Is it time to end the filibuster in the US Senate?

[emacknight]

@foolsguinea

This. I not only believe the filibuster MUST be abolished, I believe the Senate as well SHOULD be. Better to make lawmaking abusively easy–yes, I said abusively–so that changing course through repeal is also easy.

Yes, that means my environmentalist progressive oxen will be gored sometimes. Better than the present mess, where it takes 30 years to get anywhere. A country can’t respond to everything on that timetable.

But think of the businesses, won’t someone think about small business? They’ll be in a state of near constant uncertainty.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@MEBuckner

The Constitution also gives the Vice President the power to break ties in the Senate, which is a fairly useless power to have if bills actually require a 60% super-majority to pass (not that it hasn’t been suggested before that the Vice Presidency is a fairly useless office).

Well, there’s still the space-time continuum to protect.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

I’d have liked the idea a lot better at the beginning of 2009.

[2sense]

@Whack-a-Mole

If the Republicans are in a minority can they say they are going to bed and the Dems have to meet the quorum? Somehow I doubt that but again I am not sure how quorum is enforced.

That’s it exactly. You need a quorum to conduct business but moving forward on the bill is exactly the thing those filibustering don’t want. A lack of quorum helps them and if they see a Senator leave the room you can bet they will point it out and take a break while the Secretary calls the roll.

When lacking a quorum a majority of Senators can, “direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators” but opponents of a bill are hardly likely to be hanging out in the Capitol where they can be rounded up to prolong a late nite filibuster.

@Saint_Cad

This is the one change I would make to the filibuster rule. that a quorum being present, you only need a 3/5 vote of those present - not “duly chosen and sworn”.

I don’t see what good that would do. You can’t vote on a cloture motion until the following day so it’s hard to miss one you care about. There are cases where Senators are brain dead or whatever but it seems such a minor thing. If anything it would give Senators another way to duck hard votes by not showing up to oppose cloture on a hot button issue. Our pols already have too many opportunities to obscure their actual behavior from the electorate.

[ShadowFacts]

I hope it’s not too late to revive this thread, but it seems fresh enough not to have to start another. Anyway…

Tomorrow marks the first day of the new Senate term, and as I understand it is the only day for the entire term that Senate rules can be modified. A group of Democrats is pushing filibuster reform:

@Huffington Post

A group of pro-reform Democrats including Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) have put forward a package of proposals that would, they say, return the Senate to majority-rule and stop the minority from blocking all legislative action. Udall said that Democrats have been coalescing around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed, and instead allowing a set amount of time for debate; 2) ending secret holds; and 3) re-establishing the “talking filibuster.” They hope these changes will return the body to majority rule and block a stubborn minority from holding up action.

Not surprisingly, the GOP is dead set against it. Is this the kind of reform you think would help the Senate? Will it help the Democrats in the short term but come back to bite them in the ass later when they are in the minority? Think it has a shot in hell of passing tomorrow?

[jayjay]

@ShadowFacts

Not surprisingly, the GOP is dead set against it. Is this the kind of reform you think would help the Senate? Will it help the Democrats in the short term but come back to bite them in the ass later when they are in the minority? Think it has a shot in hell of passing tomorrow?

I can pretty much guarantee that the Republicans, should they get a Senate majority in 2012, will do this themselves. The question that needs to be asked isn’t should it be done, but should it be done now when the Democrats could benefit from it or should it be done later when the Democrats will get bitten by it?

Not that it matters at this point…there’s not going to be any useful, rational or good legislation coming out of the House this term, and all of the useful, rational and good legislation that was being bottlenecked at the Senate from last term is dead now.

[Tom_Scud]

It’s a good idea; it won’t help the Democrats in the short term because they don’t control the House, but won’t hurt them because now that the idea is “out there” the Republicans would do it instantly if they got a majority in the Senate again anyway; I have no idea.

ETA: come to think, it would help the Dems because it would help ensure that Obama’s appointees might actually all be appointed.

[Kearsen]

@ShadowFacts

I hope it’s not too late to revive this thread, but it seems fresh enough not to have to start another. Anyway…

Tomorrow marks the first day of the new Senate term, and as I understand it is the only day for the entire term that Senate rules can be modified. A group of Democrats is pushing filibuster reform:

Not surprisingly, the GOP is dead set against it. Is this the kind of reform you think would help the Senate? Will it help the Democrats in the short term but come back to bite them in the ass later when they are in the minority? Think it has a shot in hell of passing tomorrow?

It’s going to get filibustered…

[ShadowFacts]

I should have added my opinions on the subject: I like what I’ve heard of the reforms and I hope they are put in place. Yes, they will inevitably work against the Democrats in the future, but I’m OK with that. The minority party should not be able to hold the Senate hostage with procedural filibusters - get up there and talk to block the vote if you can. I also really like the idea of eliminating secret holds - if you want to put a hold on some nominee, come out and say so publicly. I think these reforms increase transparency in government and that’s a good thing no matter who is in the majority.

[godix]

@penultima_thule

For those of us from democracies where filibusters are not in the political armory and a simple majority is a majority, the notion that without 60% you don’t have an effective mandate is a touch bizzarre. Add in the moderating effect of staggered terms and it seems that veto/gridlock is the default legislative position.

Most non US democracies also have more that two viable parties. So the parties have to negotiate with each other just to build a majority government.

In the US there are only two parties. One of the two will almost always have a clear majority without any negotiation with others requires. So we have the filibuster, which forces compromise and negotiation on legislation that isn’t so popular it can carry 60 votes.

So what you find ‘bizzarre’ is really just that a parliamentary system and the US system both require parties to negotiate, just in different ways.
As for the OP, I would LOVE to see the filibuster reformed. Not removed, but reformed. The main reforms I want are:

• Remove the option for secrecy on it. I have no problem with a senator taking a principled stand against something, but they should have to actually announce to the public they are doing so.

• Remove the option for blocking appointment confirmations. There is a world of difference between filibustering a law and leaving important positions open. Appointments should always get an up or down vote within a limited time. Positions should not be left open for years on end, as sometimes happens now.

• I don’t entirely agree with the ‘make them read a phone book’ option, but something should be done to make it harder, and require more personal sacrifice, to enact a filibuster. I don’t know what though, but it should be more difficult than just ‘I’m filibustering. If you need me, I’ll be at the bar…’

[godix]

Ah, and I just now realized the topic is months old. My mistake, I feel dumb now