End The 'virtual' filibuster

[Peikko 1,575]

I didn't know this - I don't know if what is proposed is really a good idea or not, but the argument is logical.

I was particularly intersted in these parts of the article:

...Note the emphasis on the word "threaten" here. Contemporary filibusters are not actual but virtual...

In the real world, it has always been understood that any filibuster was a power struggle in which the force of the majority could be neutralized by a determined minority. Senators reserved it for use on a single issue or two of paramount importance to their state. The classic example was the phalanx of Southern senators like Thurmond who lined up in the 1950s and 1960s to filibuster against civil rights for African-Americans in their home states. Those battles in particular gave the "F"-word a bad connotation. So in the post-Watergate reform era of the mid-1970s, the Senate lowered the threshold for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60). This was a reform intended to weaken the filibuster as a weapon, but in the end it has had unintended consequences that in some ways made the filibuster more pervasive than ever.

So, what if the Senate were to rescind the "silent filibuster" and simply require those who wish to have "extended debate" to have it? Why not make them do it for real?

What the public would see, under the unblinking eye of C-SPAN, would be the true spectacle of a handful of senators defying the will of the majority...

The Senate GOP under leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has indicated it is willing to enforce the 60-vote threshold for virtually any issue that any of its members deem worthy...

Link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It would be past due. From what I understand, its been filibuster city in the Senate ever since the Obama administration took over.

Happened a lot during the last administration too - it would make sense to curtail it. Noone benefits from that sort of thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

They are not proposing to end the filibuster, just make them actually do it, the mere threat would no longer be enough to crush a bill, the idea being that only those issues that were truly important would be worth attempting these marathon 'talkins'. I am not sure how true that is, of course, but they were a real physical challenge, which just threatening to do something is not.

It's certainly an interesting idea.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Disagree. There is value to the filibuster. If 40%+ of members feels strongly about an issue, they should have the ability to prolong debate on it. However, what I oppose is the 'virtual' filibuster - if the Repubs threaten a filibuster, I'd like to see the Dems make them actually do it. This would make sure the f'buster is only used on issues they care strongly about, as opposed to on just about anything.

[Peikko 1,575]

Damn you, that's what is being proposed, an end to the Virtual filibuster.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you seen some of those "prolonged" debates?

They're interesting to say the least. And not in a good way - basically fill the time with BS to delay a vote.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

tyranny by majority. what a deal!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Damn you, that's what is being proposed, an end to the Virtual filibuster.

I don't read.

[Peikko 1,575]

Nor does Charlie

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

nor does cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Reading is overrated. You don't need to read when you have principles.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Reading is overrated. You don't need to read when you have principles.

Or preconceptions.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Reading is overrated. You don't need to read when you have principles.

Or preconceptions.

Indeed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Disagree. There is value to the filibuster. If 40%+ of members feels strongly about an issue, they should have the ability to prolong debate on it. However, what I oppose is the 'virtual' filibuster - if the Repubs threaten a filibuster, I'd like to see the Dems make them actually do it. This would make sure the f'buster is only used on issues they care strongly about, as opposed to on just about anything.

I agree.

[Peikko 1,575]

nor does cleo

Shouldn't there be a 'nah, nah, nah, nah nah' inserted in there somewhere? I deem it entirely appropriate in this context