Ending the fillibuster...Good idea or bad...discuss.

I'm still trying to make up my mind.

I think that in theory this gives some power to the party in the minority.

But if it's just going to be used on every issue, then it doesn't really have any value.

appoint to the Supreme Court. Judges that hate liberty and fairness even worse than Scalia.

I remember many times they tried, and failed, because of the same DINOs who are currently holding up health care.

to bite you in the butt.

But when I think of the filibuster, I think of White supremacists trying to deny civil rights to African-Americans and other minorities. It should have been destroyed the moment Strom Thurmond opened his worthless fucking yap.

To change the Senate rules requires a supermajority of 67 votes.

but it still shouldn't be done!

sP

And, of course, the debate over the change can itself be filibustered.

The option that allows for a simple majority to change the rules involves the Senate parliamentarian ruling that filibusters are not allowed (which, of course, would be a lie). Then it only requires a simple majority to uphold the parliamentarian's ruling (which everyone would know was a lie).

This sets up a constitutional crisis since the courts could get involved on what was clearly a violation of the rules... except that Congress sets their own rules.

It most certainly wouldn't pass the smell test with the voters. We would very quickly discover that we got rid of a tool that we ourselves needed to use.

via parliamentary procedure. while it is not a technical rule change, it would set precedent and the Senate would move forward using that. referred to as nuclear option...it works...and should not be used...

sP

because the "parliamentary procedure" is to make a ruling that the Sun orbits around the Earth and then getting 51 Senators to agree with that ruling when it is challenged (and getting the courts to ignore the obvious).

There's no gurantee that the republicans would have succeeded in court with their "nuclear" option... but their parliamentary trick would be to claim that the filibuster doesn't apply in a particular situation because the Senate can't, by rule, ignore their constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

As I said... no gurantee that it would have made it through a challenge, but it was at least a plausible argument. No such plausibility exists to claim that the filibuster rule doesn't include normal legislation.

And yes, it should not be used even if it could be.

They're asking members to send an e-mail to Harry Reid pushing to change the rule.

isn't evidence that something is do-able.

There is just about zero chance of successfully getting rid of the filibuster rule.

And it could be devastating electorally. Most Democratic senators up for election next fall can likely be quoted at great length re: the importance of the filibuster. To kill it would be blatant hypocrisy.

And on a discussion board no less.

There are plenty of judges that never made it to the higher bench thanks to the filibuster.

Trust me, the tides will turn and we'll want that filibuster even if we hate it right now.

We should be under no illusion that our Senate majority will endure forever. The simple structure of the Senate (giving an equal voice to every state) means that Republicans are likely to retake control in years/decades to come. There are simply more red states than blue ones.

The filibuster was worth its weight in gold a few years ago... it shall be again.

The problem is the weakness of the Senate Majority leader. There are 58 Democrats, 1 independent who always votes with the Democrats o procedure, and that asshole Lieberman. If Reid cannot hold that coalition together on procedural votes then someone else needs to take his place. All this negotiating to get a procedural vote is crap.

to get rid of the fillibuster for standard bills, but leave it in place for court appointments?

In practice it would be a tougher sell. The Senate at least arguably has a constitutional duty to act on judicial appointments... there is no similar argument for regular legislation.

Besides... judges are at least as important. Your feelings on one vs the other will likely change if even a barely acceptable nominee is filibustered.

It is by its very structure and rules not a democratic institution. Senators representing as little as 10% of the population can block legislation. One Senator represents 700,000 people the other 10 million and they have the same power. Abolish the electoral college while you are at it.

:thumbsup: welcome to DU