Filibusters

[TVoffBrainOn]

I'm curious how the Right feels about this Senate procedure. It's not in the Constitution. It's basically an obstructionist tool that both parties have abused over the last few decades when they are not the party in power. However, Republicans have taken that abuse to a new level.

Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.

I know the conservatives on this board are happy to have the procedure in place to fight against bills that they are ideologically opposed to. I completely understand that. I'm asking to debate the Filibuster on constitutional terms, and on a level of competent Gov't. Has the notion of "endless debate" gone too far? Should a super majority in the Senate be necessary to pass the legislation of the party in power? As the Republican party withdraws further to the right, doesn't the Filibuster essentially make passing the legislation of the party mandated by the people nearly impossible? Is this American?

The Republicans used the filibuster more times in 91-92 then it was used in the entire 19th century. Isn't that a little absurd? Now they've more then doubled it's usage in the last year alone.

The filibuster really only came into being as a mistake (A.Burr). Are we really so out of touch that we can actually have a rule to prevent the passage of legislation based on the idea that "any Senator should have the right to speak on any issue for as long as necessary". Now we are at a point where readings from the phone book led to just simply accepting that some Senator would speak for 24 hours about nothing, so 60 votes is needed for passing legislation in a congressional body where the rules say only 51 votes are needed.

I think it's an absurd mockery of our system of government.

 

[chestnut]

Well, to be honest, if Al Franken hadn't stolen the election for his senate seat, all of this would be a moot point. The dems would not have the 60 votes.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Well, to be honest, if Al Franken hadn't stolen the election for his senate seat, all of this would be a moot point. The dems would not have the 60 votes.

You missed the point completely. 51 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate... It's the idea that 60 votes are needed to "end debate" that I find unconstitutional and appalling.

As far as Franken... He may have WON the election by having a better legal team and getting MORE votes counted then the Coleman team was able to muster. That's not stealing an election though... not like... say having 57,000 people scrubbed from the voter roles, or designing a ridiculous butterfly ballot that gets Buchanan 20,000 votes in dem counties, or paying computer programmers to rig the voting machines in Ohio, or having your daddy's pals on the Supreme Court come up with the most ridiculous interpretation of Equal Protection ever written on paper, so ridicluous that the Supreme Court actually stated, "don't ever refer to this case again". The Supreme Court stopped a recount that was producing a victory for Gore under the pretenses that continuing the recount would produce "public acceptance" and "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitmacy" that would harm "democratic stability". Then after admitting that Dec 12th wasn't a binding date for a recount, the Supreme Court MADE it a binding date. that's actually STEALING. And of course, it's always democratic justices accused of activism

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well, to be honest, if Al Franken hadn't stolen the election for his senate seat, all of this would be a moot point. The dems would not have the 60 votes.

you mean got more votes? IE Stole...

 

[GenSeneca]

There are a lot of problems with accuracy in your post. I'm a CSPAN junkie so I recognized the problems right away but most people have lives and don't know squat about parliamentary procedure, much less the rules of the House and Senate.

I'm curious how the Right feels about this Senate procedure. It's not in the Constitution.

You won't find the Rules of the House or the Rules of the Senate delineated in the Constitution....

Article 1 section 5: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings

Now as to your unsourced quote:

Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.

That appears all over the Left Wing blogosphere, the Daily KOS, Democrat Underground, Huffington Post, just to name a few. Now I have no idea where you got it but its entirely, and intentionally, misleading.

For those who aren't familiar with parliamentary procedure, filibuster is a tactic to keep a bill from coming to the floor for consideration and/or it can be used to slow, or halt, the debate once a bill comes to the floor. There must be a motion to bring the bill to the floor before a filibuster can take place.

Cloture is a motion to end debate and bring a bill to a vote. Cloture imposes special rules on the Senate and under those rules, the presiding officer has additional powers they don't normally have. That's important.

Now in order for there to be a filibuster, there must be a motion to bring a bill up for consideration before the chair, or there must already be a bill before the chair that is on the floor for debate. No bill, nothing to filibuster.

Cloture on the other hand, can be invoked whether or not there is a filibuster. That's a very important part of understanding the numbers quoted. All it requires is 16 senators to motion for a cloture vote and they can bring a motion to the chair for a bill to be considered without the possibility of a filibuster over the motion to consider the bill. This preemptive procedural maneuver is used when the senators want to bring a controversial bill up for a vote on the motion to consider without the possibility of the motion to consider being filibustered.

If that is confusing... It took me years of watching CSPAN and reading about rules and procedures to understand it, so don't feel bad. But back to the unsourced quote... It cryptically states that the numbers given refer to "votes on cloture", not the number of filibusters.

So while its true that cloture can be used to end a filibuster, the fact is that there doesn't need to be a filibuster in order for senators to motion for a cloture vote. That is what has been happening, the Democrats are bringing bills before the floor on the procedural maneuver of using cloture to introduce the bills to preempt any Republican attempts at a filibuster. There is not a record number of filibusters taking place, there is a record number of cloture votes being motioned before the chair.

I'm asking to debate the Filibuster on constitutional terms, and on a level of competent Gov't.

There is no debate. The Senate is constitutionally allowed to determine the rules by which it operates.

Has the notion of "endless debate" gone too far?

By invoking cloture when they motion to bring a bill to the floor, it limits debate to 30 hours, preventing any possibility of a filibuster.

Should a super majority in the Senate be necessary to pass the legislation of the party in power?

Yes.

As the Republican party withdraws further to the right

The Republicans have stopped moving left, but I'm sure its the same difference to you.

doesn't the Filibuster essentially make passing the legislation of the party mandated by the people nearly impossible? Is this American?

Democrats were signing a different tune when Republicans held both houses... and its worth noting that when the Republicans took over the House and Senate, they created rules that expanded the power of the minority party. When Democrats took back the House and Senate, they eliminated those rules. Put that together with the record motions for cloture and the Democrats are shown to be bullies who hate competition and fair debate.

The Republicans used the filibuster more times in 91-92 then it was used in the entire 19th century.

Democrats held the Senate in 91-92 and they invoked cloture to prevent Republicans from having an opportunity to filibuster.

Now they've more then doubled it's usage in the last year alone.

Democrats have doubled the usage of cloture to prevent the possibility of filibuster.

so 60 votes is needed for passing legislation in a congressional body where the rules say only 51 votes are needed.

That is also incorrect. 60 votes are necessary to invoke cloture and to pass bills that are under consideration on the floor as a result of cloture. Democrats are bringing bills to the floor on a motion for cloture to prevent a Republican filibuster but the side effect is that they require 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, in order to pass any of the bills up for consideration. This prevents filibusters and if they can't manage to pass the bills, they just run to their stooges in the Left Wing blogosphere who lie about whats going on in order to blame the failure on a Republican filibuster that didn't happen.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

That appears all over the Left Wing blogosphere, the Daily KOS, Democrat Underground, Huffington Post, just to name a few. Now I have no idea where you got it but its entirely, and intentionally, misleading.

For those who aren't familiar with parliamentary procedure, filibuster is a tactic to keep a bill from coming to the floor for consideration and/or it can be used to slow, or halt, the debate once a bill comes to the floor. There must be a motion to bring the bill to the floor before a filibuster can take place.

Cloture is a motion to end debate and bring a bill to a vote. Cloture imposes special rules on the Senate and under those rules, the presiding officer has additional powers they don't normally have. That's important.

Now in order for there to be a filibuster, there must be a motion to bring a bill up for consideration before the chair, or there must already be a bill before the chair that is on the floor for debate. No bill, nothing to filibuster.

Cloture on the other hand, can be invoked whether or not there is a filibuster. That's a very important part of understanding the numbers quoted. All it requires is 16 senators to motion for a cloture vote and they can bring a motion to the chair for a bill to be considered without the possibility of a filibuster over the motion to consider the bill. This preemptive procedural maneuver is used when the senators want to bring a controversial bill up for a vote on the motion to consider without the possibility of the motion to consider being filibustered.

If that is confusing... It took me years of watching CSPAN and reading about rules and procedures to understand it, so don't feel bad. But back to the unsourced quote... It cryptically states that the numbers given refer to "votes on cloture", not the number of filibusters.

So while its true that cloture can be used to end a filibuster, the fact is that there doesn't need to be a filibuster in order for senators to motion for a cloture vote. That is what has been happening, the Democrats are bringing bills before the floor on the procedural maneuver of using cloture to introduce the bills to preempt any Republican attempts at a filibuster. There is not a record number of filibusters taking place, there is a record number of cloture votes being motioned before the chair.


There is no debate. The Senate is constitutionally allowed to determine the rules by which it operates.


By invoking cloture when they motion to bring a bill to the floor, it limits debate to 30 hours, preventing any possibility of a filibuster.

Yes, i understand the rules. Although you think the data on filibusters/cloture is misleading. I still see the same issue. The majority party only uses Cloture, because of the threat of a filibuster. If the minority wasnt going to filibuster, the majority would not use Cloture and thus need 60 votes. The data isn't misleading, you are trying to mislead.

The Republicans have stopped moving left, but I'm sure its the same difference to you.

I agree, they stopped moving left... and retreated far to the right. Don't you agree? There is nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what conservatives want?

Democrats were signing a different tune when Republicans held both houses... and its worth noting that when the Republicans took over the House and Senate, they created rules that expanded the power of the minority party. When Democrats took back the House and Senate, they eliminated those rules. Put that together with the record motions for cloture and the Democrats are shown to be bullies who hate competition and fair debate.

More of the same...Right vs Left.... I'm curious, if there is a case where Democrats had barely 40 votes in the Senate and still did everything in their procedural power to derail a core Right wing bill in the Senate. Is there anything similar that you can recall?

Democrats held the Senate in 91-92 and they invoked cloture to prevent Republicans from having an opportunity to filibuster.

It's still the same issue... If Democrats hadn't invoked cloture, Republicans would've filibustered... right? It's nice how you've wrapped this up in a right vs left package, and tried to turn it around.

Democrats have doubled the usage of cloture to prevent the possibility of filibuster.

I'd much rather you talked about your OPINION of the use of these tactics rather then turning this into a left vs right thing. If Dems have doubled the use of cloture, isn't it safe to say that's because Republicans have doubled their threat of filibuster. Democrats would never use cloture if Republicans weren't going to filibuster.

That is also incorrect. 60 votes are necessary to invoke cloture and to pass bills that are under consideration on the floor as a result of cloture. Democrats are bringing bills to the floor on a motion for cloture to prevent a Republican filibuster but the side effect is that they require 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, in order to pass any of the bills up for consideration. This prevents filibusters and if they can't manage to pass the bills, they just run to their stooges in the Left Wing blogosphere who lie about whats going on in order to blame the failure on a Republican filibuster that didn't happen.

That is the root of the problem. The majority party (because lets cut the left and right BS, both parties do this) has to bring any bill that is a major party policy bill to the floor via cloture, otherwise the minority party will just filibuster the bill on the floor.

I appreciate your explanation of rules and procedures. But it doesn't address the root problem IMO. I disagree with you, I don't think a super majority should be needed to pass core legislation of the party mandated by the people. I understand that you like this situation NOW as you are ideologically opposed to the party in power. That's fine. I still think the way the notion of "endless debate" has been turned into a tactic of preventing legislation from being determined by a majority is a failure of our system of government.

 

[GenSeneca]

Although you think the data on filibusters/cloture is misleading.

Whoever that leftist radical is that posted the information, cited votes on cloture but attributed those votes to filibusters. That is misleading. You don't need a filibuster to invoke cloture.

The data isn't misleading, you are trying to mislead.

I'm telling the truth, I'm citing actual facts and referencing the actual rules of the senate. I understand that the Radical Left is threatened by the truth, so its no surprise that you think the truth is misleading.

I agree, they stopped moving left....

That we can agree on, they stopped moving left but they are still leaning left.

and retreated far to the right. Don't you agree?

No, they haven't and they won't win another election until they do.

There is nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what conservatives want?

What we want is a party that actually lives the principles of small government, lower taxes and individual liberty, doesn't just use those principles as talking points to get elected and then grow government, hike taxes and infringe liberty.

More of the same...Right vs Left

You are the one who started the thread by blaming Repubilcans for a record number of filibusters when the Democrats are the ones who have used a record number of cloture votes. I have no affinity for Republicans, so don't confuse my interest in the truth with cheerleading for Repubicans.

I'm curious, if there is a case where Democrats had barely 40 votes in the Senate and still did everything in their procedural power to derail a core Right wing bill in the Senate. Is there anything similar that you can recall?

The first six years of the Bush administration. Kendrick Meaks with his inflatable rubber stamp. Barney Frank blocking the regulation of Fanny and Freddie. Every supplemental war spending bill turned into a circus. The farm bills were only passed because they were loaded with pork and nongermane amendments. The Bush Tax cuts... and so many more.

The only times the Democrats didn't use their power of obstructionism was when Republicans were passing legislation that expanded the size and power of federal government while simultaneously bankrupting the country, like Medicare part D, TARP and the two Bush stimulus packages, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, the bailouts of wall street... As long as the Democrats could stack it with pork to fund their pet projects and re-election campaigns, they were happy to vote for it.

It's still the same issue... If Democrats hadn't invoked cloture, Republicans would've filibustered... right?

No. That's the whole point of cloture is to break a filibuster. The moment the Republicans would have attempted a filibuster, the Democrats would have broken it with cloture. Its just the Democrats playing dirty politics.

It's nice how you've wrapped this up in a right vs left package, and tried to turn it around.

No, that's your package. You were the one who made it about the benevolent Democrats being obstructed by evil Republicans throwing temper tantrums. All I did was shine the light of truth into a box of lies.

I'd much rather you talked about your OPINION of the use of these tactics rather then turning this into a left vs right thing.

My opinion is, Democrats are doing this for two reasons. One, so they can falsly claim there is a record number of Repubilcan filibusters taking place and two, so that when they can't get enough votes from their own party to pass their far left radical legislation, they can blame it on Republican obstructionism and an unwillingness to work with Democrats on key issues.

If Dems have doubled the use of cloture, isn't it safe to say that's because Republicans have doubled their threat of filibuster.

No, that doesn't make sense. Democrats have the votes to invoke cloture anytime they want, staging a filibuster is absolutely pointless and the Republicans know this so they don't bother.

Democrats would never use cloture if Republicans weren't going to filibuster.

Democrats would never invoke cloture without the threat of a filibuster?
That is precisely what they are doing!

It's working too, the Radical Lefts panties are in a wad over what Democrats are doing but they are blaming Republicans.

That is the root of the problem. The majority party (because lets cut the left and right BS, both parties do this) has to bring any bill that is a major party policy bill to the floor via cloture, otherwise the minority party will just filibuster the bill on the floor.

No. If you have the votes to invoke cloture, you don't worry about a filibuster because the moment it starts, it can be broken.

I appreciate your explanation of rules and procedures.

My pleasure, its nice to have an opportunity to exercise knowledge that is otherwise useless.

But it doesn't address the root problem IMO.

That's only because you refuse to believe the Democrats would engage in such political manuevering unprovoked. Democrats are consumed with powerlust and will do whatever it takes to get and keep power. Republicans are no different.

I disagree with you, I don't think a super majority should be needed to pass core legislation of the party mandated by the people.

I disagree that Democrats have a mandate by the people to enact their radical left wing agenda. As polls suggest, I think the American people are opposed to the Radical Left Wing agenda.

As for your complaints about needing 60 votes, blame Democrats. They are the ones preemptively invoking cloture requiring them to get 60 votes rather than a simple majority.

I understand that you like this situation NOW as you are ideologically opposed to the party in power. That's fine. I still think the way the notion of "endless debate" has been turned into a tactic of preventing legislation from being determined by a majority is a failure of our system of government.

Government is supposed to move very slowly and very diliberately. I didn't like it when the Republicans had control and things moved too quickly and I don't like it now that Democrats are in control and things are moving too quickly. Major legislation that could bankrupt our country and effect our liberties should not be railroaded through the system but just as scary are the bills you don't hear about, because they are not major legislation, they cruise through the system, those equally effect our liberties and financial responsibilities but we rarely pay attention to them.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Cloture is a motion to end debate. Endless debate (filibuster) will continue on unless cloture is invoked. I still think you are either a) being very misleading or b) are slightly misunderstanding the rules of congress.

Why would cloture be invoked, if there wasn't a threat of a filibuster? Why would anyone move to need 60 votes, rather than 51?

I think a common sense understanding would be that counting the votes for clotures would be a relative comparison to the amount of filibusters or threats of filibusters.

When would Cloture be used to END DEBATE, if a filibuster or threat of a filibuster wasn't being used to PROLONG DEBATE?

I don't think counting votes for cloture is misleading in determining the overuse of the filibuster. But of course, you think the opposite with no proof what so ever.

Democrats would never invoke cloture without the threat of a filibuster?
That is precisely what they are doing!

It's working too, the Radical Lefts panties are in a wad over what Democrats are doing but they are blaming Republicans.

Republicans aren't threatening a filibuster on the Health Care bill? Are you joking? Are you telling me that there are republican senators who will vote to end debate, and thus bring the bill to a simple majority vote?

You've got to be kidding?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

After more consideration, I would like an example of why the majority party would use cloture if there wasn't a threat of a filibuster from the minority party? It doesn't matter Cloture is used to bring the bill to the floor, or to end debate... the use of cloture is ONLY because of the filibuster threat.

I think the numbers are entirely accurate. The numbers of cloture votes is a direct reflection of the obstructionist nature of the opposition party since 2006.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

There's an article on the Washington Posts website today, that illustrates my point nicely. I know, It's Ezra Klein and the Post, part of that crazy radical leftist media...

anyways, here's the article.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/how_a_letter_from_1964_shows_w.html

 

[top gun]

I hear that there may be a move to change to rules in the Senate to further help to stop procedural delaying tactics that don't allow things to even come to the floor for an up or down vote.

This has happened before. It originally took 67 votes to invoke cloture and start debating a piece of legislation. Way back in 1975 it was changed to 60. Now it may be changed to 55.

Once implemented it affects BOTH the Democrats and the Republicants equally and I think it makes sense to change it. All this does is stop either Party from obstructing straight up or down votes on the record. It doesn't in anyway affect ct the vote itself.

The Senate is always way backed up with legislation that has cleared the House and much of the problem is this procedural rule. The government would get things off the table much quicker one way or the other without the constant stalling.

And it does the Dems no good anyway. When they are out of power the Republicants steadily and consistently steam rolled right over this procedure by passing legislation under what's called reconciliation. They basically defeat the Bill and then bring it back up in another form "reconciliation" and then only need a majority of 50 votes to pass it. Republicants did this a lot.

So it's hilarious when they scream foul when the possibility comes up that the Dems "could" use this tactic to pass Health Insurance Reform.

I think it's better, quicker and makes more sense just to lower the number needed to take the original proposed legislation to the floor.

Rep. Grayson: Change Senate rules to require 55 for debate cloture Tony Romm - 11/24/09

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl.) is urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to propose revisions to the Senate's cloture rules so that only 55 votes, instead of 60, would be required to end floor debate.

His effort -- spearheaded with the help of an online campaign at StopSenateStalling.com -- takes special aim at the healthcare debate, which Grayson said has fallen victim to countless overused and unfair filibuster threats over the past few months.

"Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?" asked Grayson, who listed a series of important bills that passed with fewer than 60 votes.

"Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system," he added. "Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60. Fill out the form below to sign the petition today!"

So far, Grayson's campaign has netted about 7,000 signatures, though a cursory glance at the names on the list yields a few duplicates.

The letter included as part of Grayson's petition reveals the congressman's reasoning: A change to the chamber's historic cloture rules would best serve voters, who elected Democrats in 2008 "with a mandate... for major change," he wrote.

House Democrats for the most part have rallied together to overcome GOP opposition with the help of rules that favor a simple majority, but many of the lower chamber's efforts remain stalled in the Senate because "no-mongering Republicans" have "abused the filibuster rule like never before" and continue to obstruct progress, he added.

Consequently, Grayson stressed his Senate colleagues would be wise to pursue a change to the chamber's rules that would decrease the number required to invoke cloture from 60 to 55. As Grayson pointed out in his letter, the Senate has previously implemented such a change: Lawmakers reduced the minimum for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths in 1975.

"The filibuster does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers had wanted it, they would have included it," the congressman said. "Instead, this undemocratic rule allows small-state senators representing as little as 11 percent of the country to thwart the will of the other 89 percent."