[BilboBagend]

Though the filibuster is non-Constitutional and is intended as a simple procedural rule that enables a minority to force discussion it has now become an anti-democratic tactic for a minority to enforce a campaign of obstruction and blame the majority for the failure of Congress.

Still, the filibuster has a long tradition and the present clear abuse of this procedural rule does not necessarily warrant it's total elimination. The ability of a minjoroty to encourahe discussion is a desirable feature, but not at the expense of a totally dysfunctional Congress, a frustration of democratic rule, and the dishonest use of a tactic to blame a majority for a minorities failure of the American people.

Sp a simple proposal. Keep the filibuster, but limit it to a maximum 30 day period after which the discussion is closed and the bill goes before the Senate for a Constitutionally sanctioned and required majority vote.

[namngulfvet]

So now that Republicans are using it you are pissed yet when Liberal Dumacrats used it, it was ok. You fucking hypocrite.

[snakeoil]

When I first heard about this rule that you need 69 votes, I questioned it as unconstitutional. Doesn't this fly in the face of the one man-one ruling by SCoTUS?

[Leroy]

HA HA HA - when the democrats were in the Majority they did nothing to help the country, they refused to hear proposals, they never completed the New Direction, they never finished their first 100 hours.... Now, when they can't pass corrupt legislation they cry about the rules they loved and make frequent use of..... :lol:

[BilboBagend]

Two morons who clearly only want attention and have no interest in solving problems. Mush like the current crop of radical reactionary extremest Republican leaders.

[namngulfvet]

Two morons who clearly only want attention and have no interest in solving problems. Mush like the current crop of radical reactionary extremest Republican leaders.

Truth hurts doesn't if dildo aka Daily douche.

[BilboBagend]

Interesting Constitutional question about the filibuster. The filibuster is a proceedural rule established by the Senate. The Senate has such power to establish rules for it's operations. The Senate also has the power to change those rules by a simple majority vote. The Senate has the power to call for that vote at any time. They also have a rule that they can only change the rules at the opening of a session, but that is only a rule thus they could change that rule at any time.

Both parties have threatened to change the filibuster rule to get their way when they are frustrated with the filibuster. This is called the "Nuclear Option." Republicans (of course) have pushed this the farthest, but neither side has actually used the nuclear option.

Laws in the Senate ARE passed by a simple majority vote. It is the proceedure of closing discussion and allowing a vote where the extortion and fraud take place.

What would SCOTUS say. That is hard to say. It is clear that the filibuster frustrates the intent of the Constitution and therefor looks unconstitutional. However, since the Senate can chnage the rule at any time and fulfill the Constitutional intent at any time it is clear that the remidy is available at any time to the majority if they so choose. Thus the original Constitutional intent is available (Though with much trash talk that will follow) at any time. The Senate still has the Constitutional power of a simple majority vote to pass a law if they so desire to use it.

The Senate has tied itself into a controversial know that they can untie at any time. Thus, they will probably be left to their own devices and never be forced to change the filibuster rules. It will probably always be their choice.

They should choose to do something to end this stupiodity. Tradition has value. Sticking with stupidity has no value.

[Boff]

When I first heard about this rule that you need 69 votes, I questioned it as unconstitutional. Doesn't this fly in the face of the one man-one ruling by SCoTUS?

As BilboBagend has pointed out, no. The Constitution empowers each house of the Congress to adopt its own rules. No vote in the Senate requires 69 votes. Treaties, amendments and impeachments require two-thirds of those present and voting, or 67 votes if everyone is present. The procedural rule for cloture (cutting off debate and forcing an up-down vote) used to require 67 votes, but the use of the filibuster by southern senators to block civil rights legislation led to a rule change so now only 60 votes are required to invoke cloture. Of course there is another way around this impasse which has been utilized by both parties, and that is "reconciliation" which requires only 51 votes. This occurs when the House and Senate pass different versions of the same legislation and the reconciliation committee produces a compromise between the two versions which are voted up/down by each house. This is how Pelosi and Reid crammed Obamacare thru the Congress.

[DarknLadyJedi]

Want to fix the filibuster?

Return it to the original form where a single person has to continue the debate and not have the ability to pass it back and forth among people.

[BilboBagend]

Actually, the modern problem is that they really don't have to physically filibuster anymore. They simply refuse cloture. What's missing is the automatic cloture if nobody is actually on the floor debating. Passing the talking baton is not the modern problem.