the modern filibuster is an effective tool for classic tyranny

[unblock]

tyranny is, simply put, when the will of the majority is overruled and replaced with the will of a minority.

traditionally, this happens when there's a monarch or dictator or small cabal of autocrats. however, it can happen whenever there's an authoritarian minority capable and willing to impose its minority policies on the majority that opposes it.

a "filibuster" broadly speaking, is any delaying tactic. we are used to talking about "the" filibuster, which is one particular senate rule, but really, any delaying tactic is a filibuster.

there may be wisdom in allowing a filibuster. *used properly*, a delaying tactic may allow more time to better reflect on a bill and craft something better. or it may expose an ill-advised bill, particularly something that may take away rights.

note, however, that most filibusters merely *delay* a procedure. they don't usually prevent it.


"the" filibuster, however, is different. it allows a determined minority to *indefinitely prevent* a bill from passing. not to merely delay it, but to prevent it entirely. and without exerting much effort, either. and thanks to our pathetic media, republicans don't even pay a price for their tyranny; in fact, they're rewarded for it as the media insists on focusing on democrats not being able to agree instead of republicans screwing the country.

this is an important distinction. republicans can and have abused the filibuster to prevent the majority in the senate from passing laws a majority of the people want.

that is classic tyranny.



at the bare minimum, the filibuster should be reformed so that it is merely a *delaying* tactic, rather than a complete *obstruction* tactic. that allows a determined minority from registering their opposition in a dramatic fashion, and may lead to a better bill; but it doesn't completely undermine the principle of majority rule.

[zaj]

1. So is the constitution.

We need *some* resistance to change in order to have enduring trust in any governance system. Comparing the filibuster to tyranny is toxic because it weakens the term tyranny exactly when we are threatened by it most.

Republians attempting to create a 1 party system by invalidating elections and rigging elections, that's tyranny. The filibuster is far more complex than to use that term.

[unblock]

2. to be clear, i didn't say the filibuster itself is inherently tyrannical

it's a tool, it's a procedure. that doesn't make in inherently evil or tyrannical or anything. it largely depends on how it's used.

the filibuster worked with comparatively minor problems for a long time, until the modern republican party started abusing it relentlessly. at that point, it started to be *used* in a tyrannical fashion.

the republicans are tyrants, and they are using the filibuster as a tool to further their tyranny, imposing their minority views on the majority.


the problem is that the modern filibuster makes it easy for a minority to completely prevent the majority from passing laws (without 60 votes, anyway). make it a mere delaying tactic, make it a more reasonable filibuster, and the senate might function as a (more) majoritarian institution.

[regnaD kciN]

3. As are the Electoral College, the design of the Senate...

…granting state legislatures the ability to decide how their presidential electors are allocated, etc., etc.

The fact is, as we’ve now come to realize, that the Constitution is deeply flawed in certain respects that, when manipulated, could ensure a system of permanent minority rule, flaws that were only papered-over by each party being committed, when it came down to it, to preserve the ideals of our system even their own partisan goals. Unfortunately, Republicans have now come to see, over the past five years, how to cement themselves in power if they were only willing to discard that higher purpose. And I’m really not sure how we can stop them.

[Amishman]

4. When they eventually get a narrow majority again, don't complain when they use this maliciously

They will get control again eventually, even if we survive the current gloomy outlook for 2022 and 2024.

Just wait until they use a voting rights filibuster carve out to reverse the changes we made, plus put in place voter ID, shred early / mail-in voting, and all the nasty little games they are playing in red states.

[unblock]

9. these are authoritarians who will to anything they can get away with up to and including a coup

if they ever have the presidency, never mind the trifecta, we're completely screwed regardless.

maybe if they completely lose elections and are powerless for 20 years or so they might moderate. mayyyybe. probably not.

if we try to appease them now, and at some point later they have the presidency, the house, and a 50-59 senate majority (which is when the filibuster really matters), *they will nuke the filibuster* no matter what we do now. they are not going to play nice with us at that point, they don't play nice now, why would they let the people they think are "socil1st trators" prevent their president and majorities in congress from completely turning america into a lunatic right-wing dystopia?

they believe in coups when the lose. they believe in making it harder to vote when they don't like how voters vote. why on earth would they believe in power-sharing with a democratic minority when they win?

if they win the trifecta, they will turn congress into an efficient rubber-stamp for the presidency, and democrats will be completely shut out. they will change all the rules so we never have power again.

they do not believe in democracy. they do not even believe non-republicans are real americans.

we cannot make the mistake of trying to appease them.

[kentuck]

5. There is nothing "democratic" about the filibuster...

And there is nothing Democratic about anyone that supports it.

Although, we can see how partisan politics can take over national Parties and there is always the chance of voting out of passions rather than reason. Is it still better to follow the majority, even if they are more passionate? History tells us that the majority is not always right.

However, what is the alternative? To be ruled by a minority in a democracy? That should not stand.

[BeckyDem]

6. Tyranny of the Minority: The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster

by Madeleine Polubinski

Excerpt:

The text of the Constitution and the history of Congress suggest that the filibuster as a debate-enhancing mechanism is constitutional. As legal scholar Michael Gerhardt argues, “the filibuster derives its principle authority from the Senate’s express power to design its own procedural rules to govern its internal affairs.” At its core, the filibuster regulates internal procedure, and thus the supermajority requirement for cloture is well within the Senate’s power.

Many scholars argue that cloture requirements reflect many of the principles underlying the Senate. Despite its potential for abuse, the filibuster, fundamentally a mechanism to continue debate, embodies the Senate’s deliberative nature. Although the Constitution makes no mention of a filibuster, the process has a long history dating back to 1806, which some argue proves its legitimacy. Furthermore, the filibuster may enhance protections of minority interests and promote consensus, producing more agreeable and thorough legislation.

However, the filibusters’ debate-promoting potential is inextricable from, and ultimately overshadowed by, its obstructionist implementation. For more than a century, senators have exploited cloture rules to stall Congress or block legislation altogether. Filibusters have become less about debate and more about grandstanding for media attention or simply killing time to stall a bill. After exhausting relevant topics, which are rarely genuine efforts for further deliberation, speeches often devolve into unrelated topics that range from discussions of salad dressing recipes to recitations of each states’ voting laws.

When considering the filibuster as a supermajority requirement for regular legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional.2 As a textual matter, the Constitution appoints the Vice President as the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, providing that they “shall have no Vote unless [the Senators] be equally divided.” This provision implies that the Senate must pass regular legislation by a majority vote. The Framers of the Constitution, while concerned with tyranny of the majority, generally favored majority rule except for certain cases. In fact, the specification of supermajority requirements in the Senate elsewhere in the Constitution, like for the ratification of treaties, indicates that the Framers never envisioned a supermajority rule for regular legislation.1

https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/tyranny-of-the-minority-the-unconstitutionality-of-the-filibuster/

[unblock]

7. as a practical matter, though, the senate can impose simple majority rule at any point

all it takes is using a simple majority to bypass or limit or completely eliminate the filibuster.

but they call this the "nuclear option" and it's a "big deal" politically. as an institution as a whole, the senate is doing this to itself by failing to muster a simple majority to make simple majority rule the only requirement.

so, if the filibuster as currently constructed is unconstitutional, who has standing to sue and how would the supreme court rule? surely, if they even heard the case at all, the court would say the senate already has the power to impose simple majority rule so why should the court intervene in the internal matters of another branch? and how would that get enforced, anyway?

interesting analysis from an academic perspective, but i don't see it being helpful in practice, unfortunately.

[BeckyDem]

8. It was not written to be practical, imho.

But I get your point. One significant problem with the Senate and with politics, in general, is what motivates them? Who/what are they defending? When your policies don't win you elections, you need to cheat at the ballot box. So it may take us winning more seats and then eliminating the filibuster.

I will leave that for individuals to determine. Yet, I do believe Biden was speaking to that yesterday when he pointedly asked, how do you want to be remembered..who are you standing with?

[unblock]

10. indeed. sadly, the right wing is motivated by a desire to be part of a fascist movement hellbent on

destroying american democracy and replacing it with one-party rule.

democracies in europe tried appeasement and patience far too long and allowed hitler to grow strong before finally realizing they needed to go all out fighting them.

hopefully it doesn't come to that, but there needs to be powerful opposition to the right wing.

nothing else works.

i think biden gets it, i think pelosi gets it. the senate? ugh....

[BeckyDem]

11. I agree and it is damn anxiety provoking.

[unblock]

12. i remember the first time i saw foxnews on the tv at a local business

asked to change the channel and they said the boss says it has to stay on foxnews all the time.

i knew then and there where the right wing in america was headed. we've been completely negligent in fighting their propaganda and today's republican party is the price we pay.

and i don't know how it doesn't get worse.

[BeckyDem]

13. Vigilance.

My hope is deriving from the number of people who voted for Biden over Trump and then despite the Big Lie, the judiciary that looked at every claim of voter fraud and proved there was none. Some of those judges were Trump appointees, they still said no fraud.

How much longer will it stay that way? That is what makes me anxious and why we must pass these strong voting rights laws.

Fingers crossed and all that.

[unblock]

14. Yes. It is good that good people are finally waking up to the huge threat upon us.

It's a really, really good thing Donnie was as incompetent as he was. Had he been more capable, we'd already be past the point of no return.

We can't let them have another chance. We need strong protections. Not just at the federal level either. They're screwing too many states already.