# Why not abolish the Senatorial filibuster? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535 "2010-02-26T17:16:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/41 "2010-02-26T23:49:01Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > This. Better to let the legislature make mistakes & fix them than to hamstring it in the name of caution but make it so that it can’t fix its past mistakes. It doesn’t really work that way. The Patriot Act being a recent example. Never should have passed, hasn’t been repealed. Better to get it right the first time, or pass nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/42 "2010-02-27T02:52:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Given the option of “politician” being a temporary job taken to set up one’s post-public service career, or “politician” being a profession, I’d take the latter. Term limits would make the greedy and power-hungry seek office, whereas now the field is mostly limited to only the power-hungry. Legislative term limits rob legislators of the ability to build up senority or power base independent of party whips. Political party leadership becomes much more powerful than it already is. Lobbyists become more powerful. Combine this with legislative districts drawn up to minimize partisan turnover and you have a static dysfunctional legislature like California’s. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/43 "2010-02-27T03:25:47Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Legislative term limits rob legislators of the ability to build up senority or power base independent of party whips. Political party leadership becomes much more powerful than it already is. Lobbyists become more powerful. Combine this with legislative districts drawn up to minimize partisan turnover and you have a static dysfunctional legislature like California’s. I recall a political cartoon from after the 1994 “Republican Revolution”: An elephant in groom’s dress, riding in a carriage trailing a “JUST MARRIED” banner, is wearing an innocent rolleyes “Who, me?” expression while kicking out an astonished bride labeled “TERM LIMITS.” [The Supreme Court ruled in 1995](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Federal_term_limits) that states could not (whether through the legislature or ballot initiatives) impose term limits on federal representatives or senators. Probably a constitutional amendment would be necessary. Perhaps term limits should solve the problems you speak of; but the existence of a career-political class as such is **not** a problem, it is indispensable to any modern democracy. The problems of government are a lot more complicated and challenging now than they were in ancient Athens, or even in the America de Tocqueville wrote about. Therefore, if we are to have term limits, they should not be **lifetime** limits. E.g., you get to serve one term in Congress, then sit out the next one and run again, perhaps spending the time between serving in some other elected office. That way we get the turnover but we still have a vast pool of experienced legislative talent. But we’re getting very far afield, now, from the issue of the value or otherwise of the Senatorial filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/44 "2010-02-27T03:39:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps term limits should solve the problems you speak of; but the existence of a career-political class as such is **not** a problem, it is indispensable to any modern democracy. Bullshit. You repeating that elitist liberal mantra does not make it so. Being a legislator is not some arcane mystery. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can learn it, same as they could learn to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/45 "2010-02-27T03:50:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Bullshit. You repeating that elitist liberal mantra does not make it so. Being a legislator is not some arcane mystery. Anybody of reasonable intelligence can learn it, same as they could learn to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc. I think you need a bit more than “reasonable intelligence” to become proficient in any of those things, if by “reasonable” you mean “average”; but, more importantly, you need to invest a whole lot of **time** to become proficient in any of those things, and in effect make a career choice of it, to the exclusion of other fields. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/46 "2010-02-27T04:04:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I think you need a bit more than “reasonable intelligence” to become proficient in any of those things, if by “reasonable” you mean “average”; but, more importantly, you need to invest a whole lot of **time** to become proficient in any of those things, and in effect make a career choice of it, to the exclusion of other fields. You can be fully qualified to practice law in under 4 years, including bar prep, waiting for results, and being sworn in. If there weren’t procedural hurdles and delays built in, you could accomplish the same thing in about 6 months. Being a legislator is certainly no more complicated than that. Plenty of lawyers do or did other things before or after law school. My class included a bunch of engineers, several nurses, one doctor, and a double handful of people with graduate degrees in other fields. The notion that it takes some rare special aptitude to [del]leech off the public teat[/del] serve in Congress is asinine. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/47 "2010-02-27T04:07:30Z")
I’ve started a [new thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=553885) to avoid hijacking this one further. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/48 "2010-02-27T04:09:13Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > You can be fully qualified to practice law in under 4 years, including bar prep, waiting for results, and being sworn in. If there weren’t procedural hurdles and delays built in, you could accomplish the same thing in about 6 months. :dubious: No. No, you couldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/49 "2010-02-27T04:17:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: No. No, you couldn’t. I certainly could. And I found the other thread. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/50 "2010-02-27T23:30:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > It doesn’t really work that way. The Patriot Act being a recent example. Never should have passed, hasn’t been repealed. Better to get it right the first time, or pass nothing at all. Has been [tweaked.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations)And in any case, how is the not repealing it in bicameral system an argument either for bicamerality saving us from bad law or against unicamerality being better able to repeal things? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/51 "2010-02-28T03:12:22Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Has been [tweaked.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations)And in any case, how is the not repealing it in bicameral system an argument either for bicamerality saving us from bad law or against unicamerality being better able to repeal things? Laws rarely get repealed. Especially laws that give more power to the government. Passing nothing is better than passing a bad law, because odds are we’ll be stuck with the bad law. The Patriot Act is a horrible law, and parts of it are probably unconstitutional. SCOTUS has a chance to strike part of it in a pending case. Let’s hope they do. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535/52 "2010-02-28T05:57:25Z")
I know what you did.:smack: Filibuster? In the hands of greedy (corrupt) politicals, Filibuster is a two-edged sword. It’s Punch and Judy Time. Punch, the bad cop, holds the Filibuster. Whack! Judy, the good cop, says, “Enough!”. Judy, the good cop holds the Filibuster. Whack! Punch, the bad cop, shoves it 3 ft up Judy’s nearest orifice while Judy be smilin’. Wiseguys sellin’ Judy short. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-abolish-the-senatorial-filibuster/530535.md?page=2)