An unpopular thought about the filibuster...

[TreasonousBastard]

Last edited Sat Jun 5, 2021, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

So, the filibuster is racist, is it? It certainly was used by Dixiecrats in the 60s to try to derail civil rights law.

But, it was used in the Roman Senate and in the British Parliament. France, too. And some others. Racism there, too?

The tyranny of the majority was one of the things most feared by the founders, and our entire system is set up to mitigate its effect. The three independent branches of government and bicameral legislature were specifically set up to avoid one faction from taking over. The filibuster simply added to the original plan.

Now, politics is an ugly business, and no one seriously believes that the events of Mr. Smith goes to Washington could ever happen. But, just as the Senate is a defense against the House going crazy, the filibuster is one way, perhaps the only way, to stop the Senate from going crazy.

Do we need that one last step before a veto, or years before the courts look at it? I think we just may. Not the craven way it was used for the last 10 years, though. Bring back the days-long yakking on the Senate floor. Bring back the cots. This simply threatening filibuster to force cloture is the cheapest of cheap shots.

Besides Wikipedia and a few Federalist papers, I found this pretty good wrap-up of the whole thing. No doubt more are out there.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/20/politics/what-is-a-filibuster/index.html

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

1. The filibuster is supposed to be about continuing debate

If that’s the case then the filibustering party needs to hold the floor and actually debate their objections...also it shouldn’t require 3/5 of all senators to stop a filibuster, but 2/5 of present senators to continue the filibuster. I am all for keeping it if these two simple changes are added

[brush]

3. It's was not intended by the framers, which is why it's not in...

the Constitution. The US Senate and the Electoral College are the only two places in the nation where the minority rules (see the recent 54-35 vote against a Jan. 6 commission). The 35 votes against prevailed and won against the 54 votes for.

Ridiculous. Get rid of as the founders never envisioned any such thing. Nor did they favor regressive parties such as the obstructionist GOP.

[WHITT]

2. Except

The tranny of the majority was one of the things most feared by the founders...

Our 'Founding Fathers' vehemently OPPOSED super-majority vote requirements.

...our entire system is set up to mitigate its effect

No, the filibuster is NOT in the constitution, nor was it envisioned by our 'Founding Fathers'. The first filibuster did not happen until 1837.

[moose65]

4. The filibuster has become SO overused, though

The Founding Fathers never said a word about the filibuster, that I know of. It never happened until 1837.

I don't think the British Parliament uses it in the same way. To them, "filibustering" is wasting time to delay the inevitable.

I could get behind two reforms - reverse it and make 41 Senators vote to continue debate, instead of 60 to end the debate. And, make them actually debate the issue. If they want to "continue debate," then they need to actually DO it. They can't just stand there and read the phone book, either. They have to actually debate the issue at hand.

Do I think this would come back to bite us in the future? Probably. But Democrats haven't used the filibuster the way the Republicans have, at least not in recent years.

Republicans have abused it and taken it to such extremes. They need to be STOPPED.