What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

More and more pressure to get rid of the Senate Filibuster? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
So the House just passed the George Floyd Act: makes chokeholds illegal, attempts to hold bad cops responsible, etc. Republicans oppose. 

The House is going to pass a new voting rights act: would reverse state Republican new restrictions on voting, make voting easier and more accessible. Republicans REALLY oppose. In fact both sides are willing to go nuclear on this issue as it may decide who’s in power for decades to come. 

The House is going to pass a minimum wage act, raising to $15. Republicans oppose. 
 

None of these bills will pass the Senate under the current rules. Thus the pressure, ever growing, to do away with the filibuster. If they don’t, the Biden agenda is stalled; they will get the stimulus but very little else. But in order to remove the filibuster, every Democrat in the Senate has to on board. Right now they’re not. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema would both have to be talked into it. My two questions: 

1. Should the Democrats do away with the filibuster? 
2. Will the Democrats do away with the filibuster? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the House just passed the George Floyd Act: makes chokeholds illegal, attempts to hold bad cops responsible, etc. Republicans oppose. 

The House is going to pass a new voting rights act: would reverse state Republican new restrictions on voting, make voting easier and more accessible. Republicans REALLY oppose. In fact both sides are willing to go nuclear on this issue as it may decide who’s in power for decades to come. 

The House is going to pass a minimum wage act, raising to $15. Republicans oppose. 
 

None of these bills will pass the Senate under the current rules. Thus the pressure, ever growing, to do away with the filibuster. If they don’t, the Biden agenda is stalled; they will get the stimulus but very little else. But in order to remove the filibuster, every Democrat in the Senate has to on board. Right now they’re not. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema would both have to be talked into it. My two questions: 

1. Should the Democrats do away with the filibuster? 
2. Will the Democrats do away with the filibuster? 
We should debate the filibuster on its merits, not based on whether or not it happens to stall some particular piece of legislation or hampers some particular party that happens to be in the majority right at this moment.

It should be abolished regardless.

 
We should debate the filibuster on its merits, not based on whether or not it happens to stall some particular piece of legislation or hampers some particular party that happens to be in the majority right at this moment.

It should be abolished regardless.
Obviously you’re right but that’s not the reality. Some Democrats want it gone now in order to get these bills passed. I don’t believe they’re thinking any more deeply than that (though one guy ai heard on the radio asserted, without explanation, that the filibuster has always been used as a means to preserve racial prejudice and inequity. I didn’t understand.) 

 
Obviously you’re right but that’s not the reality. Some Democrats want it gone now in order to get these bills passed. I don’t believe they’re thinking any more deeply than that (though one guy ai heard on the radio asserted, without explanation, that the filibuster has always been used as a means to preserve racial prejudice and inequity. I didn’t understand.) 
Here's the racial inequality argument

 
The system was designed to make passing any law, difficult.

What was not planned for was, political parties... where running our government became a team sport with We The People are relegated to spectators who foot the bills for the games they play.

In George Washington's Farewell Address he warned his fellow Americans about the dangers of political parties. He said, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

He claimed the partisanship would lead to inter-political conflict, divide the nation, and give rise to cases of tyranny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The system was designed to make passing any law, difficult.

What was not planned for was, political parties... where running our government became a team sport with We The People are relegated to spectators who foot the bills for the games they play.

In George Washington's Farewell Address he warned his fellow Americans about the dangers of political parties. He said, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

He claimed the partisanship would lead to inter-political conflict, divide the nation, and give rise to cases of tyranny.
But he owned slaves or something.  

 
Removing the filibuster will go exactly how the Democrats plan it to go. Just ask Harry Reid.

I can't wait.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The system was designed to make passing any law, difficult.
It was not. The filibuster (which is derived from Dutch and Spanish words for pirates) was created by mistake. The Senate deleted a rule for majority vote for cloture in 1806. This allowed for unlimited debate until 1917 when a cloture rule was passed requiring 2/3 majority.

 
Joe Manchin with a very interesting response on Meet the Press this morning. At first he said he firmly believes in protecting the filibuster. Then when pressed by Todd, he said there’s no need to ever use reconciliation without FIRST exhausting the possibility of bipartisanship. 
 

So it sounds like he’s leaving the door open. If the Republicans refuse to work at all with Biden, he might just do it. 

 
Joe Manchin with a very interesting response on Meet the Press this morning. At first he said he firmly believes in protecting the filibuster. Then when pressed by Todd, he said there’s no need to ever use reconciliation without FIRST exhausting the possibility of bipartisanship. 
 

So it sounds like he’s leaving the door open. If the Republicans refuse to work at all with Biden, he might just do it. 
Your dots don’t connect.  He said try bipartisanship before using budget reconciliation.  That has nothing to do with doing away with the filibuster.  As he said last week, “what about never do you not understand?”

 
Just remember that whatever is done today that helps one oparty, will undoubtedly be used in the near future to help the opposite party.  I don’t like the the idea of such wild fluctuations in public policy.  The Senate was designed to be the more deliberate part of American government.  Let’s keep it that way.

 
Just remember that whatever is done today that helps one oparty, will undoubtedly be used in the near future to help the opposite party.  I don’t like the the idea of such wild fluctuations in public policy.  The Senate was designed to be the more deliberate part of American government.  Let’s keep it that way.
The "cooling off" mechanism was built in via having only 1/3 of them up for election every two years -- with six year terms instead of two years.  And the protections for small states meant that legislation would likely have to be supported by a wider variety of lawmakers.  Compared to the hot-blooded House.

Allowing a minority to permanently block the majority was never intended (as far as I know -- happy to learn something if I missed it).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The "cooling off" mechanism was built in via having only 1/3 of them up for election every two years -- with six year terms instead of two years.  And the protections for small states meant that legislation would likely have to be supported by a wider variety of lawmakers.  Compared to the hot-blooded House.

Allowing a minority to permanently block the majority was never intended (as far as I know -- happy to learn something if I missed it).
Have we really seen “a minority permanently block the majority?” 

 
Joe Manchin with a very interesting response on Meet the Press this morning. At first he said he firmly believes in protecting the filibuster. Then when pressed by Todd, he said there’s no need to ever use reconciliation without FIRST exhausting the possibility of bipartisanship. 
 

So it sounds like he’s leaving the door open. If the Republicans refuse to work at all with Biden, he might just do it. 
I dont follow this very close.  Did the Dems work with Trump?  GOP with Obama?  Dems with Bush? GOP with Clinton?

 
I dont follow this very close.  Did the Dems work with Trump?  GOP with Obama?  Dems with Bush? GOP with Clinton?
Yes, the Dems worked with Bush, and the GOP worked with Clinton.

Rank partisan obstructionism wasn't a thing until Mitch McConnell made it a thing during the Obama years.

Chuck and Nancy did try to work with with Trump -- occasionally with success (e.g., the first covid stimulus).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure this was posted up thread, but I missed it if so:

Manchin told Todd that he opposes eliminating the filibuster outright because he believes doing so would suppress the minority party’s input. However, invoking the procedure should be more “painful,” he said.

“Now, if you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I’m willing to look at any way we can,” Manchin said. “But I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”
There are so many reforms out there that sound interesting that this could go almost anywhere.  Some of them are pretty good at threading the needle Manchin's trying to thread there too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just remember that whatever is done today that helps one oparty, will undoubtedly be used in the near future to help the opposite party.  I don’t like the the idea of such wild fluctuations in public policy.  The Senate was designed to be the more deliberate part of American government.  Let’s keep it that way.
Keep it that way? It hasn't been that way since McConnell took over. This is what republicans want.

 
I'm sure this was posted up thread, but I missed it if so:

There are so many reforms out there that sound interesting that this could go almost anywhere.  Some of them are pretty good at threading the needle Manchin's trying to thread there too.
I am with Manchin here. I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the filibuster. However the filibuster is used way too often. Reform is needed 

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
I am with Manchin here. I think it would be a mistake to eliminate the filibuster. However the filibuster is used way too often. Reform is needed 
I've had a hunch since the election, when Biden, Manchin and Symena all came out 100% against eliminating the filibuster, that this was the long game and that they'd reform it.  I'm a little surprised that the $15 min wage wasn't the issue they did it with, but I bet if the choice is between HR1 or letting Republicans suppress enough votes to tip things even further in their favor (Dems have to win by ~3% to actually win the Presidency and House today - a simple majority doesn't get it done) they find a way to get HR1 through.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manchin hits the nail on the head with the "make it painful" comment.  Right now the mere "threat" of filibuster is enough.  That's garbage.  If you want to filibuster, then do it.  Stand up there and stumble through the words of "Cat in the Hat" if you have to.  MAKE them physically apply the filibuster.  

 
Manchin hits the nail on the head with the "make it painful" comment.  Right now the mere "threat" of filibuster is enough.  That's garbage.  If you want to filibuster, then do it.  Stand up there and stumble through the words of "Cat in the Hat" if you have to.  MAKE them physically apply the filibuster.  
Does anyone know the rules of the old-timey filibuster?  Could 40 Republicans each take turns making floor speeches for weeks?  Isn’t the reason we have the system of cloture so we don’t waste a bunch of time with this nonsense?  Reinstating talking filibusters seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.

 
Does anyone know the rules of the old-timey filibuster?  Could 40 Republicans each take turns making floor speeches for weeks?  Isn’t the reason we have the system of cloture so we don’t waste a bunch of time with this nonsense?  Reinstating talking filibusters seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.
I honestly don't know FG, and remember, I'm in favor of removing it completely but if they aren't going to remove it.....in this day and age with social media being what it is and the shaming that happens, it may seem like a step backwards, but I'm not sure it is.  It puts the petulant actions of individuals out there for the world to see and judge for themselves.  I'm not convinced that's a bad thing......yet.  :oldunsure:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know the rules of the old-timey filibuster?  Could 40 Republicans each take turns making floor speeches for weeks?  Isn’t the reason we have the system of cloture so we don’t waste a bunch of time with this nonsense?  Reinstating talking filibusters seems like a step in the wrong direction to me.
I don't think that's the idea, but haven't looked at the options for a while.

IIRC though, the idea would be that it would take 40 votes to continue debate, rather than 60 to end it.  So the minority/filibustering party would have to commit 40 members to the floor more or less continuously, or see debate closed.  Which would allow a vote to happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that's the idea, but haven't looked at the options for a while.

IIRC though, the idea would be that it would take 40 votes to continue debate, rather than 60 to end it.  So the minority/filibustering party would have to commit 40 members to the floor more or less continuously, or see debate closed.  Which would allow a vote to happen.
So anytime a Senator is in the middle of a floor speech and there are fewer than 40 Senators there, the presiding Senator could just end the debate?  Aren’t there fewer than 40 Senators in the chamber like all the time?  I’m still confused by the nuts and bolts here.

 
So anytime a Senator is in the middle of a floor speech and there are fewer than 40 Senators there, the presiding Senator could just end the debate?  Aren’t there fewer than 40 Senators in the chamber like all the time?  I’m still confused by the nuts and bolts here.
I'd have to look up the specifics of the 40-to-continue-debate option.  But there are a ton of ideas around filibuster reform, so what happens would depend on what flavor actually gets implemented.  I'm pretty sure you couldn't just cut someone off though.

And yes, there are many times where there aren't very many Senators in the chamber.  It would require a lot of dedication and some sacrifice to perma-block everything like McConnell did under Obama.  

 
There are a lot of really bad ideas supported by 50% of the population.  Ideas supported by 60% tend to be more solid.  Our laws would be better if we required there be 60% support.  Instead as soon as one side has 50.1% of the vote they rush terrible bills to the floor to be passed.  I would guess half of the stimulus package was garbage.  Obama care should have been much better, but it was rushed and no bipartisan input was involved.  

Of course I see most laws which get passed as government taking away some freedom.  We should be very methodical and work through ideas in a manner which considers all sides.  Instead we get laws rammed through and voted on where our representatives could not even tell us what half of the items in the bill are.  It is odd that what we call progressive today are things which grant government power and remove freedoms.  

 
Gee. Those who just scored an election win looking for any means possible to consolidate power.

Shocking.
Tough to take seriously comments like this when the people in here saying it needs to be gone have been saying so through times where both the GOP and Dems have each been in power at some point :shrug:   

 
Tough to take seriously comments like this when the people in here saying it needs to be gone have been saying so through times where both the GOP and Dems have each been in power at some point :shrug:   
Classic political power move. Nothing more, nothing less.  :shrug:

 
DaVinci said:
It was not. The filibuster (which is derived from Dutch and Spanish words for pirates) was created by mistake. The Senate deleted a rule for majority vote for cloture in 1806. This allowed for unlimited debate until 1917 when a cloture rule was passed requiring 2/3 majority.
:goodposting:

Cool history lesson. Read that, folks.

 
You were talking about the politicians not the people posting here?
Yes. I would prefer politicians improve their skills working within a time-tested institution... vs. weakening the institution with a blatant power grab that serves only the side who is in power at that particular time.

 
Please keep it.  Its a check-n-balance to force compromise.  Otherwise all we have is partisan decision/division making.

 
Yes. I would prefer politicians improve their skills working within a time-tested institution... vs. weakening the institution with a blatant power grab that serves only the side who is in power at that particular time.
Thanks for the clarification on who you were talking about.  As to "time-tested institution"...I'm not sure what that has to do with the filibuster given the fact that pretty much happened by mistake (or was an unintended result...being kind here).  I prefer it go away, obviously.  But if we insist that it stay around and not be a blatant power grab in and of itself (let's be honest, the fact that the mere suggestion of filibustering is pretty much the definition of blatant power grab, right?) then they need to stand on the Senate floor and do their official dog and pony for the entire world to see.  

 
Please keep it.  Its a check-n-balance to force compromise.  Otherwise all we have is partisan decision/division making.
When was the last time that any major bipartisan legislation passed?  The Patriot Act?
Thats a good question, one that I wont be able to answer.  I would say though, if you look at the last few times the filibuster was used, it seemed pretty meaningful.  Interesting read:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#The_two-track_system,_60-vote_rule_and_rise_of_the_routine_filibuster_(1970_onward)

Recent examples:  https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/filibusters-congress-chris-murphy

 
IMO the thing everyone misses about the filibuster is that Senators love it not because it protects the minority party. But because it protects the majority from votes they don't want to be on the hook for. It's not going anywhere.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Thanks for the clarification on who you were talking about.  As to "time-tested institution"...I'm not sure what that has to do with the filibuster given the fact that pretty much happened by mistake (or was an unintended result...being kind here).  
Whether it was a "mistake" or "unintended result" or part of the original Constitution is irrelevant. The fact it's been around in some form for 200 years speaks to its enduring usefulness in governing.

Legislation will not be durable or enforceable if passed by a transient, myopic, simple majority.

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA

Users who are viewing this thread

Top