4 ms·

This sounds like a reasonable explanation for why filibustering is more common, but I don't know that the old way is better. The willingness of our representati

by chancho 17y ago

This sounds like a reasonable explanation for why filibustering is more common, but I don't know that the old way is better. The willingness of our representatives to stay out on the floor past their bedtime and let their voices get hoarse shouldn't really be a qualification for governing. Why not make a filibuster require doing continuous jumping-jacks, or saying you can only filibuster as long as you don't leave the floor to take a leak? It's just silly.

jbooth 17y ago
Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary -- the idea is that majority-rules is the norm, but for a given issue a minority can really dig their heels in as an added brake on the system. Adopting the filibuster as a matter of routine for nearly every matter before the senate, and hoping that the country will reward you for it by being disgusted with congress's lack of ability to get anything done, is not what they were envisioning when they enacted it.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary Political junkie history trivia interjection here. It used to be that any one senator could stop laws from passing. Later on cloture was reduced from unanimous consent to 2/3rd of the Senate. Finally it was reduced again to 3/5th of the Senate. There are lots of other issues here, and I didn't want to interrupt your discussion, but I find it fascinating that, if anything, it was always intended that very few senators could/should hold up things. The Senate was intended to be the more deliberative and slow-moving body, and large latitude has always been given for the minority to shut things down with discussion. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Thanks, good point. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought that traditionally it was rarely used, usually only when there was a very strong difference over a particular policy. (Also, I believe there are still single-senator anonymous holds in the senate but those are a different thing). Filibustering every single routine bill to come through the senate out of cynical political game-playing is a travesty. These people swore an oath to serve the country, and they're disgracing their office with about 8/10 of the filibusters they're invoking.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      I believe you are correct in that the threat of a filibuster is being used way more with each passing year. (Might as well weigh in with an opinion) Part of this is because politicians just don't like each other that much anymore -- nobody gets together for poker or dinner parties. That's a shame, and it hurts the country. Part of it is that Congress is under incredible scrutiny by cable news outlets, talk radio, and the blogs -- people are being sent there to fight an ideological battle, perhaps to the exclusion of doing the nation's business. Both sides are keeping these long lists of grievances with the other side. Lots of bitterness and lack of trust. This isn't an unsolved problem, however. The Republic has a long history, and we've seen all kinds of partisanship in the past. Traditionally president of the party in power finds a few members of the opposite party and makes deals with them for bills. This usually ticks off the president's base, but it also splits the opposition and makes them ineffective. Once the opposition is split, moderates from both camps can join in to pass a bill with a dozen or so holdouts at both extremes voting against it. It's been done lots of times. Clinton very effectively did it when he announced "The era of big government is over" He took the other guy's issues and crafted bills that made it impossible for some of the other guys not to vote for them. Once he snagged a dozen or so Republicans, the rest of the process worked out fine. But it really ticked off his base! I'm not seeing that same strategy being applied today -- perhaps because it wouldn't work. I don't know. I tend to think it would have worked a year ago. It may be too late now. Beats me.
      - jbooth 17y ago
        The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bill? Even one that gave kittens to every republican in the country, spit in the eye of liberals and was named "the healthcare bill"? I posted below that republicans filibustered PAYGO rules and a deficit reduction committee... right after filibustering the routine raising of the debt ceiling. The republicans see a clear incentive to gridlock every single thing that goes through congress because they think people will blame it on the democrats. It's working out for them ok, so shame on us, I guess.

by chancho 17y ago

jbooth 17y ago

Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary -- the idea is that majority-rules is the norm, but for a given issue a minority can really dig their heels in as an added brake on the system. Adopting the filibuster as a matter of routine for nearly every matter before the senate, and hoping that the country will reward you for it by being disgusted with congress's lack of ability to get anything done, is not what they were envisioning when they enacted it.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary Political junkie history trivia interjection here. It used to be that any one senator could stop laws from passing. Later on cloture was reduced from unanimous consent to 2/3rd of the Senate. Finally it was reduced again to 3/5th of the Senate. There are lots of other issues here, and I didn't want to interrupt your discussion, but I find it fascinating that, if anything, it was always intended that very few senators could/should hold up things. The Senate was intended to be the more deliberative and slow-moving body, and large latitude has always been given for the minority to shut things down with discussion. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Thanks, good point. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought that traditionally it was rarely used, usually only when there was a very strong difference over a particular policy. (Also, I believe there are still single-senator anonymous holds in the senate but those are a different thing). Filibustering every single routine bill to come through the senate out of cynical political game-playing is a travesty. These people swore an oath to serve the country, and they're disgracing their office with about 8/10 of the filibusters they're invoking.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I believe you are correct in that the threat of a filibuster is being used way more with each passing year. (Might as well weigh in with an opinion) Part of this is because politicians just don't like each other that much anymore -- nobody gets together for poker or dinner parties. That's a shame, and it hurts the country. Part of it is that Congress is under incredible scrutiny by cable news outlets, talk radio, and the blogs -- people are being sent there to fight an ideological battle, perhaps to the exclusion of doing the nation's business. Both sides are keeping these long lists of grievances with the other side. Lots of bitterness and lack of trust. This isn't an unsolved problem, however. The Republic has a long history, and we've seen all kinds of partisanship in the past. Traditionally president of the party in power finds a few members of the opposite party and makes deals with them for bills. This usually ticks off the president's base, but it also splits the opposition and makes them ineffective. Once the opposition is split, moderates from both camps can join in to pass a bill with a dozen or so holdouts at both extremes voting against it. It's been done lots of times. Clinton very effectively did it when he announced "The era of big government is over" He took the other guy's issues and crafted bills that made it impossible for some of the other guys not to vote for them. Once he snagged a dozen or so Republicans, the rest of the process worked out fine. But it really ticked off his base! I'm not seeing that same strategy being applied today -- perhaps because it wouldn't work. I don't know. I tend to think it would have worked a year ago. It may be too late now. Beats me.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bill? Even one that gave kittens to every republican in the country, spit in the eye of liberals and was named "the healthcare bill"? I posted below that republicans filibustered PAYGO rules and a deficit reduction committee... right after filibustering the routine raising of the debt ceiling. The republicans see a clear incentive to gridlock every single thing that goes through congress because they think people will blame it on the democrats. It's working out for them ok, so shame on us, I guess.