The number of filibusters in the Senate 1947 to 2008

[Hamlette]

Isn't it time we got rid of it. With a simple majority in the Senate, we'd have the HCR bill we wanted.

[MrBig]

1. If I remember correctly...

Weren't Republicans saying the same thing when they had all the power just a few short years ago?

[bluestateguy]

2. The real spike came in the Clinton years

The Republicans in the Clinton years started this gross abuse of the filibuster.

[Hamlette]

3. yes, that's the problem, the GOP is abusing it

and if we are going to solve the big problems facing our country, we should address the filibuster next.

The HCR bill was the first piece of progressive legislation since LBJ. We won't have any more at this rate.

[demosincebirth]

4. The majority should always prevail. Thats a democracy.

[Fumesucker]

5. It can also be tyrrany as well..

There are things the majority shouldn't be able to do..

I'm sure if you think for a few minutes you can come up with something you would rather the Republicans would not be able to do if they were in the majority.

[demosincebirth]

6. Every election, union or public, I've ever voted in required 51%. I know

what you're talking about, but it starts with majority rules.

[Hamlette]

7. actually, we're a "liberal" democracy

by definition which means the protection of individual rights from the government. So, in a battle over more government power, there are restraints in the system to stop or at least slow it (ie the Constitution)

[Virginian]

8. What was that "Nuclear" option a few years back?

If I remember correctly, the Pubs were going for a Nuclear option if the Dems filibustered something Dubya wanted.

[RoyGBiv]

9. If I recall correctly ...

... that was relevant to judicial appointments, or maybe appointments in general. I'm not sure it would have applied to the overall extended debate rules.

[RoyGBiv]

10. The problem isn't the fillibuster ...

Well, it's not the entire problem.

The problem is dual tracking, which, ironically given recent events, was brought into being by Robert Byrd. It removes some of the pressure and urgency required of a filibustering Senator. You can still technically get the "all-nighter," but it's too easy to prevent that from happening. You'll note in the graph a jump that occurred in the 70s when Byrd introduced this rule change.

Then of course Republicans figured out how to really abuse it. They could really cut down on this abuse, or at the very least force those insisting on blocking a bill by not allowing a vote really to work for it, by removing this rule. Why Democrats don't is something of a mystery since they tend not to use the filibuster to its fullest advantage under the rule whereas Republicans consistently do.

Of course the whole thing is based on an antiquated concept of paternalistic gentlemanliness that dictates Senators have an unlimited right to debate. I'm not sure that, I think, unique 18th century concept has any relevance in the modern political world.