They are supposed to be wiser. Are they really? They can still take time to deliberate, there is still plenty of debate both on and off the floor without anyone filibustering.
Without the filibuster, everyone still gets to have their say, everyone still gets to put their point of view on record. There is still time for debate, and everyone still gets their allotted time.
Everyone has a chance to be heard.
Or do anything that the minority opposes.
The minority has little to lose in being super-duper committed to thwarting anything that the majority party does.
Of course I’ve heard of cloture, that’s what we are talking about. I talked about it and the history of it in my post.
Yes, if you get 60 senators to vote for cloture, then that ends that filibuster. And that is exactly what I am saying should be changed/eliminated. It means that 41 senators can thwart the will of the majority.
And I don’t think that you understand what the nuclear option is. Yes, it only requires a majority, but it then ends the filibuster permantantly.
If you are advocating for the nuclear option, then we are in agreement.
By the rules of the senate, both parties are given time. Now, if a party leader does not allow time for one of their members, that’s just on them.
Cloture does not need to get invoked unless the one speaking refuses to give up the floor.
Right, and that was done by the nuclear option of getting rid of the filibuster.
Which not only holds up that bill, but any other work of the senate.
And, as I’ve pointed out, without enshrining this in a constitutional amendment, you will always have the nuclear option. Which means that the only time a party would allow the filibuster is if they wanted to.
If a party reinstituted the filibuster while they were the majority, they would then not be able to pass legislation without the cooperation of the minority.
If the minority then got into power and became the majority, they could get rid of the filibuster, and then not need the cooperation of the new minority.
Instituting a filibuster will only hobble the party that institutes it.
Unfortunately the whole nuclear option came to be a thing when the senate decided they didn’t want to sit and listen to someone read the phone book so they allowed the procedural filibuster. The dems and reps could have gone the other way and reinstated the stand-till-you-drop filibuster but they apparently had some fund raisers to get to so instead opted for the nuclear option.
I am saying they shold earn their paycheck and have gone with the talk forever filibuster.
They also have other business of the senate to do. A filibuster holds up everything.
I’ll agree that the procedural filibuster gets abused, and should be removed, but returning it to the way it was before ignores the reason that they tried the procedural filibuster. People were holding up not just the bill in question, but all the business of the senate. They were doing so with the intent of holding up all the business of the senate.
And I still have not seen how you have addressed the problem that the only one what would be beholden to a filibuster would be the party that brought it back. If the Dems bring back the talking filibuster, then they would have to hold up all business of the senate unless they can get 60 votes to allow them to continue. With an obstructionist party, that means that it’s very easy for them to stop all business, and make sure that the senate has no power to do anything at all.
And, after hobbling themselves, they are not assured the same benefit if they become the minority party. If the Republicans take back the majority, there is nothing to stop them from nuking the filibuster and ruling on majority rules.
Without a constitutional amendment, it is only hurting yourself to bring back the filibuster.
If it doesn’t require more votes to end debate than to pass a bill, then the only things that get debated are the things that the majority party wants debated. So, no, without some kind of filibuster (that is, some way for the minority party to force the body to listen to them talk about something before passing it), everybody does not necessarily have a chance to be heard.
…Until there’s a vote to end the debate. The problem of course is that if the majority party wants to pass some legislation that’s unpopular and doesn’t want to draw attention to it, they have an incentive to end debate early.
All true. The problem is that if the Dems win both houses and the white house, the Reps have no interest in having any legislation at all. In fact they haven’t been for years, save for tax cuts for the greedy and military appropriations. Forty nine Republicans can talk for a long time. A rule that what they say be germane to the discussion, enforced by the presiding officer, might be helpful. Violators to lose the right to speak again on the current question.
It doesn’t have to be a racist using the filibuster to cause harm. I think it’s important to look at the broader context in which we’re discussing the filibuster, not just the filibuster in isolation.
The filibuster was being used by a political party who, in actuality, represent a political minority in this society. They conveniently ditched the filibuster once they achieved control of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
If we’re going to have a filibuster as a viable political mechanism of democratic government, we have to have confidence that it will be used in such a way that it can’t thwart the will of the majority. Yes, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, but obstruction for obstruction’s sake can undermine real legislative responsiveness to the needs of constituents, and it can do real damage in terms of undermining faith and confidence in terms of outcomes.
I don’t have anything against the filibuster per se, but it’s a very low priority right now. In fact, if the filibuster prevents real legislative progress, then we need to get rid of it for the time being. What’s urgently needed now is legislation that can restore the public’s faith in the ability of congress and the president to get things done for ordinary working people. We need the wealthy to pay a fairer share of taxes before we start talking about restoring the filibuster. We need to provide healthcare for all people and control medical costs before restoring the filibuster. We need to greatly reduce the role of money -especially dark money - in politics. We might even need to add court justices. In short, we need to compensate democracy for the damages that McConnell and the GOP have inflicted upon it before we can start debating whether or not a filibuster is necessary or of any value.
My reading of the current rules of the senate shows that the majority and the minority leaders are both given equal time during the scheduled debates; they can allocate that time to their party members as they see fit. There does not seem to be any measure that would end the debate early.
I don’t see any examples of debate being shut down early, without the opposing side being given any time for rebuttal. Do you have any?
How long does it take for a senator to make their voice heard? Is there a reason why they can take all the time they want, even if they are just reading a phonebook?
If it is a matter of making sure that everyone is heard, make the rules that way. How about? Any senator can call for extended debate, and that will give say fifteen minutes or even a half hour of uninterrupted floor time to any senator that wants it, which they can allocate to someone else if they want to. Then you need a 3/5 majority to deny that extended debate. That seems a much better way of ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard, without it being a tool abused to prevent the senate from being able to function.
There is also the fact that, if a senator wants to have their voice heard, they will reach a much wider audience if they just go out into the Rotunda (pre-covid, I don’t know how it works now) and flag down any of the numerous reporters that are standing out there looking for a congressperson to interview.
And, as a point that no one has bothered to address, it still comes down to the fact that, without a constitutional amendment, the nuclear option is always on the table. If a party institutes a rule change that gives the minority party more sway over their body, that minority party is under no obligation to keep that rule when they are in the majority. Unless you can think of a way to make sure that the rule stays in place and cannot be overridden by a simple majority, it would be stupid for a party to hobble themselves with rules that would not apply to the other.
I agree, and I outlined a suggestion to do so in the same post you pulled my quote from.
I think those are good goals, but this thread is about the filibuster, which I think is a useful and good thing to have if we tweak it a bit so that it isn’t possible for a minority to use it as a complete veto.
I’m far from an expert, but it sounds like at any point 60% of the Senate can limit further debate to 1 hour per Senator. Which I agree is not zero rebuttal time, and maybe is enough on its own. this doc (pdf) supports that interpretation.
This seems reasonable to me. I also suggested a way to do it that would scale with the number of Senators who wish to end debate.
We’ll never know since the Senate will never “restore the filibuster,” but suffice it to say that I am deeply skeptical that doing so would accomplish what several folks in this thread think it would. And even it it did to some extent, the downsides of the filibuster would outweigh the benefits, which I think most people in the thread recognize as nobody here is actually proposing to “restore the filibuster” but rather to subject it to new conditions (time limits, quorum requirements, etc.)
Fundamentally, I am dubious of the utility of procedural mechanisms as a way to “force” collegiality and more enlightened debate on the chamber. The abuse of the filibuster (and threat of filibuster) didn’t lead to a more partisan chamber – the rise of partisanship led to the abuse of this procedure. And a recalcitrant minority in the Senate has plenty of other tools at their disposal to stall, stifle debate, and derail the efficient operation of the chamber.
Is your position that the majority in the senate trumps the minority every time? 51 votes means the other side, with 49 votes, have zero effect on legislation? Do you like that system?
The US political system has a lot of “veto points” as it is, I think more than in any other democratic state. Separately-elected executive, a bicameral legislature where both houses are totally politically independent of each other (and, obviously, the executive), one of those houses is heavily malapportioned, strong judicial review, federalism (with many of the same veto points replicated in the states), etc. There’s not really any need to invent new hurdles to stuff getting done, it’s already very hard.
That is actually the system that was set up by the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the minority has the power to thwart the majority.
The minority has plenty of opportunities to make deals, they are part of the committees that analyze and work on the bills. They can appeal to the public.
The minority has many options to affect legislation. If the minority cooperates with the majority, then they can have great effect on the legislation.
Keep in mind that a party is not always monolithic. Just because you have 51 senators with a D next to their name does not automatically mean that they vote for all the things that are put forth by their party. Reaching out for bipartisan support should be rewarded, not punished, by the minority party.
They should not have the option to simply obstruct it. McConnel was clear that his motives were entirely political, and that the minority allowing the majority to govern was not in their political interests, even if it were in the interests of the American people. It is much easier to be monolithic in opposing legislation, in simply obstructing the work of the majority, than it is to get a majority to agree to vote for it.
It is already an uphill battle to get legislation passed, even with a clear majority.
Is your position that 41 senators should be able to prevent the other 59 from accomplishing anything?
