Kill the Filibuster!

Yeah, oops, that one didn’t work out very well for him.

It doesn’t. Harry Reid started it by ending the filibuster for federal judicial nominees. McConnell expanded it to include SC justices. Not sure if it has been extended to much more than that, yet.

Yes, that’s right. And good questions.

The rules changed a lot. I think the most recent set cropped up through the 70’s, and it took 40 years the frequency ramp up from almost never to all the time.

It was less common when you had to talk all the time (among other things). So I guess that’s good.

But looking back, I don’t see evidence clear filibuster was ever a “good thing”. Hard to say, but historically it looks like it was most effective at preventing civil rights.

I expect McConnell will kill the filibuster as soon as he’s confident of a long-term majority.

^this

the dems should do it first.

You’re close, but it’s slightly more expansive. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for federal judicial nominees AND federal appointees (i.e. Cabinet Members). McConnell expanded it to SCOTUS justices.

RN, and one of my favorites! (Well, the original, that is.)

I remember the day that was a clue in the crossword (beast, not priest, according to Nash). Getting that long answer right, right off the bat, made the rest of the puzzle a lot easier than it normally is.

Yes it’s become both easier and harder to successfully execute a filibuster, but mostly easier because you no longer have to have someone standing there reading from the phone book to do it.

But it used to be that a single Senator could execute a filibuster all by himself. Now it takes 41. (And there were several other relevant numbers in between… I think both 26 and 34 had their day in the sun on the road from 1 to 41.)

So easier in that you don’t have to stand there talking until or side or the other side gives up, but harder in that 41 Senators is a much higher hurdle to clear than 1.

Wait you don’t need to stand up and talk the whole time anymore. What a bummer! I thought that was the best part :slight_smile:

How does it work now? My knowledge comes purely from the West Wing episode with the one guy standing there talking.

How does it work as a check and balance? Bear in mind that I probably don’t understand how the filibuster works. It seems like a tool of obstruction that the party who lost the election can use.

For those that are out of touch on this whole thing. This is why it’s not like the “old” days.


(note these are votes to break filibuster, there is no record of filibustering since it’s just a bullshit loophole.)

In the old days, a filibuster happened roughly once per a congress. Now the supermajority requirement is de facto.

The notion the US has a “tradition” of filibuster is like saying that the US has a “tradition” of having Christmas everyday.

1 Like

I don’t see any benefits here. “Check and balance” usually refers to competition between the branches of gov’t.

I don’t see this, either.

My earliest introduction to the filibuster involved using it repeatedly to block civil rights legislation. So it blocked good legislation. Hardly an endorsement.

It was used to block health care reform until the Ds had 60 votes for a narrow window. Again, I supported the legislation.

Probably it has been used to block bills that I didn’t like, but I just can’t remember those cases this morning. I don’t see a net gain.

I think that Obama erred by trying to be bipartisan with people who were primarily interested in winning elections, not improving the country. So I’m fine if Biden just gives the Rs a small opening to compromise, recognizing that elections matter and they lost the last, and if they don’t use it quickly, going forward without them

Your winning me over, keep going.

Mostly it functions to stop a slim majority from passing the parts of their agenda that are hated by the opposition. This helps prevent major law changes happening every time the majority party changes.

The other part, which has become less common, is that it encourages the majority party to work with the minority in crafting legislation so they can get enough votes for cloture. Cloture ends a filibuster. This should make for a better more centrist law.

That doesn’t work when the actual platform of one of the parties is “oppose everything the other guys want”.

2 Likes

But what stops it being abused? For the minority party to stop the majority party passing anything and then portraying them as incompetent.

It also seems biased towards those who don’t like the government doing anything, the small state supporters. It means they get what they want whoever actually wins the election.

Also, doesn’t the existence of executive orders allow major changes every time the presidency changes hands?

it seems weird to me that you need 60 votes to do something, but you can use 50 votes to get rid of the 60 vote rule.

It’s interesting. In theory, I really like the notion of votes weighted by passion. But then in practice the thing we are most passionate about is the freedom to string up black people?

(sorry to be jumping on you here). I think the biggest problem here is that there’s some bills that basically every senator agrees is necessary (like a debt ceiling increase) but a minority can block until pork is added for them, or until the government itself shuts down.

On the other hand, I don’t know. I agree it’s bad that a senate majority just makes all the rules without need to compromise. I just don’t see meaningful compromise coming from supermajorities. I’d be interested in examples of that in practice.