The Fight in the Senate Over Ending the Filibuster

F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
I find this debate quite interesting, primarily because gun groups, like the GOA think (as do I), that it's an extraordinarily bad idea to end the filibuster, because the filibuster is the only thing that has stopped many ill-conceived gun bans, as well as the fact that the next time the Dems are in power, such a change will bite the Repubs in the arse bigtime; whereas, on the other hand, I'm getting bombarded by 'conservative' groups of many flavors (not just religious conservatives) to get on board to support ending the filibuster. Hmmmm.....
 
IMHO...the filibuster is a fine tool for holding up legislation. The fewer laws passed by any party, the better. When it is applied to the voting on the nomination of judges or other appointees, it is unconstitutional. The constitution calls for advice and consent of the senate for nominees, not stonewalling thru proceedural BS.
The filibuster as its applied to the nomination process keeps the Senate from fufilling its constitutional obligation. YMMV
 
Pardon the stupid question, but could someone please explain what a filibuster is? I have read various descriptions and somehow still can't seem to put it together.

Tim
 
A fillibuster is a delaying tactic whereby senators speak for hours on end with the goal of preventing a vote on a bill (or recently, on a nomination).

There is no rule that requires the speech to have anything to do with the bill being considered. During the old days, senators would read from the phone book or the Sears catalog or recite Shakespeare for days at a time.

Cloture is the only way to end a fillibuster, and it requires 60 votes.
 
I hate the idea. Fillibuster is a great tool and ending it will backfire. However, I don't like the senate version. If they want to fillibuster, then they need to get up and talk for days, read shakespeare and the Federal tax code.

I also question whether Fillibuster should be done in committee. I believe it should take place on the open floor of the senate.
 
Traditionally during a filibuster, all other Senate business comes to an immediate halt while a Senator, or group of Senators, holds the floor by speaking without ceasing. But a "gentlemen's agreement" between the parties in the 1980s allows the Senate to continue to address other legislation and nominations while stalling only the controversial issue in question. All the minority party must do to block a vote is to announce that they are filibustering the issue, and the majority party has to start counting to 60 (3/5 of the Senate).

Imagine watching Democrats on C-SPAN every night speechifying on irrelevant points just to delay the nomination process. Consider how Charles Schumer would look reading from the New York City phone book. Picture Hillary Clinton tallying up the names of "people of interest" who mysteriously died during the Clinton years. She might even read a list of the women that her husband has "philandered with" over the years.

Dumping this "gentlemen's agreement" is what is needed, not the so-called "nuclear option," changing the rules of the Senate. For obviously selfish reasons, the Republicans are not interested in doing this. In my mind, they are as much to blame as the Democrats are for the current situation.

I'm disgusted with all of 'em! :barf:
 
Dumping this "gentlemen's agreement" is what is needed, not the so-called "nuclear option," changing the rules of the Senate.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right - a filibuster should be a filibuster of the traditional kind - making endless pointless speeches on CSPAN so that everyone in the country can see what party is holding up what and can then debate why, and whether it's worth it. I doubt Chuck Schumer can read the tax code, but it'd be fun to see him try!
 
When it is applied to the voting on the nomination of judges or other appointees, it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
If it is "unconstitutional", why would a rules change be needed? It strikes me that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of how the goverment operates.


People throw around that term as if it were "unsavory". "Unconstitutional" has a little bit more concrete meaning than that.
 
I think this "ending the filibuster" is a media-perpetuated hype tactic. The issue at hand is whether judicial nominations should be allowed to be filibustered when the votes are there to appoint them. This won't affect the general filibusters, but the media wants to make it seem that way because they hate Republicans basically.
 
Handy,

If you read my entire post you would understand that it is my opinion that using the mechanism of the filibuster to stall the nomination process thwarts the ability of the Senate to fufill their constitutional obligation of advise and consent. I believe that's fairly concrete.

If you have a different opinion, we would like to read it. ;)
 
The Senate also has a constitutional obligation to pass legislation. Yet filibusters are not prohibited for either.

How's that? ;)
 
If the Republicans take the Nuclear option, the democrats have threatened to basically shut down the government. Now I personally think that is a fine idea. As long as they aren't doing anything in DC, I am going to feel a lot safer.

Long live the government shutdown!
 
Not so good...

The Senate is under no obligation whatsoever to 'pass' legislation. It has options...pass, reject or refuse to act upon. It is, however, constitutionally obligated to provide its advice and consent regarding Presidential nominations. Its my opinion that any proceedural hoop jumping which interferes with fufilling this obligation goes against the Constitution. Next batter... :)
 
So no talking is actually required during the fillibuster? That oughta be changed. And only the controversal issue held up? No way. If something is important enough to hold up, everything else oughta be held up too. And that person oughta be up there getting good at poetry or something.

Maybe if someone got up there and started to read the tax code, it would get things changed ;)
 
As far as I'm aware, there is no affirmative duty for the Senate to provide their advice & consent. Obtaining the advice & consent of the Senate is a Constitutional requirement for the President to appoint an ambassador, but I'm not aware of any affirmative duty for the Senate to provide it.

Art. II, section 2, paragraph 2:

...and he (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls...​

Batter up.
 
The Republicans need to remember that they're not going to be in power forever. The day may come when they'll need to filibuster.

Perhaps Frist is thinking of employing the "nuclear option," getting Bush's nominees appointed, and then voting to bring back the filibuster.
 
I think the Republicans are thinking that they can influence the Supreme Court and the other judiciaries for years and years to come, and not worrying about the fact that some day the house will be democratic controlled and then the worm will turn. Shortsighted? Yep. Abnormal? Nope.
 
I agree with some earlier posters: Either filibuster (as in speak non-stop/no other business in progress) or get off the pot! If the situation were reversed, does anyonre think the Dems wouldn't "take THEIR high road," and end this process "for the good of the children"???? They're just upset 'cause its being done unto them, first.

The Democratic Party has been a consistent loser at the polls in recent years (decades?), with only rare exceptions. They can't muster the executive & legislative muscle to forward their socialist aims. Judicial activism is the Dems' only hope! The thought of conservative judges and justices, who actually read and interpret the laws of OUR land (as opposed to foreign laws . . . :mad: ) is more than they can stand!

Invoke the "nuclear option;" RETURN to traditional procedures. Do it for the children!! :D
 
Senate Filibuster!!!

So much for the will of the people... Just where in the Constitution does it say Filibuster is a way to conduct business? Why not have a straight up or down vote on ALL the peoples business? :confused: :mad:
 
Shooter,

The nature of the Constitution is NOT to tell us what we CAN do, but what we cannot. I think we're better off leaving things as close to original as possible, without adding new rules every time a minor crisis emerges.

There has never been a law or ruling suggesting that the filisbuster, judicial or otherwise, is anything but legal and healthy congressional behavior.

If the nominees are so objectionable to cause the representatives of nearly half the people in the US to go as far as a filibuster, that suggests that maybe they aren't the right nominees for ALL the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top