Return of the Talking Filibuster?

[Au165]

Manchin mentioned on Sunday while he thinks the filibuster should stay intact he thinks that it should be "painful" to deploy and could be open to returning to the talking filibuster. I think it's interesting, and in general, I think if people would like to deploy the filibuster they should have to work to do so rather than simply sending an email.

[Belsnickel]

(03-08-2021, 11:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Manchin mentioned on Sunday while he thinks the filibuster should stay intact he thinks that it should be "painful" to deploy and could be open to returning to the talking filibuster. I think it's interesting, and in general, I think if people would like to deploy the filibuster they should have to work to do so rather than simply sending an email.

I mean, I'd rather this than what we have now, but I'm in favor of just scrapping it entirely.

[CKwi88]

(03-08-2021, 11:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, I'd rather this than what we have now, but I'm in favor of just scrapping it entirely.

I get the spirit of the filibuster, but it has becomes painfully obvious that it needs to be done away with.

Bi-partisanship is officially dead.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2021, 11:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Manchin mentioned on Sunday while he thinks the filibuster should stay intact he thinks that it should be "painful" to deploy and could be open to returning to the talking filibuster. I think it's interesting, and in general, I think if people would like to deploy the filibuster they should have to work to do so rather than simply sending an email.

The problem with the talking filibuster is that the other side has to have a certain number of members in the chamber as well, and they don’t want to do that.

[Au165]

(03-08-2021, 11:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I mean, I'd rather this than what we have now, but I'm in favor of just scrapping it entirely.

I agree, but Manchin has basically staked his flag on the hill that he won't do it and I think he is going to at least need a defensible position and this gives him the out. 

[Dill]

(03-08-2021, 11:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Manchin mentioned on Sunday while he thinks the filibuster should stay intact he thinks that it should be "painful" to deploy and could be open to returning to the talking filibuster. I think it's interesting, and in general, I think if people would like to deploy the filibuster they should have to work to do so rather than simply sending an email.

Adam Jentleson has written a persuasive book on this subject, arguing for a return to "real" debate. 

Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate.
https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Switch-Crippling-American-Democracy/dp/1631497774

He reminds us that the Founders did not intend a system in which a minority could block the majority,

 Though it seems like the filibuster should induce moderation and cooperation, it does not; and the Framers had learned this themselves under the Articles of Confederation, in which a two thirds majority had to agree to get any legislation passed (22-23). 

Most of the book traces the rise of the filibuster, shaped by Calhoun and successors, to insure white supremacy, which it did all the way to 1964.

Now we are in a position where what Jentleson calls a "superminority"--which can be at times less than a third of the population--can effectively block any legislative program backed by the majority of Americans through its control of the Senate. This is a situation which creates an incentive in the minority to see the majority fail at governing. It also increases the power of that superminority's donors.  A bill supported by 90% of Americans could easily be blocked by a special interest.

Jentleson thinks that "every decision point in the Senate should be majority rule, aside from those assigned supermajority thresholds by the Constitution" [e.g., amending the Constitution]. . . . The Framers argued in clear terms that when faced with [controversial issues "where consensus is least achievable"], the majority should rule" (248).  That is--by simple majority.

He makes a number of recommendations for fixing the current broken system (e.g., decentralizing party leadership in the Senate; granting statehood to DC), but most important is the return to actual debate over legislation, and up or down votes. Set debating times for appropriate lengths so that minority arguments, in all their depth, can be heard. But no unlimited debate.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2021, 12:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Adam Jentleson has written a persuasive book on this subject, arguing for a return to "real" debate. 

Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate.
https://www.amazon.com/Kill-Switch-Crippling-American-Democracy/dp/1631497774

He reminds us that the Founders did not intend a system in which a minority could block the majority,

 Though it seems like the filibuster should induce moderation and cooperation, it does not; and the Framers had learned this themselves under the Articles of Confederation, in which a two thirds majority had to agree to get any legislation passed (22-23). 

Most of the book traces the rise of the filibuster, shaped by Calhoun and successors, to insure white supremacy, which it did all the way to 1964.

Now we are in a position where what Jentleson calls a "superminority"--which can be at times less than a third of the population--can effectively block any legislative program backed by the majority of Americans through its control of the Senate. This is a situation which creates an incentive in the minority to see the majority fail at governing. It also increases the power of that superminority's donors.  A bill supported by 90% of Americans could easily be blocked by a special interest.

Jentleson thinks that "every decision point in the Senate should be majority rule, aside from those assigned supermajority thresholds by the Constitution" [e.g., amending the Constitution]. . . . The Framers argued in clear terms that when faced with [controversial issues "where consensus is least achievable"], the majority should rule" (248).  That is--by simple majority.

He makes a number of recommendations for fixing the current broken system (e.g., decentralizing party leadership in the Senate; granting statehood to DC), but most important is the return to actual debate over bills, and up or down votes on them. Set debating times for appropriate lengths so that minority arguments, in all their depth, can be heard. But no unlimited debate.

Does Jentleson understand that the Senate is not a representative body of the people? That would be a good start. I don’t know much about the EU but I imagine they all get the same vote.

I’ve always been against the filibuster. Never understood why the hell you need more than 51%. But I’ve been against it no matter who it favors.

[Dill]

(03-08-2021, 12:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Does Jentleson understand that the Senate is not a representative body of the people?  That would be a good start. I don’t know much about the EU but I imagine they all get the same vote.

I’ve always been against the filibuster. Never understood why the hell you need more than 51%.  But I’ve been against it no matter who it favors.

Lol, I am pretty sure he knows the Senate represents the states, as did the Founders. I am guessing he has also noted there are people/voters in those states, bound in a union whose ultimate goal is to preserve their sovereignty as "the people." 

Jentleson doesn't seem to think ending the Senate representation of states is a good idea (though he certainly complains about the imbalance--CA/WY), but he does think DC statehood would help create some balance. 

On my view, I think many of the problems that lead people to argue for eliminating the electoral college and adding states or SCOTUS judges would go away if we followed Jentleson's proposal to end the filbuster and restore debating on the floor. 

I don't understand how the whole EU thing works together, but I guess the Council of Ministers* in the EU is like our Senate, as it contains a representative or "minister" of each member state (not a single "fixed" minister, but one representing a policy area under debate or vote). So it represents governments/states. The European Parliament would then be like our House, with proportional representation EU people. There is not a direct equivalence between our institutions and theirs, though, starting with the fact the Council can initiate some legislation and the Parliament can't. There are other differences too, e.g., Parliament controls who runs the Commission, the EU's executive branch. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/

*Also called the Council of the EU, distinct from the European council made up of heads of state, which initiates most legislation and controls EU foreign policy. I'm somewhat confused. I think the Council of the EU and Commission used to be the same thing before 2007. Surely our forum's Austrian and French representatives could sort out for us how executive functions are distributed now. I'm curious.

[CJD]

I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. It's entire purpose is to stall Congress out to the point that it can't get a single thing done ever, so removing it would make our government perform like a government again but then I shudder at the thought of a 2016 repeat where the Republicans have control of all three sections (House, Senate, Presidency) and push through disgusting nonsense that the Democrats can't do a thing about.

Since the Senate and Presidency intrinsically favor conservatives due to the 2 Senators per state rule and the electoral college, it is much more likely that Republicans would gain the ability to abuse a filibusterless Senate than the Democrats would, even though the Democrats happen to control all three sections today. And, with redistricting happening sometime this year or next (delays due to COVID are expected) and the Republicans owning the majority of state legislatures, gerrymandering will likely result in the House also intrinsically favoring conservatives in the near future. So the matter isn't a question of if the Republicans will retake the government. It's a question of when.

This Democratic control of all 3 sections happened more because of the disgust Americans had for Trump and his election fraud bullshit than actually agreeing with Democrats on a national level and I don't think it's wise for the Democrats to remove the filibuster thinking their control is indefinite. It could go the same way as the nuclear option, where Republicans regained power and expanded the nuclear option and shoved several SC judges through during unethical time windows. Granted, they could have done that even if the Democrats hadn't enacted the nuclear option for federal judge (but not SC judge) appointments.

But, on the other hand, the filibuster intrinsically favors the Republicans because Republicans are, by definition, the party of the status quo. They aren't really trying to change all that much because the government and corporate function in this country is generally already aligned with their beliefs. The Democrats are (in theory) the party of progressives. The party of change. Yes we can etc etc. So the filibuster is a blockade for them even in the cases like 2021 where they do have complete power.

I mean, Republicans want to change things in so far as they want to turn back time, like re-banning abortions and removing progressive things like Obamacare and affirmative action, but a lot of that is just posturing to their racist and sexist voters. They've had the SCOTUS votes to ban abortion, but never did it. I don't think many of them would really dedicate time to those causes when they could just be out fund raising off of those causes. If they fixed those things, what would they fundraise off of? It's hard to say.

So getting rid of the filibuster would help progressives way more than it helps Republicans because, in a system that is designed not to change, the people who don't want to change it (Republicans) are happy, but people who want it to change (Democrats, theoretically) are not. It's just a little scary because of the unknown of what the Republicans could come up with to push through when they inevitably retake the 3 sections.

[Belsnickel]

So the idea of a representative, constitutional democracy like what we have is that the majority rules, but the minority is protected. This was a way we "solved" the problems with direct democracy whereby the majority can just run roughshod over the minority. This is where the Senate in itself is intended to check the majority. This is why I am not one that typically complains about the way in which the majority in the Senate can represent a minority of the people. I'm fine with that. The problem is that the founders created this system with the idea that states with similar interests would vote similarly. Small states with small states or rural states with rural states, things like that. The idea was that this was supposed to override the factionalism that would exist with parties. Now, party interests override the interests of the people. If the filibuster were used in a good faith way to benefit the people, I'd have less of a problem with it. But it is abused in the name of partisanship and not used in the name of the people.

My personal thought is that Senate votes should all be a simple majority with the exception of confirmations of Justices of the United States. The SCOTUS is a constitutional role and requires a higher standard, IMHO.

Edit: And Constitutional amendments.

[Dill]

(03-08-2021, 02:33 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. It's entire purpose is to stall Congress out to the point that it can't get a single thing done ever, so removing it would make our government perform like a government again but then I shudder at the thought of a 2016 repeat where the Republicans have control of all three sections (House, Senate, Presidency) and push through disgusting nonsense that the Democrats can't do a thing about.

Since the Senate and Presidency intrinsically favor conservatives due to the 2 Senators per state rule and the electoral college, it is much more likely that Republicans would gain the ability to abuse a filibusterless Senate than the Democrats would, even though the Democrats happen to control all three sections today. 

C-Dawg, I am actually fine with it if Republicans get all three and push through "disgusting nonsense."* 

Each party is supposed to own what it does in a democracy.  And we're not supposed to build government to favor one party.
Let the voters decide from election to election.

As it is right now, I think a large number of voters have trouble telling which and whose policies affect them most positively or negatively. E.g., our immigration mess leaves voters on each side blaming the other, when gridlock, which allows confusion to reign for a decade, is the real culprit. 


*Or at least I was before 2016. Now there is reason to fear that an authoritarian president, supported by a increasing iliberal regime party, could undo laws and/or create new ones that favor its retaining permanent control, as happened in Hungary.  Waiting to see what happens before the next midterms.

[CJD]

(03-08-2021, 06:30 PM)Dill Wrote: C-Dawg, I am actually fine with it if Republicans get all three and push through "disgusting nonsense."* 

Each party is supposed to own what it does in a democracy.  And we're not supposed to build government to favor one party.
Let the voters decide from election to election.

As it is right now, I think a large number of voters have trouble telling which and whose policies affect them most positively or negatively. E.g., our immigration mess leaves voters on each side blaming the other, when gridlock, which allows confusion to reign for a decade, is the real culprit. 


*Or at least I was before 2016. Now there is reason to fear that an authoritarian president, supported by a increasing iliberal regime party, could undo laws and/or create new ones that favor its retaining permanent control, as happened in Hungary.  Waiting to see what happens before the next midterms.

I think the biggest plus for removing the filibuster is to clear the roadblock in Congress and let politicians show what they truly believe. Under a filibustered Congress, politicians from both sides can wantonly allude to what they "would do" if it weren't for the filibuster. I'd like to see politicians put their money where their mouth is. So many people in 2016 wanted a change from the typical politician because they felt that the government wasn't working for them and a lot of that had to do less with what policies and laws were made and more how little was getting done in general. We have these glaring and obvious issues that both sides claim they can fix if they just had the chance. If we removed the filibuster, we could actually test these policies and see how effective they are.

That's, honestly, the best reason to remove the filibuster, in my opinion. With a Congress that can't do anything, it's hard to tell who is to blame. If the filibuster is removed we'd actually start truly holding the majority leaders to account for the policies and laws they pass, good or bad. And I think, while it may have a bit of a rough transition as new laws are passed and efficiency tested, would ultimately lead to a more functional and responsive government that could address the country's needs in real time rather than having to wait 2 years to maybe get enough seats to pass something, only for something else to come up that further delays the promised policies.

[Dill]

(03-10-2021, 03:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the biggest plus for removing the filibuster is to clear the roadblock in Congress and let politicians show what they truly believe. Under a filibustered Congress, politicians from both sides can wantonly allude to what they "would do" if it weren't for the filibuster. I'd like to see politicians put their money where their mouth is. So many people in 2016 wanted a change from the typical politician because they felt that the government wasn't working for them and a lot of that had to do less with what policies and laws were made and more how little was getting done in general. We have these glaring and obvious issues that both sides claim they can fix if they just had the chance. If we removed the filibuster, we could actually test these policies and see how effective they are.

That's, honestly, the best reason to remove the filibuster, in my opinion. With a Congress that can't do anything, it's hard to tell who is to blame. If the filibuster is removed we'd actually start truly holding the majority leaders to account for the policies and laws they pass, good or bad. And I think, while it may have a bit of a rough transition as new laws are passed and efficiency tested, would ultimately lead to a more functional and responsive government that could address the country's needs in real time rather than having to wait 2 years to maybe get enough seats to pass something, only for something else to come up that further delays the promised policies.

Well said to the bolded. I'd only add that the "government isn't working" was incentive for many to send even worse politicians to Washington to block governance.

Totally agree with you on the filibuster.  Rough transition? Likely, but far better in the long run.

Yes. Address the country's needs in real time.

[fredtoast]

1. Always felt that the filibuster in any form was a silly rule.

2. doesn't matter which party is in control. If they win then they should be allowed to make the laws. If the laws don't work out then the other party will get a turn.

3. The theory that the senate was based on i.e., "a states political position will be based on its population" is outdated. Therefore the entire make up of the senate should be reconsidered. The population of a state doesn't really have anything to do with its political issues..

[TheUberHuber]

(03-10-2021, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  Always felt that the filibuster in any form was a silly rule.

2.  doesn't matter which party is in control.  If they win then they should be allowed to make the laws.  If the laws don't work out then the other party will get a turn.

3.  The theory that the senate was based on i.e., "a states political position will be based on its population" is outdated.  Therefore the entire make up of the senate should be reconsidered.  The population of a state doesn't really have anything to do with its political issues..

Or done away with entirely. 

[grampahol]

(03-08-2021, 12:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: I agree, but Manchin has basically staked his flag on the hill that he won't do it and I think he is going to at least need a defensible position and this gives him the out. 

Joe Manchin is in a peculiar spot being from W Virginia. He has to keep his seat to have any power at all, but he can't be seen as siding 100% with the liberal wing of the party or he'll lose his seat in a flash. With no senate seat he's utterly useless to the party and the party knows that. More importantly Manchin knows it so he has to walk an ever increasingly thinner and tighter rope. Those who want to replace him with a hard line liberal senator are pipe dreaming. W Virginia mostly likes Manchin despite being a Democrat, but he can't be the liberal most liberals want him to be.

[GMDino]

https://crooksandliars.com/2021/03/go-it-lindsey-graham-says-hell-filibuster

[/url]

Quote:[url=https://crooksandliars.com/2021/03/go-it-lindsey-graham-says-hell-filibuster]Go For It, Lindsey! Graham Says He'll Filibuster Voting Rights 'Until I Fall Over'
Challenge accepted! Senator Lindsey Graham says he'll filibuster until he falls over, in order to stop voting rights legislation. Go for it, Lindsey! says everybody.
By Common Dreams


Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said this week that if Senate Democrats revive the talking filibuster in an effort to weaken the rule's power as a tool of endless obstruction, he would speak until he "fell over" to try to block passage of a major expansion of voting rights as well as legislation aiming to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.

"I would talk 'til I fell over to make sure that we don't go to ballot harvesting and voting by mail without voter ID," Graham said in an appearance on Fox News, referring to the For the People Act. "I would talk 'til I fell over to make sure that the Equality Act doesn't become law."


ADVERTISEMENT
Progressives argued that Senate Democrats—a growing number of whom have voiced support for filibuster reform in recent days—should not hesitate to force Graham to follow through on his threat.

"Make him do it," tweeted Jonathan Cohn, a Massachusetts-based editor and activist.
Brian Beutler, editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, added, "Change the filibuster rules so we can watch Lindsey Graham fall over."

The fact that Graham holds the Senate seat formerly occupied by arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond—whose 24-hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 still stands as the longest in U.S. history—was not lost on observers as the South Carolina Republican promised to stand in the way of a Democratic effort to expand the franchise amid GOP-led suppression efforts nationwide.

"Graham['s] telling us he intends to honor the legacy of U.S. senators from South Carolina," quipped New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.



Graham's comments came amid growing support at the top of the Democratic Party for weakening the filibuster, which in its current form requires virtually no effort to deploy and forces senators to obtain at least 60 votes to advance most bills—giving the minority party in a narrowly divided Senate significant power to tank legislation.

Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, President Joe Biden for the first time endorsed reforming the 60-vote rule by reviving the talking filibuster, which would require senators who wish to block legislation to hold the floor and speak continuously. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, has also indicated that he supports the idea.

Altering or outright abolishing the filibuster rule would require the support of the entire Senate Democratic caucus plus a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris.

With momentum clearly on the side of diminishing the power of the filibuster—which is standing in the way of not just a major voting rights expansion, but also climate action, immigration reform, and more—Adam Jentleson of the Battle Born Collective said in an appearance on MSNBC Thursday that "it would be wise for senators to start thinking very seriously about whether or not we should just go ahead and do the reform now."

"What are we waiting for?" asked Jentleson, who served as an aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "We don't need any further proof that Republicans are going to obstruct."

Good to see Graham is willing to stand up for something!  Namely not protecting voting rights.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-20-2021, 03:59 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://crooksandliars.com/2021/03/go-it-lindsey-graham-says-hell-filibuster

[url=https://crooksandliars.com/2021/03/go-it-lindsey-graham-says-hell-filibuster][/url]

Good to see Graham is willing to stand up for something!  Namely not protecting voting rights.

$40 says he won't be standing long if they make talking a prerequisite for performing a filibuster.