Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:11 AM May 2012

Who favours ending the filibuster?

It's obvious to everyone that the Congressional GOP is abusing the filibuster in a way that was never intended either by the Founders or by those who used the filibuster in gentler times. Hence, just as a kind-of "sense of DU", this poll.


9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
End the filibuster entirely
3 (33%)
Adjust the count necessary for sustaining or ending a filibuster
3 (33%)
Limit the number of times a filibuster can be used per session
0 (0%)
Keep the filibuster as is
1 (11%)
Something else
2 (22%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who favours ending the filibuster? (Original Post) Prophet 451 May 2012 OP
derp again I owe a May 2012 #1
Don't allow it to be abused madokie May 2012 #2
Here is my proposal. RDANGELO May 2012 #3
End it OmahaBlueDog May 2012 #4
Go back to Filibuster Classic NoPasaran May 2012 #5
Should have included that option Prophet 451 May 2012 #8
+1 denverbill May 2012 #11
Agreed! Xyzse May 2012 #16
Yep. GoCubsGo May 2012 #18
I support this aint_no_life_nowhere May 2012 #22
I agree Johonny May 2012 #26
Yep, that's all that is needed. nt raouldukelives May 2012 #25
Exactly the right answer. ManiacJoe May 2012 #27
+1000 ellisonz May 2012 #28
Allow a filibuster to be ended by a simple majority. 99Forever May 2012 #6
The Senate can already stop a filibuster at any time with a simple 51 vote majority. Zorra May 2012 #12
You mean that our Democratic apologists have been lying to us? 99Forever May 2012 #15
Hmmm. I'd call it, Zorra May 2012 #19
I can't count how many times... 99Forever May 2012 #21
I hear ya. It's a "mystery". nt Zorra May 2012 #29
It's becoming the default, end it get the red out May 2012 #7
Frustrating and missused as it is, going to 50 votes plus VP will eliminate minority say on karynnj May 2012 #9
Tier the filibuster. Arkana May 2012 #10
no such thing as "the" filibuster unblock May 2012 #13
Other. End it, but restore it if and when the Republicans become the majority party (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #14
That sounds ideal :) Prophet 451 May 2012 #17
How would you accomplish that? Llewlladdwr May 2012 #20
+1, the filibuster is an important tool to protect the minority party hughee99 May 2012 #23
It's time. mmonk May 2012 #24

madokie

(51,076 posts)
2. Don't allow it to be abused
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:19 AM
May 2012

If someone is going to filibuster make them actually do it rather than just threaten too. Problem solved. Sometimes its good just like sex but when its abused its not good.

RDANGELO

(3,428 posts)
3. Here is my proposal.
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:20 AM
May 2012

The filibuster can only be used for a period of one year after a bill is passed by the house or submitted by the senate leader. After one year, if the senate leader submits the bill for a vote, it must be on simple majority vote.

OmahaBlueDog

(10,000 posts)
4. End it
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:23 AM
May 2012

I'll concede it's worked for Dems as well as against them. That said, it contributes heavily to gridlock.

NoPasaran

(17,291 posts)
5. Go back to Filibuster Classic
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:29 AM
May 2012

If you want to gum up the works, strap on a catheter and read War and Peace. None of this "we could filibuster, so don't make us" crap they use now.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
8. Should have included that option
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:32 AM
May 2012

Meant to include it since it's my preferred option too but, call it a brainfart, it slipped my mind.

denverbill

(11,489 posts)
11. +1
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:18 AM
May 2012

The filibuster was designed as a delaying tool. It's been turned into a veto.

Delaying a vote to buy time is one thing. Obstructing any vote is very different.

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
16. Agreed!
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:11 AM
May 2012

This is the option I would go for.
Let them spend 20 hours or more talking in one session. I hate the way legislation stops just because of the "Threat of a Filibuster".

A lot of them don't have the stamina for that.

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
22. I support this
Fri May 18, 2012, 12:29 PM
May 2012

If they want to obstruct something, make them have their face identified with it on a continuing basis. I can see a situation where I'd want a filibuster imposed but in that case, like in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, make it an issue on which you're in the right and are prepared to go all out.

Johonny

(20,369 posts)
26. I agree
Fri May 18, 2012, 01:21 PM
May 2012

the big problem with it as it is today is it is too easy for them to use. They never have to give a reason for blocking legislation. Forcing them onto the floor and forcing them to state their reasons why they refuse to allow voting on a bill would do wonders for explaining to the American people why certain legislation sits with no action. If you don't have the guts to talk on the floor of congress as to why you stand opposed then you shouldn't be there in the first place.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
12. The Senate can already stop a filibuster at any time with a simple 51 vote majority.
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:47 AM
May 2012

However, Democrats ending the filibuster on a frequent basis would not in the best interests of the 1%. So the myth of the filibuster is perpetuated.

Hem, haw. "Waaaa! We can't do anything because republicans are filibustering!"

It's BS to protect the interests of the 1%.

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.


Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton - 10/06/11 09:10 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters


99Forever

(14,524 posts)
15. You mean that our Democratic apologists have been lying to us?
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:09 AM
May 2012

Really?

I'm freakin' SHOCKED, I tellya.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
19. Hmmm. I'd call it,
Fri May 18, 2012, 11:52 AM
May 2012

selectively not publicly expressing the inconvenient truth.

I bet Harry got totally reamed by the PTB for nuking that filibuster

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
21. I can't count how many times...
Fri May 18, 2012, 12:17 PM
May 2012

.. I read the excuse that "we can't do ___________________________ because we don't have 60 ( or more) votes in the Senate and the evil Republicans won't even let us talk about it, we are just plain powerless to do what we PROMISED when we hit you up for campaign contributions. Sorry, those things that matter to you will just have to wait to be addressed till we get 110 Dem Senators, 445 Dem Reps, and hold the White House for 5 terms." (and yes, that was hyperbole)

get the red out

(13,445 posts)
7. It's becoming the default, end it
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:30 AM
May 2012

The media now says that 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate, as if they never had a Civics class. But then, maybe they didn't. This is just more disgusting abuse of government by the Republicans and reported in the media as normal business.

karynnj

(59,402 posts)
9. Frustrating and missused as it is, going to 50 votes plus VP will eliminate minority say on
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:46 AM
May 2012

everything. That's the way it is in the House. The Senate was suppose to be a brake on the House. That said, I think that 60 is too high, but the real problem is that the Republicans are unwilling to work with Democrats in finding the type of compromises that used to get 60 or even more votes. It really is not Democrats forcing party loyalty and putting up highly ideological bills.

In 2009, we briefly - for about 4 months - had a super majority, the Presidency and the House. From the Republican point of view, this led to us passing highly partisan bills that Republicans had no say in. This was not true - as witness the fact that the Senate lost about 3 months with the committee of 6 working to get a bill that could have Republican support.

Eliminating the filibuster - which the Republicans terrified Democrats with in 2005, when we did not have the Presidency, the Senate, or the House would benefit the Republicans more than us. The reason is that we want to build government programs, which is very hard and takes a huge amount of effort to get something that enough people want. They want to repeal Democratic programs - which is conceptually easy - just schedule a vote. (If they have the Presidency, the House and the Senate - and there is no filibuster, which they can enact, how long does the ACA last? After all McConnell was recently honest in saying they really were less interested in replacing it.

Then consider that they will cut taxes - while arguing the deficit needs to be cut and the military needs more money. Result - serious shredding of the already weak safety net. The filibuster is the only real tool the minority has. Hard as it is when we are in power, maybe it SHOULD take at least 60% of the Senate to make major policy change. (Maybe they could find a way to prohib its use on routine - always going to pass votes where it is used just to obstruct.)

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
10. Tier the filibuster.
Fri May 18, 2012, 07:49 AM
May 2012

The first time a vote is brought before the Senate, it needs 60 votes for cloture.

If blocked, a second time around it will need only 57.

If blocked again, a third time will need only 54.

And if blocked again a simple majority (51) will do it.

unblock

(51,783 posts)
13. no such thing as "the" filibuster
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:51 AM
May 2012

a filibuster is ANY delaying or obstructionist tactic. the denying cloture is just one of many forms.

forcing roll call votes, forcing bills to be read in their entirety, proposing hundreds of pointless amendments, etc. are all forms of filibuster.


so if the cloture rule were revised so as to remove or radically reduce filibuster potential there, republicans would only merely switch to other forms of delay. that would likely be an improvement over the present situation, but it wouldn't be the "end" of "the" filibuster.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
20. How would you accomplish that?
Fri May 18, 2012, 11:56 AM
May 2012

I'm pretty sure the Republicans wouldn't impose it on themselves.

I say keep it. It serves both sides.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
23. +1, the filibuster is an important tool to protect the minority party
Fri May 18, 2012, 12:32 PM
May 2012

and the rights of all Americans from the tyranny of the majority... when the Democrats are in charge. Otherwise, it's evil and should be done away with.

When they last changed the filibuster rules to require 60 votes instead of 67 votes, I think they were on to something good, because at the time, there were exactly 60 Dems in the Senate.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Who favours ending the fi...