“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”
Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate
Ok, sounds great. Require an actual speaking filibuster if desired. No more procedural bullshit that enabled McConnell to appoint dozens of judges when Schumer foolishly agreed to kill the judicial filibuster.
Flip the House, hold the Senate and dump the obstructionist tool. Also the filibuster.
I don’t always side with either Republicans or Democrats. I just want good government. And I am 100% in favor of repealing the procedural filibuster. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation, but it should not exist as a way to make sure any and every contentious legislation requires 60 votes.
If someone feels that strongly about something, let them get up there and read the phone book into the record for six hours.
I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation
What might be bad for you might be good for someone else.
I agree with getting rid of the procedural filibuster. I suspect the reason it exists in the first place is because Senators are getting old and don’t want to actually do it.
So, for good and bad, make them actually stand and deliver. If they feel so strongly that a bill needs to be killed, then let them fucking earn it.
It was supposedly created in the 70s because Senators were gumming up Senate business trying to grandstans for the TV using filibusters.
Personally, I think that’s not a bad thing. Make Senators want to stand on a podium and give an impassioned speech about their beliefs, like they did in Athens.
That would be more in line with the actual American tradition.
But personally, I would recommend to only allow filibusters in the House, which has a more proportional representation, and to not allow it in the Senate, which has the least proportional representation, even less than the electoral college.
God, wouldn’t that be amazing? Things actually getting done instead of our legislators sitting with their thumb up their asses.
Well, less of them sitting with their thumb up their asses.
It worked both ways though. But in the end, did it actually do much? The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.
I think what would be better is that when there’s a stalemate it would trigger a new election like it is done in some countries.
The issue with the filibuster,now, is that it’s too easy. It needs to be hard like the old days.
Ironically, because it’s so easy we actually don’t even see filibusters often anymore. It’s usually the threat of a filibuster that stops legislation in its tracks. If it was harder, where you stood for days, then it might not actually stop legislation. At least it would be brought to force the issue.
You should have to earn it.
I’m sure the geriatric core of our Congress will thrilled to have to stand for hours to prove their points.
The real problem with the filibuster, in my opinion, is it shields senators from taking a public position. The most extreme senator from Idaho can filibuster the “feed the children” act which prevents a senator from Georgia from having to vote no.
Need to put in requirements for these lazy bums. They are supposed to be civil servants acting on our behalfs. We should demand attendance, votes on all measures, and at least a brief summary as to why our congressman/senator voted the way they did. If it doesn’t line up with what we want. GTFO
I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they’re unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.
Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.
Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.
You aren’t wrong but…
Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?
That’d be pretty powerful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Speech_(Sanders_book)
Bernie did it in 2010 for 8 and a half straight hours.
Not an actual filibuster - but Pelosi’s record setting 8h+ speech for children of undocumented immigrants was super impressive. (Doesn’t make up for other things, but gotta give credit when credit is due.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-fake-filibuster-record-house-floor-dreamers-daca/
Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA
I’m not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn’t force them to get ADA accommodation. I’m arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn’t become a problem.
What’s “sidecar” in this context?
Previously they had to actually talk for so long that nobody could vote on the bill. Now they just send an email, like, “I fillibuster this,” and that is that.
Don’t tempt me with a good time
Exactly! End another remnant of the North placating the South to get them to sign the Constitution
There’s nothing in the constitution about the filibuster. It’s just a Senate rule and the current version (where you don’t have to make long speeches in an ultimately doomed attempt to block legislation with majority support) dates to the 1970’s. They adopted it because in the TV era, Senators were filibustering just to get on the national news and make a name for themselves.
It’s just tradition at this point. And tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
Also: we know Republicans don’t give a single flying fuck about tradition when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s getting in the way of their power grabs. The Supreme Court would be very different if they actually cared about respecting traditions in government (amongst many other things)
I would hope so, or at the very least go back to ye olden days of “You want a filibuster? Get your ass up there and hold the floor…”
Imagine him croaking from exhaustion because he has to actually get up there and stand for hours on end. A man can dream…
He’s just do a mental freeze and his handlers will just forget to poke him every now and then.
This.
I think people tend to think about doing things while they’re in control that fuck the other party, often forgetting that - at some point - power is going to flip and they’ll be the underdogs. That said, Republicans tend to abuse these procedural instruments more.
But you have the right answer: the filibuster can be useful, if it’s not easy to use and requires true dedication. Right now, it’s just a spike strip (mostly) conservatives throw down whenever they want to throw a tantrum.
It’s not enough though, we need something more, or else if the GOP ever retakes control of both houses and the presidency, it will be just as easy for them to undo the laws that get passed now.
Something more, being something like https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review
