5 ms·

This is very important and a great use of a filibuster. Help Senator Wyden to stop this bill!

trusche 15y ago
Agreed. I added my name even though it is very unlikely to get this far. But on the off chance that he'll actually be required to take the floor, I'll be watching C-SPAN.
grandpa 15y ago
As a non American, this confuses me. If I've understood it correctly, a filibuster is a way to suspend the normal democratic process when you don't like the way a vote is likely to turn out. I just can't find a way to think of that as a good thing. Am I missing something? Why do people like filibusters?
- Jwsonic 15y ago
  I'm an American and I've never understood this either. It's been around since the start of our democratic process, but these days it just seems like a counterproductive tactic.
  - chc 15y ago
    It's weird and kind of annoying, but it's the only real counter against somebody ramming a bill through Congress. Having a perfect Congress would be more optimal, but you know, you make laws with the legislators you have, not the legislators you wish you had.
- trusche 15y ago
  In principle, you are right, a filibuster seems to run counter to democratic principles. However, given the realities of how Congress works, I personally have no trouble using the instruments available to stop the even more undemocratic influence of money in politics, which IMO is what this whole process is all about.
- tansey 15y ago
  The power of a filibuster is that it forces the opposition to experience pain, slowdown, and increased public scrutiny. It prevents bills from being passed quickly and silently. However, it's a risky move on the part of the filibustering senator, as continued use will cause the lawmaking process to grind to a halt and potentially cost you the next election. It's thus only wise to use it sparingly and when the public is clearly on your side.
  - noahc 15y ago
    This isn't necessarily true. The senate has a 'two-track' system that allows them to move on and address other issues where they have two bills on the floor at the same time.
- pnathan 15y ago
  It can be thought of as a tactical nuclear option. You don't want to do it, but in critical situations where the passage of the law needs to be halted for a time for debate and backroom wheeling and dealing.... A filibuster calls scrutiny on the law in progress and being able to run a filibuster signifies strong support.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Actually, the nuclear option has for some time been used to describe eliminating the filibuster, and was actually partially triggered recently. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nucl...
- noahc 15y ago
  The Senate is seen as the place for reason to hold over the demands of the common people. In other words, the senate is more conservative (in the Burke not Reagan sense). What the filibuster does is makes America more conservative by requiring a super majority (60%). New laws by very nature are liberal (in the Burke, not Reagan sense again) and this is why conservatives tend to like it. The major benefit of it is that it prevents (in it's present day form) small majorities from passing important legislation. You need at least 60% in the Senate.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    "New laws by very nature are liberal." I sense that this was said without the slightest hint of irony.
    - sp332 15y ago
      GP meant conservative in the "don't rock the boat" sense, which is very confusing and misleading in the context of politics where the word "conservative" generally means something else.
      - noahc 15y ago
        Is there a better way of explaining it? I thought Burke and Reagan were good examples.
        sp332 15y ago
        You might say "progressive" or "reform" politics instead of "liberal".
      - InclinedPlane 15y ago
        Sure, I get that. The irony I see is that in the same breath he ties "new laws" to an increase in liberalism. Which is either a gross misestimation of the nature of most new laws or a gross perversion of the very idea of a "liberal" society. More so if we take the more classic meaning of the term (in the Locke, not Clinton sense).
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  A filibuster can be used to block legislation that only has a bare majority of support in the Senate. If legislation has the support of more than 60 senators then no filibuster can stop it. It can be a good thing in that it raises the bar for passing legislation and protects minority but still popular opinions.
- adestefan 15y ago
  You have to remember that the framers of the US Constitution were terrified by tyranny of the majority, where majority can be defined as a majority of the people or a majority of the States. The House of Representatives was devised to be the majority for the people while the Senate was devised to be the majority for the States. This was done so the Senate could put the brakes on the House ramming through what the majority of people wanted, while the House could stop the Senate from jamming through what a majority of the States wanted. Because of this dynamic the Senate is usually seen as the body that is more careful and deliberate in their business. Keep in mind the Senate was not elected by direct vote until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Instead it was up to each State to select their two Senators and was never meant to be a democratic body.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  If I remember correctly the filibuster is a way for a very large minority to protect itself from the (potentially just above 50%) majority. In other words it is undemocratic in the same way the admemdments to the constitution which protects the individual/minority against the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers were very, very, very well educated so they pretty much found all the ways liberty had been subverted throughout history from Greece through the Roman Republic (the Romans themselves were extreemly paranoid about one person holding power) and its fall into the Roman Empire, all the ways the kings of England had subverted the people liberty (fun fact, you can plead the fifth, have a the right to speedy and public trial, etc as a way to prevent another Star Chamber). In summary, yes it is undemocratic. But democracy is potentially at odds with liberty and freedom. And the Founding Fathers backed liberty over democracy.
- m_myers 15y ago
  Watch the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington for an example of a filibuster in action (and to see a great movie, too). James Stewart as a freshman senator holds the floor to try to stop a political machine's crooked scheme. It's a Frank Capra movie, so take it with a grain of salt. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/
- neutronicus 15y ago
  It seems like you know about filibusters, but not about Cloture. A filibuster can be ended if a 60% supermajority of the senate votes for Cloture. Basically, what the filibuster does is prevent the passage of any bill that 41-49% of the senate really, really does not want passed. People like it because it makes the distinction between having a majority (51% of the Senate) and a mandate (60% of the Senate).

Agreed. I added my name even though it is very unlikely to get this far. But on the off chance that he'll actually be required to take the floor, I'll be watching C-SPAN.

grandpa 15y ago

As a non American, this confuses me. If I've understood it correctly, a filibuster is a way to suspend the normal democratic process when you don't like the way a vote is likely to turn out. I just can't find a way to think of that as a good thing. Am I missing something? Why do people like filibusters?

Jwsonic 15y ago
I'm an American and I've never understood this either. It's been around since the start of our democratic process, but these days it just seems like a counterproductive tactic.
- chc 15y ago
  It's weird and kind of annoying, but it's the only real counter against somebody ramming a bill through Congress. Having a perfect Congress would be more optimal, but you know, you make laws with the legislators you have, not the legislators you wish you had.
trusche 15y ago
In principle, you are right, a filibuster seems to run counter to democratic principles. However, given the realities of how Congress works, I personally have no trouble using the instruments available to stop the even more undemocratic influence of money in politics, which IMO is what this whole process is all about.
tansey 15y ago
The power of a filibuster is that it forces the opposition to experience pain, slowdown, and increased public scrutiny. It prevents bills from being passed quickly and silently. However, it's a risky move on the part of the filibustering senator, as continued use will cause the lawmaking process to grind to a halt and potentially cost you the next election. It's thus only wise to use it sparingly and when the public is clearly on your side.
- noahc 15y ago
  This isn't necessarily true. The senate has a 'two-track' system that allows them to move on and address other issues where they have two bills on the floor at the same time.
pnathan 15y ago
It can be thought of as a tactical nuclear option. You don't want to do it, but in critical situations where the passage of the law needs to be halted for a time for debate and backroom wheeling and dealing.... A filibuster calls scrutiny on the law in progress and being able to run a filibuster signifies strong support.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Actually, the nuclear option has for some time been used to describe eliminating the filibuster, and was actually partially triggered recently. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nucl...
noahc 15y ago
The Senate is seen as the place for reason to hold over the demands of the common people. In other words, the senate is more conservative (in the Burke not Reagan sense). What the filibuster does is makes America more conservative by requiring a super majority (60%). New laws by very nature are liberal (in the Burke, not Reagan sense again) and this is why conservatives tend to like it. The major benefit of it is that it prevents (in it's present day form) small majorities from passing important legislation. You need at least 60% in the Senate.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  "New laws by very nature are liberal." I sense that this was said without the slightest hint of irony.
  - sp332 15y ago
    GP meant conservative in the "don't rock the boat" sense, which is very confusing and misleading in the context of politics where the word "conservative" generally means something else.
    - noahc 15y ago
      Is there a better way of explaining it? I thought Burke and Reagan were good examples.
      - sp332 15y ago
        You might say "progressive" or "reform" politics instead of "liberal".
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      Sure, I get that. The irony I see is that in the same breath he ties "new laws" to an increase in liberalism. Which is either a gross misestimation of the nature of most new laws or a gross perversion of the very idea of a "liberal" society. More so if we take the more classic meaning of the term (in the Locke, not Clinton sense).
InclinedPlane 15y ago
A filibuster can be used to block legislation that only has a bare majority of support in the Senate. If legislation has the support of more than 60 senators then no filibuster can stop it. It can be a good thing in that it raises the bar for passing legislation and protects minority but still popular opinions.
adestefan 15y ago
You have to remember that the framers of the US Constitution were terrified by tyranny of the majority, where majority can be defined as a majority of the people or a majority of the States. The House of Representatives was devised to be the majority for the people while the Senate was devised to be the majority for the States. This was done so the Senate could put the brakes on the House ramming through what the majority of people wanted, while the House could stop the Senate from jamming through what a majority of the States wanted. Because of this dynamic the Senate is usually seen as the body that is more careful and deliberate in their business. Keep in mind the Senate was not elected by direct vote until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Instead it was up to each State to select their two Senators and was never meant to be a democratic body.
tomjen3 15y ago
If I remember correctly the filibuster is a way for a very large minority to protect itself from the (potentially just above 50%) majority. In other words it is undemocratic in the same way the admemdments to the constitution which protects the individual/minority against the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers were very, very, very well educated so they pretty much found all the ways liberty had been subverted throughout history from Greece through the Roman Republic (the Romans themselves were extreemly paranoid about one person holding power) and its fall into the Roman Empire, all the ways the kings of England had subverted the people liberty (fun fact, you can plead the fifth, have a the right to speedy and public trial, etc as a way to prevent another Star Chamber). In summary, yes it is undemocratic. But democracy is potentially at odds with liberty and freedom. And the Founding Fathers backed liberty over democracy.
m_myers 15y ago
Watch the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington for an example of a filibuster in action (and to see a great movie, too). James Stewart as a freshman senator holds the floor to try to stop a political machine's crooked scheme. It's a Frank Capra movie, so take it with a grain of salt. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031679/
neutronicus 15y ago
It seems like you know about filibusters, but not about Cloture. A filibuster can be ended if a 60% supermajority of the senate votes for Cloture. Basically, what the filibuster does is prevent the passage of any bill that 41-49% of the senate really, really does not want passed. People like it because it makes the distinction between having a majority (51% of the Senate) and a mandate (60% of the Senate).