Bone
April 5, 2017, 6:00pm
551
Sam_Stone:
If you want to see some full-on partisan hypocrisy, just search this board for ‘filibuster’ and look at the posts pre-2016. I’ve seen the same people flip their opinion of the filibuster in sync with whether or not their party is in the majority at that time. People on both sides of the political fence.
I think it’s kind of a mixed bag. Many people have been consistent, others not so much. I say this because I actually did do this and here is what I found:
May-16:
Mar-17:
Pretty consistent.
Nov-12:
Mar-17:
That’s not as consistent.
Some were clear on the different approaches by party:
Some were more prescient:
I predict that will change if say Scalia retired and Obama got to name his replacement.
I applaud the move, I don’t think for a minute that McConnell would hesitate to eliminate all filibusters should he gain the majority and had a Republican president, even if Reid didn’t do what he did.
And others less prescient:
And I think these folks were all speaking favorably about eliminating the filibuster, and I can’t see any having changed their view since:
For certain issues I would like to see the filibuster set aside. Appointments of officials such as Cabinet officials, ambassadors, and members of the judiciary.
Give it a max of one hour per Senator. Then vote. Straight majority takes it. Voting, up or down, is a part of the job of Senator.
The filibuster was fine as a rarely-used symbolic gesture. But now it has become a regularly-used means of obstructionism.
Republicans don’t fight fair, and I would bet dollars to donuts that, having turned the filibuster into a standard weapon, the first time they gain control of the Senate they will change the rules to prevent the Democrats from doing the same. Why not beat them to the punch for once?
I have no objection to demonstrations of dismay and even political theater, most of politics is theater, to one degree or another. But the script is already written, and it was written by the consent of the governed.
If Obama decides to stage Hamlet , and the Congress has already approved, it is not the privilege of a minority in the Senate to refuse to cast an actor in the title role.
Sam_Stone:
Personally, I like the filibuster, but only if they go back to the old rules of actually having to hold the floor. That puts pressure on both sides to eventually negotiate a solution, and the filibuster should be all about negotiation and compromise. Just saying, “I object!” and thereby exercising a consequence-less veto over anything you don’t like just leads to obstructionism and gridlock.
When I looked, this was actually a common sentiment. Here are folks agreeing with you:
I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I’d like to see it go back to the old-fashioned way- the filibustering Senators should have to stay in the Senate and keep talking. Filibusters should be physically exhausting- not just politically exhausting- so they’re only used when the minority feels it’s most necessary.
So, my modest proposal is simple: require filibustering Senators to go out there and shut the Senate down by actually filibustering. Make them experience the discomfort and fatigue. Additionally, increase pressure on supporting Senators to change positions and vote for cloture by allowing no other Senate votes to take place while a filibuster is ongoing. If a filibuster returns to being an extreme, disruptive event, it will only be used in the most “extraordinary circumstances.”
I wouldn’t be opposed to removing the procedural filibuster , which as I understand it means “we declare we have enough votes that we’ll threaten to allow this filibuster on this subject if you don’t capitulate, but we won’t actually jeopardize any of our Senators’ reputations by making them do the dirty work of actually , in fact, conducting a filibuster.”
And here’s what I said:
My position is unchanged.