Thoughts on the filibuster

[shogunhb]

On the surface, a filibuster seems like heavy-handed obstructionism.  On the other, we just saw it used to excellent effect last night to block an anti-abortion bill in Texas, despite numerous and repeated shenanigans.  Many of my dear friends see this as an exception to an otherwise cumbersome and deplorable tactic

Comments

[etherial]

Back when they had to listen to Democrats talk, the Republicans were going to eliminate the Filibuster from the U.S. Senate. Now that all they have to do is announce their desire to obstruct and a bill fails, the Republicans are all for it.

In principle, I like the filibuster, though the current situation in in Washington leaves something to be desired. ATM, a bill has to have 60 votes Aye in order to even be voted on.

[benndragon]

I feel like the fundamental problem there is apparently no one is willing to force a filibuster. Make them earn their obstructionism, for crying out loud.

[zombie_dog]

I just wish it didn't depend so strongly on the mental and physical stamina of a single person.

[londo]

I'm not a fan of that either, but I'm happier with that than I am with it depending on, say, a single person's finances.

[bluegargantua]

Yeah, but in the US Senate/Congress a filibuster means you need to be up there talking. If you stand athwart the path of the legislation, you have to stand up there and do it. Most filibusters in the Senate are simple motions -- no one has to stand up and ramble on, they just hand in an IOU and that's pretty much forced a 2/3rds majority requirement on every issue and it's preventing all sorts of work (good and bad) from taking place.

So. There should be a filibuster, but you have to actually do the filibustering.

later
Tom

[neuromancerzss]

You seem to be making an assumption that a bill has to be something people really care about to earn a filibuster. I don't see a problem with a minority veto, but it has to have a cost or limitation on use.

[ext_2040507]

These are reasonable arguments in favour of the result of the filibuster, but I'd argue it's an inefficient way for a legislature to go about obtaining them. If you're in favour of the 2/3 majority to pass a bill, it should be universally applied, not just to 'contentious' legislation - otherwise you're in danger of disenfranchising a minority when they don't have the media or political savvy to make enough waves. Personally I'm uncomfortable with requiring more than a simple majority, but there's no problem with it in principle.

Making it a voting rule will also mean a good saving on time, too - I'm not too well acquainted with US procedures on how time is set aside for the session and whether or not a debate can overrun into the next bill's allotted time, but one way or another spending extra time on a filibuster is going to end up with less time overall for actually debating and voting on legislation.

[londo]

In the US Senate, it's very difficult to end debate on a topic. This was by design, the Senate was supposed to be the slower, more deliberative body. The idea of ending debate with a supermajority was only really put into play in 1917, and in '75 they changed it from 2/3 required to 60 percent required. Only in the last decade has it become nearly common practice.

Filibustering doesn't happen in the US House. In the House, it's pretty much as the Speaker of the House calls it, all the time.