I'm not liking this filibuster discussion and this has me nervous

[LynneSin]

Don't get me wrong, we need to do something about the filibuster. It's bullshit that EVERYTHING needs to have 60 votes to pass in the senate. There is way too much obstructionism being done in congress.

But what goes around comes around and one day the GOP may get control of the senate yet again. I know the dems are not perfect filibustering judges but they did keep a few of the more extreme judges off of the bench. But if we didn't have the current filibuster things could have been alot worse.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Yes there are risks, but those are risks worth taking.

[Salviati]

7. Indeed. Historically the fillibuster has been used much more often to block progressive change,

than to stop regressive policies. If the Iraq War resolution or the patriot act had been filibustered then maybe I'd be having second thoughts, but IMO the fillibuster as a rule harms us more than it helps us. It's a trade I'm more than willing to make.

[OldDem2012]

2. JMHO, but right now we need less talk and more action from the Senate....

...and we desperately need that for the next four years to combat the crap we know will be coming out of the House.

[ananda]

3. Exactly..

What happens when the Dems are on the other end and need to filibuster?

[John2]

8. Then

you need to trust voters. The Republicans base is diminishing if they keep pandering to this certain group. The United States is changing and the seismic shift is demographics. The minority is becoming the majority every year. If you believe states like Texas is teetering, then look at the change in politics also. The Republicans will have to move with it and realize taking orders from Rush Limbaugh and Fox will destroy their Party. They are living in an Alternate Universe where things go on as usual and nothing changes. Just like they don't believe in Science, they don't believe in evolution either. This time the evolution of Demographics in the United States.

[ret5hd]

4. I liked the ideas elswhere on DU...

where the filibuster is modified, not eliminated. For example, after X number of filibusters in a session, it goes away. This would force the minority to use the filibuster wisely instead of on everything. I realize there might be problems with this method, but it is a start.

[virtualobserver]

5. the Dems rarely stand up to block using the filibuster

it is simply too easy for repubs to obstruct with the current system, and they are firmly committed to obstruction. Democrats can win all of the political arguments, but they can't defeat secret filibusters.

[Morganfleeman]

6. The filibuster is not in the constitution,

Period. Nothing in the Constitution requires 60 votes to pass a bill. If you want a filibuster, then let's do the old school way and have politicians look like fools reading names out a telephone book until they are blue in the face. That will leave a lasting impression in voter minds.

[MiniMe]

9. I agree with you

Don't do away with the filibuster, but some kind of reform is needed. Make them stand up and talk if they want to filibuster, make them do something other than say we are filibustering. The dems will be in the minority again at some point in time, they could have lost it this past election. But thanks to Todd Akin and Richard Murdoch, the dems added seats.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Going Back To How It Was...

The problem has been that it became too easy to filibuster and invoke the 60 vote rule. That looks to be on the way out...rushpublicans won't be able to invoke the 60 vote rule on everything that came their way without having to take to the floor and hold it...doing a TRUE filibuster. Let them talk themselves silly...at the end of the day...when they get tired, cloture will be invoked with 51 votes and so will be final vote.

Another option would be to lower the threshold from 60 to 55 for a "supermajority"...as both parties realize that in this day and age it's near impossible for either party to get over 60 Senators. The concept was to force bi-partisanship, but we've seen how "crossing the aisle" meant bending over. Hopefully Reid means what he says by tightening the ability to filibuster and break some of the deadlock in the Senate...especially regarding confirmation of administration appointees and judges.

We won't see the filibuster gone altogether and whatever moves are taken will surely be done with the idea that one day Democrats could be in the minority again and not to create a landmine down the road...

Cheers...

[reformist2]

11. How about we just move the filibuster threshhold to 55? :)

[dommyluc]

12. Wake up!

Does anyone on this site honestly believe the Republicans will keep the filibuster if they regain the majority in the Senate in the future? You are acting as though these are honorable men. They are not honorable men - they are ASSHOLES! They only care about one thing - power. They do not know how to govern, so they must have power to accomplish their goals. If the Republicans regain control of the Senate they will eliminate the filibuster so fast it will break the barrier between time and space. Let us not kid ourselves, people. If the Dems don't reform the filibuster now, the Rethugs will eliminate it anyway in the future. It will not be a reformed filibuster - it will be NO FILIBUSTER. So come out of your dream world, people.
What truly makes me angry about the current filibuster rules is that it gives all the power to the minority, which is patently ridiculous. Why should 41 people be considered a majority in a ruling body of 100 people? Why not have the same rules for the minority as for the majority? If the minority can find 51 Senators to support a filibuster, then game on. If a law or nominee is so egregious that a majority of senators are opposed, then have at it. But if they can't, then tough shitsky, Ivan - majority vote is the rule.
But I agree with everyone here that a TRUE filibuster should be the rule when it is invoked: have them stand up and talk forever, but just ONE PERSON. No handing off to another Senator. Let's see them spew their ridiculous nonsense in front of the TV cameras for a few hours. Yeah that'll be great for their crazy-ass brand. Let's see them speak out against tax cuts for the middle class in front of an audience that isn't just FoxNews viewers. Sounds like a plan to me. Excuse me while I make the popcorn.

[LynneSin]

14. NO need for popcorn here! All very good and valid points

and welcome to DU

[Nye Bevan]

13. If the Republicans had abolished the filibuster,

Social Security contributions would be going into stocks right now.