Kill the Filibuster!

To an extent yes. But if Congress would reassert its prerogatives this would be less of an issue than it is now. The courts still limit what can be done by E.O.'s. Just look at both Trump and Obama’s records there.

WTF? Where did that come from?

As for the rest. We have a lot of problems in congress now being driven by gerrymandering and voter geographic self-sorting. Those both make politicians more likely to loose there positions to a primary challenge than a general election. Drives severe partisanship and reduces incentives to work across party lines.

The Democrats successfully filibustered the 1918 anti-lynching law, which would have made lynching a federal offense, so that it someone could prosecute it.

I’ve been trying to find a good full list of everything ever filibustered to get an idea of whether we’d be in a better or worse place. But one thing that stands out is Jim Crow-- we were passionate about keeping Jim Crow. It’s possible I’m just missing a lot of good Jimmy Steward examples.

(Admittedly the historic filibuster doesn’t say much about the modern application, which is just automatic.)

1 Like

!? That’s not covered under like, murder?

I don’t think dredging up 100+ year old filibuster history is particularly relevant or useful for today.

Yes, I agree. The thing is, filibuster hasn’t been a good measure of passion in decades. There aren’t any modern examples because these days you don’t just filibuster things you hate, you filibuster everything.

When it was a measure of passion, it seemed to be mostly about hating black people? Anti-lynching, poll taxes, employment discrimination, civil rights… But yes that was a long time ago.

I just meant to argue that “passion” (by which I mean standing up) doesn’t seem to be correlated to goodness.

[red]
Much better…I mean, good luck finding a phone book these days.
[/red]

Homicide is a state law. So states could just ignore it.

Only in America

So cloture is a fancy word for ending debate on a bill and voting for it.

Originally any Senator could say they wanted to continue debating the bill. But then they had to actually “debate” it. So if there were 8 or 10 Senators who didn’t want a bill to pass they could organize: “you debate from 8-10, then I’ll go from 10-12, then Billy Bob from 12-2, etc.

If it was just one guy then he had to stand there and talk until he physically couldn’t do it any more. Because as soon as he gave up and sat down they could “invoke cloture” which ends discussion and means they can take a vote.

This is where the stories of Senators reading from the phone book came into play. They’d run out of even marginally thoughtful things to actually say about a bill and resort to “here’s a list of people who will be harmed by this bill: Abrams, Andrew & Sheila residing at 123 Apple Tree Lane; Abrams, Bill… etc.” Because they literally had to keep talking.

And they could only be considering one bill at a time. So while they were filibustering they were basically holding the Senate hostage.

It was an extreme measure only used very sparingly about issues that Senators were especially passionate about (like preserving white people’s right to not have to be around black people… very very important stuff). But, however demented the reasons for utilizing the filibuster, it WAS used sparingly. (And obviously I was being sarcastic about the “very very important stuff” but it was important to those particular Senators.)

And I’m not exactly clear on the precise progression of the rule changes. But they are now permitted to halt debate on Bill A and start debate on Bill B. So it no longer prevents Congress from doing anything else like it used to. And they no longer have to physically stand there and talk for hours and hours and hours.

Strom Thurmond infamously filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 by himself for 24 hours at which point he could not physically continue. Cloture was invoked and the Senate voted on (and passed) the bill.

By the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came along it took 34 Senators, not just one, to filibuster. But the Southern Senators got together and organized a filibuster that lasted 60 days. But that filibuster too was broken and cloture invoked and the bill was voted on and also passed.

At some point between 1964 and the 1990s it went from 2/3 necessary to invoke cloture to the current 60%. Thus the number of Senators needed to successfully execute a filibuster increased from 34 to 41. But everything else about a filibuster like actually having to stand there and talk, and becoming a pariah because you prevent literally anything else from happening while you’re doing it, became easier.

2 Likes

this seems so weird. It seems like they should change the amount of votes needed to do something to whatever the “filibuster” amount is or some reasonable amount (55? 53?) - stick with 50?. Then actually vote on it. I hate that they dont vote.

What is it called when Rainier Wolfcastle destroys a piece of legislation?

A killibuster

You’ve omitted the most obvious feature of the filibuster. It greatly strengthens the authority of POTUS.

It’s a natural outcome, since legislation is all but impossible. No laws, just executive orders.

Does anyone think the immigration laws in place are working so well they could only be hr,Ed by a rewrite?

Same for regulation of the internet. Or infrastructure. Heck, I suppose it also increases the importance of SCOTUS, where legislating from the bench is virtually the only method of legislating. Sadly, we don’t vote for the justices, and hence not democratic in substance or form.

1 Like

I disagree that it’s sad that we don’t vote for the justices, or even any federal judges for that matter. We aren’t lawyers, so we can’t possibly comment on much when it comes to what the judges/justices have to say when it comes to interpreting law. The appointment system is a part of the infrastructure I like.

I prefer our system where politics plays a very small part in the appointment of judges. Generally we don’t know the political leanings of our senior judges and that is how I would like it to stay.

That is not the sad part. The sad part is the filibuster creates a situation where legislation is not passed, and then SCOTUS is forced to legislate from the bench. And as we do not vote for justices…well you get laws without democracy in action. That is sad.

I agree there’s a lot of complaining about “legislating from the bench” and “presidential overreach”, where the POTUS and the SCOTUS “implement” and “interpret” rules and laws that aren’t really there. Things like ACA and DACA…

Things that have wide support among Americans and decent support in Congress. But Congress can’t pass anything. Congress can’t even pass a law that lets the government run.

Then everyone says “why can’t Congress do their damn jobs?” ignoring the fact that there is a clear answer-- the Filibuster. Congress has decided to stop itself from every doing its job.

1 Like

Yeah, maybe if they brought back the part where people actually have to stand up and talk that would reduce the use of the filibuster?

I like that the minority party has some control, but the filibuster is also overused these days.

Welp, you’re not alone in your thinking.

1 Like

The Democrats can certainly pass reforms on the filibuster. They need Joe Manchin though. They would need to convince him…

They also need Kirsten Sinema, which is a name you don’t hear everyday.