The Senate Filibuster

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster b/c they view this as their chance to stack the deck with legislation that will make the Republican Party the minority forever. Ram through legislation like HR1 that make it difficult for Republicans to win elections in purple areas and impossible in blue areas.

Obama, Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi have all made comments that made the Senate filibuster as sacred and vital to compromise...until now...while they have the slimmest of majorities.

Biden in 2005:
“It is not only a bad idea, it upsets the constitutional design and it disservices the country...No longer would the Senate be that ‘different kind of legislative body’ that the Founders intended...no longer would the Senate be the ‘saucer’ to cool the passions of the immediate majority”




They are liars and hypocrites. All they want is power to control most of governing.

Biden says the filibuster has been abused. Could be. In 2020, the Democrats used the filibuster 327 times by the Democrats and Republicans once. But you never saw a serious movement by Republicans to eliminate the filibuster while they had Senate majorities. McConnell shut Trump down when he talked about it.

Now, Biden just regurgitates what those in control tell him to say. As he says, he “has no idea”.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
To anyone who wants facts, rather than hyperbole:

The Dems may attempt to alter the filibuster. They are discussing taking it back to a talking filibuster, something closer to what it was originally.

But, if you prefer the hair-on-fire emotionally-charged version, (THE DEMS ARE GOING TO KILL THE FILLIBUSTER!!!!!), then, by all means, please carry on with your spleen-venting.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,617
Reaction score
4,966
Points
113
To anyone who wants facts, rather than hyperbole:

The Dems may attempt to alter the filibuster. They are discussing taking it back to a talking filibuster, something closer to what it was originally.

But, if you prefer the hair-on-fire emotionally-charged version, (THE DEMS ARE GOING TO KILL THE FILLIBUSTER!!!!!), then, by all means, please carry on with your spleen-venting.

Talk turns into action. Just look what the dems did with the guns. Took them all away. Remember?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
Talk turns into action. Just look what the dems did with the guns. Took them all away. Remember?

Yep.

Black helicopter lands on your front lawn. Ominous knock at your door. Next thing you know, all your guns are gone.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,728
Reaction score
2,387
Points
113
Look, the founders and framers had a reason for the filibuster.

The idea was that major pieces of legislation should have a consensus - a solid majority behind them - because that would make it more likely that the legislation would be accepted by a majority of the public.

In theory, if only 51% of the Senate accepted something, then maybe it should be reconsidered.

Of course, that also supposes that the two parties would be capable of discussing, negotiating and bargaining in good faith to come up with a compromise that a 60% majority could accept.

if we are saying that the only way we can pass major legislation is for one party to control at least 60 votes in the Senate, then we simply are not going to pass a lot of major legislation.

quick check: times one party had 60 votes or more in recent history:
1975-79 Dems with 61 votes

Dems had 60+ votes every session from 1959 to 1969
Dems had 60+ votes every session from 1935-1943, including a 76-16 majority from 1937-39.

Further back, the Republicans had 60-vote majorities from 1907-11, and a number of times back in the 1800's.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
The Founders, Republicans, and the filibuster... way, way back in 2017, Mitch McConnell sang a different tune.

Madison, Hamilton, and Scalia: Original -- not nuclear -- option to end Gorsuch filibuster​


Describing the Article II, Section 2 appointment process, Justice Antonin Scalia’s famed Freytag v. Commissioner concurrence reads as prescient in the battle to fill his seat:

“A power of appointment lodged in a President surrounded by such structural fortifications could be expected to be exercised independently, and not pursuant to the manipulations of Congress.”

A Scalia-approved analysis of constitutional text and original history proves that the Constitution’s Framers intended only simple-majority confirmation votes.

With a simple-majority vote, Senate Republicans can end the Senate minority’s unprecedented partisan obstruction of the exceptionally well-qualified Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation.

Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) choice is a constitutional, indeed an originalist one — it is not “going nuclear.”

1787 Framers Intended Simple-Majority Senate Confirmation Votes

Constitutional Convention delegates went to 1787 Philadelphia to create a national government that would actually work. The Republic’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which vested Congress with all appointment responsibility, failed quite badly.

The Framers thus remedied the Articles of Confederation’s chief defect by formally separating executive authority from Congress. In both form and function, the Constitution was drafted to provide effective and practical governance through a strong Executive with a strong appointment choice prerogative.

The Senate’s job is to render a timely advisory consent to the president’s choice by a confirmation vote – “ratify or reject.”

The super-majority vote design of the Articles of Confederation failed also badly. Thus the 1787 Convention explicitly rejected general super-majority vote requirements.

The Framers allowed only five explicit exceptions to Senate simple-majority rule: 1. expelling members; 2. ratifying treaties, 3. overriding presidential vetoes; 4. convicting on impeachments, and 5. proposing constitutional amendments.

 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
Lol. You phoney asshole. Apply that to HR1.

The Framers allowed only five explicit exceptions to Senate simple-majority rule:

1. expelling members;
2. ratifying treaties,
3. overriding presidential vetoes;
4. convicting on impeachments, and
5. proposing constitutional amendments.

So, ummmmmmm... Lol.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
The Framers allowed only five explicit exceptions to Senate simple-majority rule:

1. expelling members;
2. ratifying treaties,
3. overriding presidential vetoes;
4. convicting on impeachments, and
5. proposing constitutional amendments.

So, ummmmmmm... Lol.
And we know The Fellas regard the Founders as perfect infallible people whose wisdom should never be questioned.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
HR1...

Shown Here:​

Passed House (03/03/2021)​

For the People Act of 2021

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,617
Reaction score
4,966
Points
113
We'll see what happens. Sounds like there are a few senate democrats opposed to getting rid of it. But if more states go the way of Georgia....trying to keep elections white....I think those dems will change their tune as well.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
We'll see what happens. Sounds like there are a few senate democrats opposed to getting rid of it. But if more states go the way of Georgia....trying to keep elections white....I think those dems will change their tune as well.

I hope that people like Manchin and Sinema will come to consider making the filibuster a talking filibuster once again, at the very least.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
Constitutional Convention delegates went to 1787 Philadelphia to create a national government that would actually work. The Republic’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which vested Congress with all appointment responsibility, failed quite badly.

The Framers thus remedied the Articles of Confederation’s chief defect by formally separating executive authority from Congress. In both form and function, the Constitution was drafted to provide effective and practical governance through a strong Executive with a strong appointment choice prerogative.

The Senate’s job is to render a timely advisory consent to the president’s choice by a confirmation vote – “ratify or reject.”

The super-majority vote design of the Articles of Confederation failed also badly. Thus the 1787 Convention explicitly rejected general super-majority vote requirements.
 

PhiloVance

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
280
Reaction score
166
Points
43
The filibuster is the bane of which ever party wants to force legislation without having to work across the isle.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
The filibuster is the bane of which ever party wants to force legislation without having to work across the isle.
Bipartisan government is dead. Either we reform the filibuster or we continue governing via continuing resolutions and Presidential Executive Orders for years to come.
 
Last edited:

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
...

If the Senate were anything approaching a democratic institution, however, the Democratic Party would have a commanding majority in Congress’s upper house. The Senate is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California — even though California has about 68 times as many residents as Wyoming.

Because smaller states tend to be whiter and more conservative than larger states, this malapportionment gives Republicans an enormous advantage in the fight for control of the Senate. Once Warnock and Ossoff take their seats, the Democratic half of the Senate will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.
...

It’s worth highlighting just how much of an advantage Republicans derive from Senate malapportionment. In the 25 most populous states, Democratic senators will hold a 29-21 seat majority once Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in. Republicans, meanwhile, have an identical 29-21 majority in the 25 least populous states.

The 25 most populous states contain nearly 84 percent of the 50 states’ total population. So 16 percent of the country controls half of the seats in the United States Senate (and that’s not accounting for the fact that DC, Puerto Rico, and several other US territories have no representation at all in Congress).

American democracy, in other words, is profoundly undemocratic. And it is undemocratic in large part because our Constitution does not provide for free and fair elections in the Senate. A commanding majority of the nation elected a Democrat to the United States Senate, but half of all senators will be Republicans.

Worse, because of the filibuster, virtually no legislation will pass Congress unless it wins the approval of at least 10 Republicans. If Senate Democrats all hang together, they will be able to pass an occasional spending bill through a process known as “reconciliation.” But no voting rights legislation, no legislation reforming the courts, and no legislation regulating business — or regulating much of anything else, for that matter — will pass Congress without at least some Republican approval.

 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
And Pelosi and Schumer names are different the tactics are the same.

We'll soon find out if they are "the same".

McConnell ditched the filibuster to get Gorsuch through. So if Schumer is really 'the same' as McConnell, Schumer and the Dems will kill the filibuster, too — just as McConnell and the Republicans did. Who knows; maybe the Dems will kill the filibuster in order to pass HR1.

IF they in fact do that, then, yes... that would be "the same".

Let's wait and see.
 

PhiloVance

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
280
Reaction score
166
Points
43
...

If the Senate were anything approaching a democratic institution, however, the Democratic Party would have a commanding majority in Congress’s upper house. The Senate is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California — even though California has about 68 times as many residents as Wyoming.

Because smaller states tend to be whiter and more conservative than larger states, this malapportionment gives Republicans an enormous advantage in the fight for control of the Senate. Once Warnock and Ossoff take their seats, the Democratic half of the Senate will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.
...

It’s worth highlighting just how much of an advantage Republicans derive from Senate malapportionment. In the 25 most populous states, Democratic senators will hold a 29-21 seat majority once Warnock and Ossoff are sworn in. Republicans, meanwhile, have an identical 29-21 majority in the 25 least populous states.

The 25 most populous states contain nearly 84 percent of the 50 states’ total population. So 16 percent of the country controls half of the seats in the United States Senate (and that’s not accounting for the fact that DC, Puerto Rico, and several other US territories have no representation at all in Congress).

American democracy, in other words, is profoundly undemocratic. And it is undemocratic in large part because our Constitution does not provide for free and fair elections in the Senate. A commanding majority of the nation elected a Democrat to the United States Senate, but half of all senators will be Republicans.

Worse, because of the filibuster, virtually no legislation will pass Congress unless it wins the approval of at least 10 Republicans. If Senate Democrats all hang together, they will be able to pass an occasional spending bill through a process known as “reconciliation.” But no voting rights legislation, no legislation reforming the courts, and no legislation regulating business — or regulating much of anything else, for that matter — will pass Congress without at least some Republican approval.


We'll soon find out if they are "the same".

McConnell ditched the filibuster to get Gorsuch through. So if Schumer is really 'the same' as McConnell, Schumer and the Dems will kill the filibuster, too — just as McConnell and the Republicans did. Who knows; maybe the Dems will kill the filibuster in order to pass HR1.

IF they in fact do that, then, yes... that would be "the same".

Let's wait and see.
You've proven my point.
 
Top Bottom