lololol, right.
Both parties hate the filibuster until they’re in the minority.
You do know that the Republicans have used the filibuster far more against Obama than ever before, right?
The idiots the Republicans voted in are screaming children. They abused what should be a tool of last resort. This is why we can’t have nice things. 
The filibuster has been changed before- why can’t it be changed now?
So you believe that Reid is lying, or that other Dems will block his attempts?
It’s about damn time, but I suspect he won’t go far enough.
I really hope they completely eliminate the filibuster and the even worse secret hold for appointments. I’d be happy if it were gone completely, but at least let’s get in the people we need to run jobs.
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire again. I want them expired. I want the Senate to revoke the filibuster opening day. I want a resolution restoring the tax cuts for the 98% of Americans with lowest income.
I want the Democrats to go on the Letterman show and everywhere else every night to point out that it is the Republican who refuse to lower taxes on 98% of Americans.
Anything less and I will withdraw my support from the right-of-center Democrats and seek viable centrist candidates (if U.S. politics has room for such a fringe).
I am ok with this as long as they state that they, the Democrats, are using their majority to change the rules on fillibustering. Because it benefits them and they are able to do it. Then if and when the Republicans ever get a majority again, there will be no whining on the part of the Dems. Goose, gander, etc.
Secondly, and this is an honest question: Are you sure the Bush tax cuts affect only the top 2%, and them alone? I have no doubts they benefit from it, and that they could even recieve a lion’s share, but I believe it also affects a bunch of the 98% too, and so their taxes also would increase by sunsetting the cuts. True?
What’s the debate? Are we supposed to figure out what vague thing Reid is saying he’ll do without actually ending the filibuster? Why don’t you suggest something, because it sounds like empty rhetoric to me.
Debate? I guess the debate is the value of the filibuster, what Reid is planning to do, and whether or not it will do any good. Certainly it’s possible to weaken the filibuster without removing it entirely.
In any case, as far as I know, the Elections forum doesn’t require the topic to be a specific debate, but certainly there’s plenty that can be discussed regarding this subject.
So you require explicit statements of the obvious before you approve of things? You’re not going to be approving of much in this world if that’s the case. As far as the so-called “whining”, the complaints about the current situation are about the Republican’s over-the-top excessive record breaking use of the filibuster to block majority rule. The complaint is about the unethical gaming of the system. Nobody is going to make an absolute promise not to complain about that kind of behavior. And by they way, complaining is not necessarily “whining”.
As to the question in your second paragraph:
I certainly think the procedural filibuster should be removed. I’m not so sure there isn’t value to a real honest fillibuster. Let them sit up there and read the phone book for 40 hours straight if their crazy tax cuts mean that much to them. It’d be the more honest thing to do, and it would be a disincentive to procedurally fillibuster every little thing. Let the American people see what it is they really stand for, and make them stand for it.
That goes the other way too - if you’re making a legitimate principled stand against something just, it would be good for people to see you fighting for it.
Also, the idea that democrats are just doing this because they’re in power suggests the current usage is just the traditional use and is fair game. Quite obviously incorrect, as fillibuster use and deliberate obstruction is up radically and now an entrenched part of the republican platform. We didn’t have to deal with such a caustic attitude - that it’s worth wrecking the country as long as it’s perceived to have been wrecked on the other guy’s watch - in the past. The game is different now.
Let’s see, how could you restrict the filibuster without eliminating it entirely? Options might be:
- Make filibusterers hold the floor the entire time, read the phone book, etc. Seems silly to me. This kind of foolishness detracts from the business of the Senate.
- Restrict the use of the filibuster to some reasonable percentage of bills under consideration. Say, you could only filibuster half or two thirds or whatever of the bills under consideration by the Senate. The problem as cited is historically high levels of filibustering over the last four years, well, eliminate it directly.
- Set an absolute number limit on the number of bills that can be filibustered in a given calendar year. Say, 10 or 50 or whatever. Otherwise, simple majority rules.
I can see various techniques used to get around these rules. Frex, for number 3 the Dems could flood the Senate with bills the Republicans would be sure to find unendurable (Example: “Resolved: the Koch Brothers are enemies of the state and can be tortured, and should be”) until the Republicans have used up their filibusters, then submit the bills they really want to pass under simple majority rule.
The percentage thing is better I think because it’s more flexible … the number changes as the number of bills are submitted – you can filibuster the first two of the first three bills that come up in the Senate, but if you filibuster fill number four you’re going to have to let pass either bill number five or bill number six. Which suggest how THaT rule might be diddled with. Would make for interesting debates, however, and would keep the Republicans from imposing their lockdown on the Senate with a minority, which is clearly wrong and against the intent of democracy.
This article from back in July discusses the pros and cons of some possible fixes.
Why not just limit debate like every other parliamentary rules of order?
No, I am fine with people actually having to pay attention to what is going on in government since I feel that voter apathy is a huge problem. But septimus is suggesting that the Dems go on every talk and news show, every night, and explicitly point out that the GOP is refusing to cut taxes on the 98%. If he feels that people need that info gift wrapped for them, I am simply suggesting that if the plan is to take away the GOP’s power to do so, let them explicitly state that.
One of the first things I noticed about Congressmen on both sides when I first started paying attention to politics years ago, was that each side seems to be shocked, shocked I tell you, that the other side would ever take any action that they themselves have already taken.
And what I meant by my second question was if the Bush tax cuts affect everyone, why would you sunset them, raising the taxes on everyone, then try to restore almost all of them again and blame the people who already gave you the tax break in the first place for not reinstating the break (if that is what they choose to do). If you want to eliminate tax breaks for the richest 2%, then eliminate them. Don’t take away tax breaks for the middle class they already have and then point the finger at the GOP if they don’t restore them fast enough.
Tradition…
As noted, the problem is that an ancient point of etiquette has, now, become an entitlement. The Filibuster used to be for things one cared about very deeply; now, it’s used for damn near everything. The quickest way to imperil a liberty is to abuse it.
A kid can get away with holding his breath till he turns blue (in order to get his way) once or twice a year; not every single day.
Indeed.
Also, maybe there’s some scope for old-style filibuster rules. Every Senator could be given 24 hours per (2yr) session to speak whenever he wants. That means a group of 10 Senators could threaten to gum up the works for a specific bill if they want to, but they couldn’t obstruct every damn thing that crosses their path, all the time, 24/7/52. Then again, this plan could lead to gridlock at the end of each session. Either that or some very hard bargaining.
OBTW: I still haven’t figured out whether the Dems could impose reform unilaterally, notwithstanding your helpful comments on the matter in GQ. What can I say? I’m confused.
Reed opposed filibuster reform until recently, which falsifies your hypothesis. In general, Senatorial egos trump other concerns, including partisan ones.
Furthermore, the Republicans hold the House at the moment. So for the next 2 years, they don’t have to worry about the Dems running roughshod over them. Political professionals note that the US system has far more “Stopping points” than most democracies. So removing one of them isn’t as huge a deal as people think. I concede the step is more than modest though.
So your post had some intuition but little else. Better arguments, please.
French fry that. The founding fathers permitted filibusters in the Senate because, “A gentleman lets another gentleman have his say.” So give them 8 discretionary hours per session. That would be fine and consistent with the original intent. Reading telephone books is a modern development and repeated calls for cloture votes is simply bizarre.