POLL: Ditch the Filibuster?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The filibuster is obviously antidemocratic - since it requires a supermajority.

The filibuster has already been ditched for some things - like budget legislation and the confirmation of Justices.

The filibuster has been used to block legislation favored by a clear majority of Americans.

The filibuster has also been used as cover so that partisans can pass crappy, divisive "statement legislation" in the House, knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate.

Good reasons for ditching are obvious. Are there any good reasons for keeping it?

Should we ditch it?

 

[alaskanseminole]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, so I selected probably.

 

[gohawks50]

Filibusters have their place, but they should go back to how they were originally conducted.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, so I selected probably.

Clearly I need to brush up on my Sith lore.

I voted "absolutely" - albeit with some trepidation - because I am pretty much a democracy absolutist. In almost all cases, I'm going to favor any step in the direction of more democracy. And clearly ditching the filibuster is one such step.

The trepidation comes from the fact that ditching the filibuster makes an inherently undemocratic body - the Senate - more democratic. It's not entirely clear whether the math works in a straightforward manner. It could, for example, make it easier for bad, unpopular legislation to squeak into law. But my bet is that it will much more often enable good, needed, and popular legislation to overcome special interest, racist, and plutocratic influences.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Filibusters have their place, but they should go back to how they were originally conducted.

View embedded media

I have no problem with talking filibusters - as long as cloture only requires a majority vote.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I am not willing to give that up yet.

You realize if Trump wins the filibuster might be the only thing between us and the entirety of project 2025 being passed.

 

[bhawk24bob]

Filibusters have their place, but they should go back to how they were originally conducted.

View embedded media

I think we might find out that a lot of those that would filibuster right now are incapable of reading from the phone book

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I am not willing to give that up yet.

You realize if Trump wins the filibuster might be the only thing between us and the entirety of project 2025 being passed.

You realize that if Trump wins and the Rs have 50 votes in the Senate - which looks almost certain at this juncture - the Rs can and probably will ditch the filibuster on their own watch.

The presumption that if the Dems don't do it the Rs won't do it is ludicrous.

As a democracy absolutist, I don't care which side does it. It needs to go. It's a step in the right direction. We need more such steps but if we can't even take this easy one, how do we start the journey?

 

[nelly02]

I have no problem with talking filibusters - as long as cloture only requires a majority vote.

This is where I'm at with it. If they are going to have it done be lazy about it make them do the work to see it through

 

[Jerome Silberman]

It's an outdated practice in the current form. The era of higher standards and ethics when it worked is behind us, the Senate should probably reform their rules to reflect the times.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Keep the filibuster. Move it to 55%

This country can’t agree that the sky is blue greater than that percentage.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You realize that if Trump wins and the Rs have 50 votes in the Senate - which looks almost certain at this juncture - the Rs can and probably will ditch the filibuster on their own watch.

The presumption that if the Dems don't do it the Rs won't do it is ludicrous.

As a democracy absolutist, I don't care which side does it. It needs to go. It's a step in the right direction. We need more such steps but if we can't even take this easy one, how do we start the journey?

I am not sure they will unless they already have arranged it so they never lose the presidency again.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Keep the filibuster. Move it to 55%

This country can’t agree that the sky is blue greater than that percentage.

If needed to get movement, I could go along with that compromise. Or maybe a staged reduction. Fifty-five immediately, then 54 a year later, and so on.

At least a whiff of movement in the right direction.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It's an outdated practice in the current form. The era of higher standards and ethics when it worked is behind us, the Senate should probably reform their rules to reflect the times.

Best solution is to eliminate the Senate altogether. Or reshape it somehow to democratize the way it functions.

Unlikely. Not enough Americans actually support democracy.

 

[KFsdisciple]

I am not willing to give that up yet.

You realize if Trump wins the filibuster might be the only thing between us and the entirety of project 2025 being passed.

It ain't no fun when the rabbit has the gun

 

[DogBoyRy]

Best solution is to eliminate the Senate altogether. Or reshape it somehow to democratize the way it functions.

Unlikely. Not enough Americans actually support democracy.

Gold

 

[Tom Paris]

Filibusters have their place, but they should go back to how they were originally conducted.

View embedded media

This.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL...Manchin has rescinded his Harris endorsement over her support for dumping the filibuster.

"Shame on her. She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It's the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids....I think that basically can destroy our country and my country is more important to me than any one person or any one person's ideology. I think it's the most horrible thing."

What a massive load of equine excrement. "ONE PERSON'S IDEOLOGY" can hold the entire govt hostage under the current rules, Senator. And that single individual doesn't have to do anything except say, "I'm holding you hostage". Your POWER is more important to you than your country, Senator.

 

[Speedway1]

I am not willing to give that up yet.

You realize if Trump wins the filibuster might be the only thing between us and the entirety of project 2025 being passed.

Show us how DJT has stated anything about that 2025 other than he is not doing it.

 

[seminole97]

The filibuster is obviously antidemocratic - since it requires a supermajority.

The filibuster has already been ditched for some things - like budget legislation and the confirmation of Justices.

The filibuster has been used to block legislation favored by a clear majority of Americans.

The filibuster has also been used as cover so that partisans can pass crappy, divisive "statement legislation" in the House, knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate.

Good reasons for ditching are obvious. Are there any good reasons for keeping it?

Should we ditch it?

I think broader consensus makes for better laws.

 

[seminole97]

Best solution is to eliminate the Senate altogether. Or reshape it somehow to democratize the way it functions.

Unlikely. Not enough Americans actually support democracy.

Too many Americans idea of democracy is two muggers meeting you in an alley.

I want a government designed to protect the rights of individuals, not to be the cudgel of the mob.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Best solution is to eliminate the Senate altogether. Or reshape it somehow to democratize the way it functions.

Unlikely. Not enough Americans actually support democracy.

Increase the size of the House - double it at a minimum. Three quarters of a million people in one district is far, far too many.

Reduce the Senate to "advise and consent". All legislation starts in the House - Senators have to go through their state's House delegation if they want legislation introduced. If a bill passes with 60%, the Senate has no say. Less than 60%, it goes to the Senate and they can rework it but can add ZERO new legislation...their reworked bill is limited to what was in the bill they got from the House.

Senate legislation goes back to the House with two options - pass the Senate version with a simple majority or override the Senate with a 60% vote on the original bill. If the Senate doesn't act on legislation by a given deadline, it goes to the president's desk as-is...they can't just sit on a bill. Override of a presidential veto still requires 2/3 majority in both chambers.

Not a prayer of happening.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Increase the size of the House - double it at a minimum. Three quarters of a million people in one district is far, far too many.

Reduce the Senate to "advise and consent". All legislation starts in the House - Senators have to go through their state's House delegation if they want legislation introduced. If a bill passes with 60%, the Senate has no say. Less than 60%, it goes to the Senate and they can rework it but can add ZERO new legislation...their reworked bill is limited to what was in the bill they got from the House.

Senate legislation goes back to the House with two options - pass the Senate version with a simple majority or override the Senate with a 60% vote on the original bill. If the Senate doesn't act on legislation by a given deadline, it goes to the president's desk as-is...they can't just sit on a bill. Override of a presidential veto still requires 2/3 majority in both chambers.

Not a prayer of happening.

Some interesting ideas there, but I'd rather get rid of the Senate.

The "advise and consent" notion makes me think of the UK's House of Lords. We might be able to make something like that work here. Not the Lords part obviously, but the review part.

Suppose we let the House do its thing, then the Senate reviews it. If the Senate votes it down by 60%, then it's blocked (and the House can revise it and try again if they want to). That's sort of the opposite of how it works now - where legislation is blocked unless the Senate approves by 60%.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Show us how DJT has stated anything about that 2025 other than he is not doing it.

Please. Even you can't possibly believe his waffling faux-rejections of Project 2025.

He probably hasn't read it. Because, you know, he's Trump. But it embodies many of his positions.

If Trump is elected there will be plenty of pushing to implement Project 2025. And Trump will only push back if it costs him or makes him look bad

It would be foolish not to consider Project 2025 the best available blueprint of the coming Trump administration.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Joe Manchin just said he won't support Kamala Harris because she said she would support waiving the filibuster in order to codify Roe-type legislation protecting abortion rights.

Manchin called the filibuster the gold standard of democracy.

We have an anti-democratic procedure, the filibuster, in an undemocratic legislative body, the Senate, and Manchin claims it's the gold standard of democracy.

SMH

 

[Aardvark86]

I'm in the probably camp (with the caveat below).

1. First, begin with the proposition that the filibuster is not explicitly provided for by the constitution, but only indirectly by virtue of the Senate rules (which of course, do have some constitutional status in that the houses of congress can set their rules), and of course, by very longstanding tradition back to some of the earliest days of the republic. Beyond that, the Constitution speaks explicitly when it wants certain types of legislative actions to require supermajority approval.
2. Whatever one might think of it in terms of it at least being consistent with the constitutional design/intention of the senate as being a more deliberate body relative to the House, I certainly see no reason to have strengthened it in the ways that occurred between 1970 and the early 2000s, such that you only need to provide notice of it to foreclose action.
3. At the same time, where I've not actually thought about it enough is how it fits (or doesn't) in light of the fundamental shift to popular election of Senators beginning in 1913. I suppose that one might argue that the 17th amendment effectively signaled a shift to "more popular/democratic representation" rather than "popular representation and state representation", and thus one might argue that, if anything, we should move away from the filibuster due to its antidemocratic nature being against the broader trend. Or, you could consider it a guardrail against hyperdemocracy in effect at the time of the 17th amendment.
4. As a practical matter, it's a disincentive to developing consensus and an incentive to holding one's breath like a petulant child.

 

[abby97]

LOL...Manchin has rescinded his Harris endorsement over her support for dumping the filibuster.

"Shame on her. She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It's the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids....I think that basically can destroy our country and my country is more important to me than any one person or any one person's ideology. I think it's the most horrible thing."

What a massive load of equine excrement. "ONE PERSON'S IDEOLOGY" can hold the entire govt hostage under the current rules, Senator. And that single individual doesn't have to do anything except say, "I'm holding you hostage". Your POWER is more important to you than your country, Senator.

You’re wrong AGAIN.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

The filibuster is obviously antidemocratic - since it requires a supermajority.

The filibuster has already been ditched for some things - like budget legislation and the confirmation of Justices.

The filibuster has been used to block legislation favored by a clear majority of Americans.

The filibuster has also been used as cover so that partisans can pass crappy, divisive "statement legislation" in the House, knowing it will go nowhere in the Senate.

Good reasons for ditching are obvious. Are there any good reasons for keeping it?

Should we ditch it?

You belong in Gitmo.........

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You’re wrong AGAIN.

Explain.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

You’re wrong AGAIN.

Is this guy @Chishawk1425 ? Sounds about as incredibly stupid......

 

[abby97]

Explain.

The U.S. Senate has had some form of the filibuster since our inception and our forefathers knew this. It is designed to prevent one election from throwing the entire country into chaos. How could anyone plan for retirement in say 50 years, if they have no idea what tax laws or what the retirement age will be after the next election? How would our allies know what our international priorities will be if we change everything after every election?

Could we simply eliminate Medicade or Medicare or SS with a one vote majority? Our country needs to slowly evolve not completely change everything overnight.

 

[Rifler]

When real consensus can't be reached,.. manipulating an artificial consensus simply for the sake of doing something is not the solution.

 

[Scruddy]

My answer depends entirely on if it's "my party" in power. The current state of politics in this country..

 

[Aardvark86]

The U.S. Senate has had some form of the filibuster since our inception and our forefathers knew this. It is designed to prevent one election from throwing the entire country into chaos. How could anyone plan for retirement in say 50 years, if they have no idea what tax laws or what the retirement age will be after the next election? How would our allies know what our international priorities will be if we change everything after every election?

Could we simply eliminate Medicade or Medicare or SS with a one vote majority? Our country needs to slowly evolve not completely change everything overnight.

not quite from the inception, so the founders didn't think or say a lick about it actually. it was theoretically possible under rules from the 1800s, but never actually exercised until the 1830s

 

[tarheelbybirth]

When real consensus can't be reached,.. manipulating an artificial consensus simply for the sake of doing something is not the solution.

What does that even mean?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The U.S. Senate has had some form of the filibuster since our inception and our forefathers knew this.

That's not only wrong but I'm not sure it makes sense.