The Senate Filibuster

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
It’s almost like the early framers recognized ugly and frustrating compromise and slow moving legislation is desirable...unchecked power and groupthink is not necessarily a good thing.

The Framers?

Nope.

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.

 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
KGF is panicking that the Dems might do the exact same thing 🐢 Mitch and the QOP will do the first time it suits them.
McConnell could’ve done it in 2016 after he became Majority Leader. He flatly refused Trump’s urging to eliminate the filibuster. You aren’t smart.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
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.
Harry Reid “ditched” the federal judicial filibuster. McConnell warned him not to do so b/c it would force a response from Republicans when they had the majority. He used it on the Supreme Court b/c Dems were totally unwilling to provide consent for conservative judges when recent history showed Republicans were willing to confirm liberal justices with 68 and 63 Senate votes for Sotomayor and Kagan respectively. 93 voters for RBG. Dems suck!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
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.

True, the Founding Fathers didn’t envision just how big the government could become without some procedure to encourage negotiation and compromise from opposing sides. They must have thought 6 year Senate terms would aid collegiality. Sadly, they underestimated partisanship and certainly couldn’t haven’t anticipated the 24 hour news cycle and mass media’s destruction of common sense.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
23,617
Reaction score
4,966
Points
113
Harry Reid “ditched” the federal judicial filibuster. McConnell warned him not to do so b/c it would force a response from Republicans when they had the majority. He used it on the Supreme Court b/c Dems were totally unwilling to provide consent for conservative judges when recent history showed Republicans were willing to confirm liberal justices with 68 and 63 Senate votes for Sotomayor and Kagan respectively. 93 voters for RBG. Dems suck!

But but but but but.....THAT WAS FAIR AND OK!!!
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
McConnell could’ve done it in 2016 after he became Majority Leader. He flatly refused Trump’s urging to eliminate the filibuster. You aren’t smart.
The only reason he didn't is because he didn't need to in order to pass his priorities. He could pass tax cuts and repeal the ACA without it.

He would have nuked part of it to get his precious precious SCOTUS justices and he'd have done the same for tax cuts if he had to. Only a fraud would pretend otherwise.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
Harry Reid “ditched” the federal judicial filibuster. McConnell warned him not to do so b/c it would force a response from Republicans when they had the majority. He used it on the Supreme Court b/c Dems were totally unwilling to provide consent for conservative judges when recent history showed Republicans were willing to confirm liberal justices with 68 and 63 Senate votes for Sotomayor and Kagan respectively. 93 voters for RBG. Dems suck!
93 votes for RBG? In 1993? That's your proof of QOP being reasonable? Fraud.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
The only reason he didn't is because he didn't need to in order to pass his priorities. He could pass tax cuts and repeal the ACA without it.

He would have nuked part of it to get his precious precious SCOTUS justices and he'd have done the same for tax cuts if he had to. Only a fraud would pretend otherwise.
howie logic. He didn’t do it, so that’s proof of guilt. You’d make a great wife for someone.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
93 votes for RBG? In 1993? That's your proof of QOP being reasonable? Fraud.
I guess you missed the part about Sotomayor and Kagan who received numerous GOP Senate votes even though they’re extreme liberals.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,725
Reaction score
1,924
Points
113
The Framers?

Nope.

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.


That article is an opinion from a lawyer (which is what they do - interpret the law to their POV or whomever hired them for their current gig).

Excerpted from another view that points out the history, hyprocrisy of some of our political heroes...turns out opinions on the filibuster seem to evolve on political convenience. Hard to believe.

The filibuster is more a “relic” of the Julius Caesar era than the Jim Crow era. In ancient Rome, the filibuster was used to force the Senate to hear dissenting voices, including the opposition of Cato the Younger to Julius Caesar returning to Rome. The foundation for the filibuster here can be traced to an argument of former Vice President Aaron Burr that led to a rule change in the early 19th century. Senators in the minority have used different versions of the rule to block or force compromises on controversial legislation, ranging from war measures to oil regulations. It was not created in the Jim Crow era.

 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
I guess you missed the part about Sotomayor and Kagan who received numerous GOP Senate votes even though they’re extreme liberals.
"Numerous.". John Roberts got 22 Dem votes. Sotomayor got 9 R votes. Kagen got 5. Gorsuch still got 3 D votes even though the seat was stolen. How many will Biden's first pick get? 0 or 1. Fraud.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
howie logic. He didn’t do it, so that’s proof of guilt. You’d make a great wife for someone.
Mitch has shown he will do anything to achieve his goals. Repeatedly. Including bowing and kissing the ring of an amoral incompetent fool. No stupid Senate rule will stop him.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
22,198
Reaction score
2,266
Points
113
It should revert to the talking filibuster with the proviso that the oldest member of the minority party (Chuck Grassley currently, I think) has to do the talking.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,113
Reaction score
3,930
Points
113
howie logic. He didn’t do it, so that’s proof of guilt. You’d make a great wife for someone.
This is actually par for the course with Howie. In this case he claimed something would happen and after you provide evidence it didn’t happen he replies with some verbal gymnastics on how it not happening is actually proof that it would have happened. Seriously.

In his defense, he has never been wrong. It’s looked like he was wrong many times - but then he just points out that others are lying or he lets us in on “the only reasons it didn’t happen” like here. Whew. Oh yeah, then he yells that you are a liar and a fraud. Honestly, there can’t be anyone on this site that takes Howie seriously at this point.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
This is actually par for the course with Howie. In this case he claimed something would happen and after you provide evidence it didn’t happen he replies with some verbal gymnastics on how it not happening is actually proof that it would have happened. Seriously.

In his defense, he has never been wrong. It’s looked like he was wrong many times - but then he just points out that others are lying or he lets us in on “the only reasons it didn’t happen” like here. Whew. Oh yeah, then he yells that you are a liar and a fraud. Honestly, there can’t be anyone on this site that takes Howie seriously at this point.
howie completely follows the logic of our current president. ‘I’m a unity president. But you are divisive if you disagree with me and you force me to cancel you.’
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
1,254
Points
113
My concern is that at some point the right is going to say they are out. I recall during the election when i was mocked on gh for being worried that the filibuster was in peril. Now reports are that The Migrant President is seriously debating what to do about the filibuster.

We saw on Jan 6 that the right acted like the left has always acted. Especially if dc becomes a state, voting laws are liberalized, supreme court is expanded, and certain guns are banned, the right could very well imitate the left again. Which might be the end of our country.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,144
Reaction score
2,627
Points
113
My concern is that at some point the right is going to say they are out. I recall during the election when i was mocked on gh for being worried that the filibuster was in peril. Now reports are that The Migrant President is seriously debating what to do about the filibuster.

We saw on Jan 6 that the right acted like the left has always acted. Especially if dc becomes a state, voting laws are liberalized, supreme court is expanded, and certain guns are banned, the right could very well imitate the left again. Which might be the end of our country.
I’ve been posting about my concern for the elimination of the filibuster for some time. Just as McConnell has since the GOP took the majority.

howie said it would never happen b/c there are too many moderate Dems to get it passed. 🙄 Now he rationalizes doing away with it. And he calls me a “fraud”? 🤣

I don’t think it’s going to happen b/c as attention on it increases, a couple Dems will spare us. But it’s a lot closer than was imagined.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
2,635
Points
113
I certainly hope Manchin and Sinema don't plan to stand idly by while Republican legislatures around the country deliberately and systematically disenfranchise millions of Americans.

At least return to a talking filibuster.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
1,254
Points
113
I’ve been posting about my concern for the elimination of the filibuster for some time. Just as McConnell has since the GOP took the majority.

howie said it would never happen b/c there are too many moderate Dems to get it passed. 🙄 Now he rationalizes doing away with it. And he calls me a “fraud”? 🤣

I don’t think it’s going to happen b/c as attention on it increases, a couple Dems will spare us. But it’s a lot closer than was imagined.

Maybe not. They are looking at cutouts. Could Manchin go along with those?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
My concern is that at some point the right is going to say they are out. I recall during the election when i was mocked on gh for being worried that the filibuster was in peril. Now reports are that The Migrant President is seriously debating what to do about the filibuster.

We saw on Jan 6 that the right acted like the left has always acted. Especially if dc becomes a state, voting laws are liberalized, supreme court is expanded, and certain guns are banned, the right could very well imitate the left again. Which might be the end of our country.
You're defending the right attempting to overthrow the government by saying they were only "acting like the left"? Really? And if they do it again it's just them saying "I'm out"?

Disgusting.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
52,975
Reaction score
10,482
Points
113
I’ve been posting about my concern for the elimination of the filibuster for some time. Just as McConnell has since the GOP took the majority.

howie said it would never happen b/c there are too many moderate Dems to get it passed. 🙄 Now he rationalizes doing away with it. And he calls me a “fraud”? 🤣

I don’t think it’s going to happen b/c as attention on it increases, a couple Dems will spare us. But it’s a lot closer than was imagined.
They're not coming for your guns. At most they'll carve out an exception for the voting rights bill. Most likely they won't even do that. They'll just make Lying Ted read Suess to uphold the filibuster.

It's amusing watching you freak out about it though.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
Bipartisan government is dead. Either we reform the filibuster or we continue governing via continuing resolutions and Presidential Executive Orders for years to come.
No country -- by definition, supposedly a unified group of people -- was ever designed to work with the population being so close to evenly split and diametrically opposed, on so much.

Agree that we need new mechanisms for government, in these times.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
23,497
Reaction score
5,609
Points
113
It’s almost like the early framers recognized ugly and frustrating compromise and slow moving legislation is desirable
They would unanimously agree that what we currently are at, is way too slow and broken compared with what they intended.

I speak for them, as much as you do.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
1,254
Points
113
You're defending the right attempting to overthrow the government by saying they were only "acting like the left"? Really? And if they do it again it's just then saying "I'm out"?

Disgusting.

The left defends looting/burning. Right would never do this. My concern is that removing the filibuster would lead to the deck being stacked to the point where the right no longer has a chance at power. At that point the right might check out. End of country.
 
Top Bottom