With a talking filibuster, a senator has to be present, identify themselves, and then obviously do the talking part. You don't think that would stop a lot of them from attempting it as compared to basically raising their hand and saying "filibuster!"?
I'm not. It would still have to be invoked, which would happen a lot less frequently. (See Hito's post.) Just looking at how common it has become under the current rules will show you that.
That is a fair point, but one thing that DOES change is that now everyone can see that a bill could have been brought to a vote but ISN'T because Senators X, Y, and Z got up to filibuster it.
If I haven't been clear, it's the distinctly recent pattern of abuse that people are bemoaning, not the historical nature of it. This recent pattern is the result of recent rule changes, and those rule changes can be reformed.
What does the historical nature have to do with anything? The impression I've gotten from people complaining about the filibuster is the sixty-vote threshold. The Senate wasn't designed to be a supermajority institution, and hasn't operated as such throughout its history.
haha that would be pretty fucking cool.
Because until recently it hasn't been as easy or painless to filibuster something!
They already are. Right now. Just for the hell of it. It's why so many seats in government remain unfilled because "fuck it, block that shit".
Exactly. If they truly want to block shit for hours nonstop so be it. A talking filibuster allows the country to see it. The threshold won't be 60 votes once cloture is enacted
If a Senator filibusters – talks, "blah blah blah." – stops filibustering, the threshold is still sixty votes.
Because when such things die blood is on somebody's hands. They can't go "well, washington just can't get anything done these days!" and shrug their shoulders, hoping voters keep voting them in. It's not like these budget bills where people are confused as to what side is what. With a filibuster you take ownership. You're telling the country "this bill died because I killed it!".
Votes are 50+1. It's just getting to the actual vote that's the challenge. Cloture to force a filibuster to end and get to the actual vote of 50+1 takes 60 to invoke. If a filibuster stops then debate is over and it's 50+1.
So we should have to wait for another election after the voters have their say (again) in order to enact that particular piece of legislation? I don't agree with that. I'm not willing to wait another election, if the Democrats sweep one election, in order to pass a public option. This is in addition to what I think amounts to you guys overestimating a potential public backlash from open filibusters. Politicians take unpopular positions all the time, either because they're in a safe state or because they overestimate the preferences of their voters in one way.
I disagree, but I'm not saying the easiness of the current filibuster isn't a problem. Everyone here would care far less about how easy it is to filibuster if all it took was 50+ votes to end debate. Republicans could've filibustered, and thus force cloture, as much as they did in the 111th, but if it weren't for that sixty-vote threshold, Medicare buy-in, the Disclose Act, and a climate-change bill all would've passed.
Right...so ending the sixty-vote requirement.
Which is what we're talking about, but it does not take 60 votes to close debate, but 60 votes to force an expedited but not immediate close. It can close on its own too without 60 votes.
I thought we went over this? As I said before, think back to LBJ and the Civil Rights Act, and this is still applicable because this rule hasn't changed. The Civil Rights Act didn't pass because Southern Democrats filibustered and after they were done the Senate reverted to 50+ to end debate and pass the bill. Otherwise it would've been done before 1964. No, Civil Rights passed because LBJ achieved the necessary 67+ to end debate. The only thing that has changed since then is the threshold.
If cloture is required to get a vote then how did the Senate pass anything in the past 200 years?
Your argument is indeed naive as I have explained. Democrats defend the status just as republicans do, and the filibuster helps them do it. And Lieberman alone didn't kill Medicare buy-ins, Rockerfeller plus most of the senators I listed did too. With respect to the other issues...a cap and trade energy bill wouldn't pass with pure democrat support either. Tack off both W Virginia senators, the southern democrats, etc.
I think the broader point is conservative Democratic opposition wouldn't have been enough to block more liberal bills from passing if bills could pass by simple majority.
You haven't explained anything, PD. Plus I just schooled you in Senate rules, son!
Nope. Lieberman.
I think it could've passed. Rockefeller was safe, and so was Byrd or his replacement (whoever was the temporary senator), but not necessarily Byrd's seat. Democrats were less willing to fight for the environment than healthcare, but I think it still could've passed.
Right. To end debate, it takes three-fifths of the chamber because on the most important issues you're not going to get unanimous consent, which I've said before. It's far more complicated than "nothing would have passed" (and nothing did for a while after FDR until LBJ became majority leader in the Senate, and of course his presidency). Barely anything significant, that is. From the Senate's website.Dax, you have me digging through stuff on Senate rules and procedure when I could be watching a movie lol. The rule you're referring to is about petitions to end debate, or in other words, cloture, but given that instances of cloture have been recorded and can be graphed as follows:
It is readily apparent that cloture petitions are not required to bring a bill to a vote, or nothing would have been passed prior to 1970. Basically from what I can tell, what would normally happen is that after Senators exhaust their list of amendments to propose, it is then ordered by Unanimous Consent Agreement (that is, without objection) to be read a third time and then open for voting.
Seems I was wrong, then, but so were you as it says there that Rockefeller was for a healthcare public option. Meaning a Medicare buy-in could've passed if it only required 50+ votes. Which was my point.
Just like they passed a major healthcare bill that raised taxes without Republican support.
Besides passing ACA and all that.
I had called you out on it, dear.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46517365&postcount=5582
Whatever. I saw no tension in the responses and still don't, nor was I banned or warned (which typically happens when someone makes out of bounds comments on that issue), nor did other posters jump on me (which would also happen, rightfully so). As I said earlier if I offended I apologize, it wasn't my intention and my post history is quite tolerant.
I would think that a lot of people who post in this thread simply roll their eyes at your usual antics, so I wouldn't think others would care in the first place.