Democracy - We had a good run

[Shryke]

Democrats still have more votes in the Senate than the Republicans have had at any time since 1923, so that's no excuse.

Except the Senate rules have changed since then.

Also, the Republicans are using the Filibuster more times then it's ever been used before. By a HUGE margin.

There's parts of the system that are showing major holes. Mainly The Senate.

It's not coincidence that every bill Obama brought up in his SOTU that he wanted passed was "Past the House, stalled in the Senate".

[The Progressive]

GOP has no power in Senate at all. All democrats need is 50 votes, not sixty. And balls. And maybe coherent political ideology.

Yeah, Shryke is right about this .......... you really don't have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to how the US Senate works and the dirty tricks being pulled there by the Republicans.

[TrackerNeil]

No, but there was the "Gang of 14 compromise" on federal judges that was forced by procedural delays by the Democratic minority.

That was really no compromise at all. The Republicans agreed not to remove the ability of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees so long as the Democrats agreed not to use it. That's no compromise in my book. As I recall, the judges in contention were then confirmed by the Senate without being subjected to a filibuster.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except the Senate rules have changed since then.

It used to take 2/3 to kill a filibuster. Now, it takes only 3/5. Is that what you mean? Heh.

Also, the Republicans are using the Filibuster more times then it's ever been used before. By a HUGE margin.

I have absolutely no opposition to killing the filibuster. I think it would be a good idea to wipe it out because I think we'd see a lot more stuff repealed, and I also think the odds are pretty decent at the GOP getting control of the Presidency and Senate by 2012 for those Supreme Court nominations. If not, well, I agree with Neil's point that we'd be better off if the voters got exactly what they voted for more often.

But on this filibuster issue, you guys are either being disingenous or are misinformed when you claim this is "unprecendented" by the GOP. You are focusing only on those times when the filibuster has actually been used, which ignores all the legislation that was killed due to the knowledge that a filibuster would occur. The GOP had only 40 votes until recently, which gave the Dems a decent shot to ram through a lot of things. As a result, votes were closer and you had a lot more cloture votes actually occur. But the GOP hasn't had more than 55 votes for a long time, and included in those 55 were people like Jumping Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, etc. So even when a GOP majority had its 50 votes, they'd still know they couldn't get past cloture so they'd never bring it up at all. But the effect of the filibuster rule was still felt.

If you doubt that, you'd have to wonder why the Dems aren't willing to vacate that rule themselves. Either they're stupid, or perhaps they realize something you don't.

That was really no compromise at all. The Republicans agreed not to remove the ability of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees so long as the Democrats agreed not to use it. That's no compromise in my book. As I recall, the judges in contention were then confirmed by the Senate without being subjected to a filibuster.

That is only half right. The reason the Democrats agreed "not to use" the filibuster on the mass of nominees being held up was that the GOP members of the "Gang" essentially abandoned a couple of nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad, so that the others could get an up or down vote.

"The deal will end an almost two-year filibuster against Brown's nomination to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Brown, an ardent conservative, would be the first African American woman to serve on that court, which is a step below the Supreme Court.

Two other stalled nominees, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, also will receive up-or- down votes, while two others, William Myers and Henry Saad, will remain blocked."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-05-24/news/17372056_1_judicial-nominees-bush-appellate-court-filibuster

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this point because I support eliminating the filibuster too. I think the results would be entertaining, which is about as much as you can reasonably expect the government to do anyway.

[The Progressive]

Lol, are you seriously using imaginary filibusters by the Democrats against non-existing legislation by the Republicans to advance your argument?

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this point because I support eliminating the filibuster too

Indeed.

[Shryke]

It used to take 2/3 to kill a filibuster. Now, it takes only 3/5. Is that what you mean? Heh.

No. And this just further demonstrates your monstrous ignorance.

The real change is that you no longer need to actually DO anything. A Filibuster is literally something you can do in the middle of ordering pizza:

"Yeah, and then another medium with Pepperoni, Italian Sau. Hold on a minute. Yeah, I'm filibustering that. Thanks. I'm back. Anyway, Pepperoni, Italian Sausage, and..."

The days of Strom Thurmond reading the phone books to keep them damn n****rs in their place is dead and gone.

Shit, as I showed before, 1 single GOP Senator was holding back 70 nominations because he wanted his pork.

I have absolutely no opposition to killing the filibuster. I think it would be a good idea to wipe it out because I think we'd see a lot more stuff repealed, and I also think the odds are pretty decent at the GOP getting control of the Presidency and Senate by 2012 for those Supreme Court nominations. If not, well, I agree with Neil's point that we'd be better off if the voters got exactly what they voted for more often.

But on this filibuster issue, you guys are either being disingenous or are misinformed when you claim this is "unprecendented" by the GOP. You are focusing only on those times when the filibuster has actually been used, which ignores all the legislation that was killed due to the knowledge that a filibuster would occur. The GOP had only 40 votes until recently, which gave the Dems a decent shot to ram through a lot of things. As a result, votes were closer and you had a lot more cloture votes actually occur. But the GOP hasn't had more than 55 votes for a long time, and included in those 55 were people like Jumping Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, etc. So even when a GOP majority had its 50 votes, they'd still know they couldn't get past cloture so they'd never bring it up at all. But the effect of the filibuster rule was still felt.

If you doubt that, you'd have to wonder why the Dems aren't willing to vacate that rule themselves. Either they're stupid, or perhaps they realize something you don't.

No, YOU are incredibly disingenous and misinformed.

Here's a link to the stats. The # of Filibusters more then DOUBLES the second Democrats take control of Congress.

[alguien]

I'm not sure about getting rid of the filibuster, but I would like to at least see the Senate Democrats have the balls to go to the mat and force Republican to actually do it.

(actually Dolores Kearns Goodwin said this best on TDS)

I mean, at least then we'd see whether the GOP would actually go through with it.

As for Flow's reasoning, I actually think its a good line. If liberal dems (or conservatives) are allowed to pass more legislature, then the honus is onus is on them to make sure it succeeds.

I have no problem with that.

[Shryke]

I'm not sure about getting rid of the filibuster, but I would like to at least see the Senate Democrats have the balls to go to the mat and force Republican to actually do it.

(actually Dolores Kearns Goodwin said this best on TDS)

I mean, at least then we'd see whether the GOP would actually go through with it.

As for Flow's reasoning, I actually think its a good line. If liberal dems (or conservatives) are allowed to pass more legislature, then the honus is onus is on them to make sure it succeeds.

I have no problem with that kind of governing.

What do you mean by "Do It"?

The point is there's nothing for them to do.

A Senator just goes "Yeah, I'm filibustering" and then Senate just moves on and that bill is tabled. These are the rules.

[alguien]

What do you mean by "Do It"?

The point is there's nothing for them to do.

A Senator just goes "Yeah, I'm filibustering" and then Senate just moves on and that bill is tabled. These are the rules.

I misunderstood the filibuster. I thought that they still had to stand and keep talking for as long as they could. Damn. I would at least give the GOP credit for their endurance.

Just looked it up. Have they really done 100 in one year? Jesus.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No. And this just further demonstrates your monstrous ignorance.

Wow. "Monstrous" ignorance. That's rather impressive in an evil villain sort of way.

The real change is that you no longer need to actually DO anything. A Filibuster is literally something you can do in the middle of ordering pizza:

Are you serious? Wow -- who'd have thunk it? Do you think maybe they called it Senate Rule 22 or something. Just guessing here....By the way, do you have any idea when Senate Rule 22 was implemented, and which party controlled the Senate when that rule change was implemented? My ignorance is monstrous, so I'm going to have to count on you to help me out with those messy litle details....

Shit, as I showed before, 1 single GOP Senator was holding back 70 nominations because he wanted his pork.

And that's not a filibuster, you know. That's a different stupid Senate Rule. Or rather, it is a form of threatened filibuster. But aren't you the guy who says those "threats" really don't matter?

No, YOU are incredibly disingenous and misinformed.

I strive to be.

Here's a link to the stats. The # of Filibusters more then DOUBLES the second Democrats take control of Congress.

That's a wonderful site for directing you to the number of cloture votes and motions. However, it doesn't tell you the number of times such motions were never filed because the majority knew they had no chance. Now before you say that's b.s., consider the very likely possibility that the House never votes out a health care bill because they know it will be filibustered in the Senate. That means the bill dies, but no filibuster actually ever occured. Does that make the point a bit more clear?

[Shryke]

You USED to have to do that.

And one of the big problems right now is that most people still think you do. The public is woefully under-informed about the rules of their government and how the GOP is twisting them to stall ... well, everything.

EDIT:

FLOW

Damn son, you are making me miss Commodore. He at least knew how to leave the debate when he was wrong.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I am not a huge fan of the democratic legislation. I would, however, like to see folks actually have to filibuster in order to do it. I want to see Joe Lieberman wearing a diaper and reading Ulysses to the chamber, and Harry Reid taking caffeine pills to see who has to leave the floor first. Do that and you'll see a filibuster used once a year or so. At the outside.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You USED to have to do that. And one of the big problems right now is that most people still think you do. The public is woefully under-informed about the rules of their government and how the GOP is twisting them to stall ... well, everything.

EDIT:

FLOW

Damn son, you are making me miss Commodore. He at least knew how to leave the debate when he was wrong.

No, you don't get it. <sigh> Ugh. Look, snarkiness aside, the Rule that eliminated the requirement for a Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd type filibuster was passed in 1975, when the Democrats had 60 seats. Since then, all you have to do is claim that you're invoking a filibuster, and you don't actually have to talk. In common parlance, that's a "filibuster" as it exists today. By the way, Rule 22 also reduced the number of votes required for cloture from 67 to 60, which is why I included the snarky "heh" in my initial comment about the number of votes needed for cloture. That change was intended to balance the other effect of Rule 22. Unfortunately, it went over your head.....

But separate and apart from a Senator actually declaring a filibuster under Senate Rule 22, everyone is well-aware that it essentially takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. Now if you are aware through head counts or whatever that you're not going to be able to get to 60 votes on an issue, you're not going to go through all the effort of putting legislation in final form only to have it die via a filibuster. That's a waste of energy. So in that situation, you have a potential bill that dies through a threatened filibuster even though the legislation never got to the point where it ever needed to be invoked.

The most obvious example of that is the current health bill. It's going to die in the House because those members don't want to go on record voting for an unpopular bill that they know will get filibustered in the Senate. So the legislation will never come out of the House, and the Rule 22 filibuster (which I fully realize does not require continuous speaking) will likely never occur. But the reality is that the bill is dying because of the filibuster rule, even though no cloture motion will ever be filed. If you disagree, then you have no right to say that Republicans filibustered this health care bill to death, because that filibuster isn't going to happen.

You mentioned one Senator putting a "hold" on legislation. A hold is essentially a threat to filibuster. The filibuster doesn't actually happen because the threat is enough. But again, it is still the effect of the filibuster rule being felt even though no cloture vote actually occurs.

I'm really begining to doubt which one of us is monstrously ignorant here....

[Guest Raidne]

I'm not sure about getting rid of the filibuster, but I would like to at least see the Senate Democrats have the balls to go to the mat and force Republican to actually do it.

Regardless of what has been said about the filibuster, I'd still like to see them do something. Can't the Dems remove all other items from the agenda except for, say, health care, and thereby force a vote? Or, they could argue that the Health Care bill is a budget bill, and that reconciliation rules apply.

Basically, they could pull the sort of shit that the Republican Congress pulled during the Bush years, like applying reconciliation to the Bush tax cuts and thereby blocking any filibuster, or threatening the "nuclear option" of challenging the constitutionality of using the filibuster to block judicial nominees.

[The Progressive]

I think the conversation has already cease to make sense after we started comparing imaginary filibusters against non-existing bills.

[Shryke]

No, you don't get it. <sigh> Ugh. Look, snarkiness aside, the Rule that eliminated the requirement for a Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd type filibuster was passed in 1975, when the Democrats had 60 seats. Since then, all you have to do is claim that you're invoking a filibuster, and you don't actually have to talk. In common parlance, that's a "filibuster" as it exists today. By the way, Rule 22 also reduced the number of votes required for cloture from 67 to 60, which is why I included the snarky "heh" in my initial comment about the number of votes needed for cloture. That change was intended to balance the other effect of Rule 22. Unfortunately, it went over your head.....

But separate and apart from a Senator actually declaring a filibuster under Senate Rule 22, everyone is well-aware that it essentially takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. Now if you are aware through head counts or whatever that you're not going to be able to get to 60 votes on an issue, you're not going to go through all the effort of putting legislation in final form only to have it die via a filibuster. That's a waste of energy. So in that situation, you have a potential bill that dies through a threatened filibuster even though the legislation never got to the point where it ever needed to be invoked.

The most obvious example of that is the current health bill. It's going to die in the House because those members don't want to go on record voting for an unpopular bill that they know will get filibustered in the Senate. So the legislation will never come out of the House, and the Rule 22 filibuster (which I fully realize does not require continuous speaking) will likely never occur. But the reality is that the bill is dying because of the filibuster rule, even though no cloture motion will ever be filed. If you disagree, then you have no right to say that Republicans filibustered this health care bill to death, because that filibuster isn't going to happen.

You mentioned one Senator putting a "hold" on legislation. A hold is essentially a threat to filibuster. The filibuster doesn't actually happen because the threat is enough. But again, it is still the effect of the filibuster rule being felt even though no cloture vote actually occurs.

I'm really begining to doubt which one of us is monstrously ignorant here....

Wait, so your argument is that they aren't stalling the government with Filibusters because ..... sometimes they just threaten to filibuster instead?

Or is it that the Filibuster shouldn't be removed because ..... the problem is the threat of filibuster?

Either way, you are agreeing with me.

Unless your contention is that the number of filibusters hasn't risen at all and merely the percentage that go from threat to real. But I'm gonna dismiss that idea out of hand since I don't think you are quite stupid enough to make that claim with absolutely no evidence.

Also, your comment about going from 67->60 didn't go over my head. I ignored it because it's not the problem you ignorant twit. The problem is that filibustering is simply too easy. It requires no effort and thus can be used to stall legislation with little to no effort or blowback from the public because they don't even know it's happening.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Unless your contention is that the number of filibusters hasn't risen at all and merely the percentage that go from threat to real. But I'm gonna dismiss that idea out of hand since I don't think you are quite stupid enough to make that claim with absolutely no evidence.

Don't you see? The beauty of that claim is that you can't refute it either!

But no, that wasn't exactly my claim. My claim was that the use of the filibuster, threatened or actual, hasn't increased as much from when Democrats were the minority in the Senate as you think it has. You only believe that because your partisanship blinds you to any inconvenient facts.

When the Democrats filibustered some of Bush's judicial nominees for more than two years, it was the first time in history that majority-supported nominees were filibustered to the point of not getting a vote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hatch200501120729.asp

Now I think that really pissed off some Republicans, and they're getting their revenge now. It's sort of the same thing that happened after the politicization of Judge Bork's nomination. Ever since then, the process has gotten more poisoned, and its unfortunate. Both parties are to blame, just as both parties are to blame for what has happened with the filibuster, which is why I support either eliminating it or requiring an actual filibuster.

Also, your comment about going from 67->60 didn't go over my head. I ignored it because it's not the problem you ignorant twit.

You're kind of cute when you get upset.

[BloodRider]

When you compare democracy to capitalism, which is based primarily on performance and merit, you can see that most fortune 500 companies have some of the smartest and best managers rising to the top of the organization. Compare that to politics where that is clearly not the case.

Idealized capitalism, maybe. But then again thats about as real as idealized Democracy - also unicorns.

Fact is I think American business is way too short term focused, buys its own marketing hype, and has no idea how to use and develop its assets.

Also, most execs in today's fortune 500 companies suck balls when compared to those in charge just 2 generations ago. They control their incentives and information that flows to voting shareholders. Inevitably it leads to massive incompetence and corruption.

[The Progressive]

Don't you see? The beauty of that claim is that you can't refute it either!

Huh, why would he has to refute something you can't even substantiate in the first place?

[Shryke]

Huh, why would he has to refute something you can't even substantiate in the first place?

Because otherwise he'd have to admit a Right Wing Talking Point was wrong.