General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOkay, now about that Senate Filibuster thing...
It needs to be reformed. It was never meant to be used like this. But none of our political ancestors ever foresaw a day when one of the political parties would put party before Country, and deliberately obstruct everything the majority party tries to do (including things THEY support) in order to make things as bad as possible, all for the sake of politics.
Well, that's the reality now, and we have to deal with it.
Some facts:
The filibuster cloture rules are not in the Constitution. They were adopted as Senate rules BY the Senate, and can be revoked by the Senate. The question is, politically, what's the most realistic way to do it? Here's my suggestion.
There are three options:
1. Eliminate it entirely.
2. Switch it back to the way it was...where you actually had to stand and hold the floor, as long as you were physically able to, if you want to filibuster.
3. Do nothing, and leave the rules the way they are.
Option 1 won't fly because it has tradition on its side. It conjures up images of an exhausted Jimmy Stewart holding the Senate Floor for the sake of poor kids in 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'
Option 2 WILL FLY, because...well, because it conjures up images of an exhausted Jimmy Stewart holding the Senate Floor for the sake of poor kids in 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'
Option 3: Can we all agree that we will give NO QUARTER to any Democratic Senator who pushes for Option 3? If you advocate leaving the Senate filibuster rules alone...BAM! You're so far out of the Party that even Joe Leiberman will refuse to be seen with you!
The advantage of Option 2 is that it doesn't eliminate the Filibuster. It just returns it to its original intent. Something that you'd only do if you believe in it strongly enough to hold the floor for 20 hours, with shaking legs and an exploding bladder, reading from the phone book, until you physically drop onto the floor and have to be carried out on a stretcher.
It doesn't eliminate the filibuster, it just returns it to it's ORIGINAL FORM. It has tradition on its side, AND it eliminates its casual use as a tool for paralyzing government.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)that if the Democrats retained the Senate, he would, during that brief transition between congresses make a change to the filibuster rules. I don't remember what his fix was but I hope he hasn't forgotten his promise.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)about it. You know...what we used to call 'sailing kites' to see how the political wind is blowing.
But the 'fix' is simply to take a vote to eliminate the 60 vote cloture rule at the start of the next Senate Session, and then see if the Congressional parliamentarian accepts the majority vote to eliminate it. (ie-51 Senators voting to eliminate it, rather than insisting it be 60.) That's why it's so critical to get all the Democratic Senators in line, given that they'll probably only have a bare majority of 51. One 'contrarian' like Lieberman could sink the whole thing.
Response to TrollBuster9090 (Original post)
Capt.Rocky300 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lakerstan
(679 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)Add a 50 million (or more) intertube's petition to it. (Dunno how to do that, but many other DUers know for sure).
Done.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)something like if it went back to the way it used to be that it would be the Democrats that would have to have a bunch of members in the chamber but that the republicans could get away with having just a few at a time in the chamber.
I can't remember exactly what it was ... but there was a catch to it.
Maybe someone else remembers.
My brain is a bit mushy right now
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)If the Republicans want to filibuster, each member would have to stand on his feet talking until he became physically exhausted. Let's say there were 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats. That means that, assuming each Republican can only endure that for 24 hours, the worst they could do is HOLD UP legislation from being voted on for (24h X 49 Senators=49 days). They could DELAY legislation that way, but not block it entirely. Meanwhile, there will be wheeling and dealing and negotiations behind the scenes. Basically, this is exactly what happened when LBJ brought in all the Civil Rights legislation in the 60s. It was delayed by opponents in the Senate (both parties), but not blocked entirely.
Here's the catch: You can only hold up the vote for as long as you can hold the floor, but you can call for a vote anytime you like. So, the Republicans could try a 'sneak attack' and arrange to have all 49 Republican Senators come back in the middle of the night when they know there aren't 51 Democratic Senators in the building...hold the vote and defeat the bill. So, in order to prevent that from happening, all 51 Democratic Senators would have to sleep in their offices given that a 'surprise vote' could be called at any time.
Okay, so the Senators from both Parties would have to start putting some HEART into their jobs, instead of just leaving the Senate as a comfortable old boys club. If the Democrats really want to pass something, they'll have to be prepared to live in their offices for a month. And if the Republicans want to BLOCK something, they'll have to be prepared to stand on their feet and talk until they drop from exhaustion.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Now add 51 sleeping bags to the petition!
(I'm serious!)
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)That was the original reason for "cloistering" the Cardinals inside the Vatican, and not letting them out until they'd elected a Pope. Otherwise, it would take them YEARS to chose a Pope. So, whenever they have an election for a new Pope, they set up a bunch of cots inside the Vatican and lock them all in. Every day they'd have a vote, and if they failed to reach a majority they'd burn the ballots with wet straw so the people outside would see black smoke. If they elected a Pope they'd burn the ballots with dry straw to give white smoke.
Do that with the Senators. Lock 'em all inside the Capitol Building until the law is either passed or defeated.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)and moderates who saved their comfortable derrières one more time.
And add a group of good volunteers to deliver them 3-times a day 'take-out' meals (pizza), tea, coffee, et al (no cocktails).
Buns_of_Fire
(17,193 posts)Otherwise, they might decide they LIKE this filibustering thing, and they'd NEVER come out -- except when it's time to campaign for re-election.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Volunteers for America, ALL FIRED UP AND READY TO GO needed here!
#1- Online petition to collect 50 million signatures (or more).
#2- 50+ sleeping bags with 50+ tags with the 50+ States+DC (+PR?) printed on 'em.
#3- Team of good volunteers to pamper 50+ Senators for weeks. (Need intertube-fundraising campaign?).
...
#4- Done deal. (Then).
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... the republicans wouldn't.
I think it was Reid that was talking about that a while back.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And tags representing all 50 (+) states. One for each.
TrollBuster9090
(5,955 posts)Maybe old veteran soldiers could donate the sleeping bags. I remember that my Grandfather had actually saved his WWI sleeping bag! I inherited it! I was amazed that it was not only warmer than any modern, polyester sleeping bag, but it could also be compressed down into the size of a pillow. No big, puffy, Gortex and nylon monster. Just a little khaki thing in an oilcloth bag.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Thanks for sharing! We all know the 'newer' stuff (Made in China) is deliberately made to last what, a few months (or years, if it's not cheap)?
doccraig67
(86 posts)Except for some dumb mistakes by Tea Party candidates, we wouldn't have control. I say reform the filibuster to a Mr. Smith goes to Washington model. We don't want to give Republicans a chance to have complete control with 51 votes someday.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)didn't they?
Newsflash: They Don't Ask Anybody's Opinion When They Want To Do Something (bad): they Just Do it.