6 ms·

I rather like the filibuster. Admittedly I am not a politically minded person, but I’ve always felt there needs to be a brake on the tyranny of the majority. Ho

I rather like the filibuster. Admittedly I am not a politically minded person, but I’ve always felt there needs to be a brake on the tyranny of the majority. However, the filibuster does seem to have created an overly powerful minority in many instances. Doing away with all of it feels dangerous with no good alternative. Perhaps if we abolished the Senate altogether….

redis_mlc 5y ago
The Senate is working as intended, and since the House will be Republican in about a year, I don't think you really want the changes you're proposing.
theluketaylor 5y ago
That's why they need to go back to the talking filibuster rather than abolish it altogether. Right now all anyone has to do is claim they will filibuster something and it grinds debate to a halt; there needs to be a cost associated with using such a powerful tool of obstruction. The talking filibuster would require a senator to stand up and speak for hours and hours on end, wasting everyone's time and burning all their bridges on gathering co-sponsors for the work they want to get done. They would have to care very deeply to invoke such a measure and that would allow the majority to pass laws but retain the ability for the minority to delay and stop legislation they see as truly extreme.
jfengel 5y ago
The Constitution incorporates several brakes already, via separation of powers. Any bill requires the Senate and the House and the President. Even on the rare occasions where you have a majority of all three, that majority has to be in agreement -- often unanimous, if the majority is narrow, which it practically always is. You don't always see that dissent. It's easier to let the opposition filibuster a bill than voice opposition from within your own party. If the filibuster didn't exist, you'd see more instances of single nay votes preventing passage. So ending the filibuster would not come anywhere near creating a tyranny of the majority. It would just shift the balance a bit. It just so happens that that is also political, since there are ideological patterns of people who want to use the legislature to create change versus those who prefer to maintain the status quo.

redis_mlc 5y ago

The Senate is working as intended, and since the House will be Republican in about a year, I don't think you really want the changes you're proposing.

theluketaylor 5y ago

That's why they need to go back to the talking filibuster rather than abolish it altogether. Right now all anyone has to do is claim they will filibuster something and it grinds debate to a halt; there needs to be a cost associated with using such a powerful tool of obstruction. The talking filibuster would require a senator to stand up and speak for hours and hours on end, wasting everyone's time and burning all their bridges on gathering co-sponsors for the work they want to get done. They would have to care very deeply to invoke such a measure and that would allow the majority to pass laws but retain the ability for the minority to delay and stop legislation they see as truly extreme.

jfengel 5y ago

The Constitution incorporates several brakes already, via separation of powers. Any bill requires the Senate and the House and the President. Even on the rare occasions where you have a majority of all three, that majority has to be in agreement -- often unanimous, if the majority is narrow, which it practically always is. You don't always see that dissent. It's easier to let the opposition filibuster a bill than voice opposition from within your own party. If the filibuster didn't exist, you'd see more instances of single nay votes preventing passage. So ending the filibuster would not come anywhere near creating a tyranny of the majority. It would just shift the balance a bit. It just so happens that that is also political, since there are ideological patterns of people who want to use the legislature to create change versus those who prefer to maintain the status quo.