

We can't afford to eliminate it completely. We can afford to eliminate it temporarily as a means to give the minority some potty training.

[glen123098]

27. Yes

Requiring 60 votes means nothing ever gets accomplished.

[Popular Front]

28. Yes

60 votes allows the extreme right like Lieberman to hijack the process.

[kenny blankenship]

31. It's pretty much useless to Democrats. They have some kind of allergy to it.

But Republicans make use of it freely. Or they threaten to, which is enough to start the Democrats caving.

[unkachuck]

32. yes, it's undemocratic....n/t

[alarimer]

33. No, but change it so they actually have to be on the floor.

Let's go back to the days when they had to read the phone book.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. You need 67 votes to change Senate rules, the last attempt to do this got 19 in favor

good luck....



You may as well ask if it should rain beer.

[1]

38. exactly. you never hear senators speaking against filibuster. its a tool for them. they love it..

[optimator]

35. other

We might need it against republicans since they are going to win in 2010 and 2012.
However, Dems are chickenshit cowards who would not use it anyway, so might as well eliminate it.

[gmoney]

36. No, but it shouldn't be presumed to ALWAYS be in place

EVERYTHING needs 60 votes these days because someone says "oh, well, we could filibuster" -- most of these matters should be just a simple majority rule, and a filibuster shouldn't be able to prevent stuff indefinitely. Make these bastards do the whole "Mr Smith goes to Washington" bit and talk the thing to death if they're really THAT committed to blocking the legislation.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Since WE NEVER use it and the Repubs always do, it is useless for Dems.

[harun]

46. +1, its a total win for Pukes who don't ever want to change anything.

Does nothing for us since we don't vote in lockstep and never filibuster because of that.

[Greyhound]

39. Absolutely not, but we/they should require an actual filibuster.

When everything stops for days on end the obstructers will get more attention than they want.

[Iggo]

41. Why? Nobody ever uses it. (n/t)

[Odin2005]

44. KICK

[harun]

45. I'll raise your elimination of the filibuster, to elimantion of the Senate.

It's a tool used by the upper class to oppress the poor.