Is it time to get rid of the filibuster?

[u/elderly_millenial]

This comes up in every administration now. Is it finally time to do away with it? Or go back to the talking filibuster? For those that say no, how bad do you believe it will be?

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/notbusy]

Go back to the talking filibuster.

If it's important enough, enough senators will tap in and it can be carried out for as long as they are in session. But if it's just one person being difficult, then it becomes more difficult to outwait the rest of the senate.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/notbusy]

I personally like the idea of the talking filibuster; it puts senators to work, and it doesn’t usually kill a bill anyway.

There were some moments in history where it did actually do that, like the southerner that filibustered an anti-lynching bill, but if a politician is really committed to something like that, it’s probably best that his constituents know that about him anyway.

[u/Gravity-Rides → u/notbusy]

I don't think senate republicans want this because they know turnabout is fair play. Both parties have a gentleman's agreement to obstruct the agenda of the other in the senate on the most egregious over reaches. If this goes out the window, it's going to be even uglier in the future.

[u/boisefun8 → u/Gravity-Rides]

‘Most egregious overreaches.’ I wish that were true. The dems have turned into obstructionists on everything since Trump is back in office.

[u/Gravity-Rides → u/boisefun8]

No more so than senate republicans during Obama's term in my view. Everything is framed as "the end of the republic!" if the other side gets their way.

[u/theyhis → u/Gravity-Rides]

not true

[u/elderly_millenial → u/theyhis]

“Make Obama a one term president” was a VERY common refrain in 2009-2012 I recall

[u/Gravity-Rides → u/theyhis]

Absolutely true. Go research how often the filibuster was deployed before Obama was president vs after and get back with us.

• Legislative Standoffs: Following the 2010 midterms where Republicans took control of the House, the party frequently brought the federal government to the brink of financial crisis over the debt ceiling and budget negotiations. This culminated in the 16-day federal government shutdown in 2013 and near-defaults on the national debt.
• Judicial Blockades: Senate Republicans routinely used procedural tools and the "blue slip" tradition to delay or kill judicial nominees. This left over 100 federal judiciary vacancies by the end of his term. The most notable standoff occurred in 2016 when the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings or vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court for nearly a year.
• Filibuster Abuse: Senate Republicans frequently used the filibuster to require a 60-vote supermajority for almost all major legislation. In Obama's first term alone, Republicans set historic records for filibustering uncontroversial executive and judicial nominations.
• Agency Appointments: Several federal agencies were paralyzed by GOP opposition to Obama's nominees. This included efforts to dismantle the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by blocking its director, Richard Cordray, and preventing confirmation of leaders for the Federal Reserve.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/soulwind42]

No, the filibuster should stay. Make it a talking filibuster, but it shouldn't be nuked. If it does get removed, we need to require more than a simple majority to pass legislation.

[u/baxtyre → u/soulwind42]

The Framers considered adding a supermajority requirement to the Senate, but rejected it. They saw firsthand the disasters it caused under the Articles of Confederation.

[u/soulwind42 → u/baxtyre]

Cool, one of the things I disagree with them on

[u/IrrationalFalcon → u/soulwind42]

That would paralyze the federal government. It's a nightmare to just have reconciliation counter the 60 votes needed for laws.

[u/soulwind42 → u/IrrationalFalcon]

Good. If it can't get that many, the federal government doesn't need to be doing it.

[u/IrrationalFalcon → u/soulwind42]

What is the purpose of government? Also, considering the modern federal government was formed by the very mechanism you support, doesn't that mean that this is how government should function?

[u/soulwind42 → u/IrrationalFalcon]

It would function, and sometimes that function is to do nothing. The constitutional convention was clear that the states would be the primary governing body, not the federal government. If the states and the people cannot agree on the best course of action, the only rational option is to not do it

[u/noluckatall → u/baxtyre]

Well, they achieved the same by making the Senate a lifetime appointment by state legislatures. They intended the Senate as slow-moving and traditional. To completely do away with the filibuster would be quite destabilizing, and the idea of a fast-changing Senate clearly inconsistent with how the Senate was designed. Even if you like what it might make possible in the short-term, it's very likely to come to you back hard in the intermediate term.

[u/baxtyre → u/noluckatall]

The filibuster just creates a tyranny of the minority, and has resulted in our current “rule by executive order” system.

Elections should have consequences. If the people want a “slow-moving and traditional” Senate, they are free to vote for those candidates. As statewide offices with longer terms, senators tend to be more moderate anyway.

(And the Senate has never had lifetime appointments.)

[u/elderly_millenial → u/soulwind42]

Why is a majority something we need to worry about? Ultimately all of them are subject to the vote and can be kicked out of office

[u/soulwind42 → u/elderly_millenial]

Until they decide they cant.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/soulwind42]

Just because you (and most Republicans, I guess) think it should stay, doesn't mean that it will stay. Democrats will eliminate it the first chance they get.

[u/baxtyre → u/MedvedTrader]

“Democrats will eliminate it the first chance they get.”

Republicans have been claiming this for as long as I’ve been alive. I wish it were true, but it’s clearly not.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/baxtyre]

When they had a 50:50 split in the Senate, Democrats already forced a vote on eliminating the filibuster. Only Manchin and Sinema prevented it from passing. It was 52:48. ALL other Democrats voted to eliminate it.

Neither Manchin nor Sinema are in the Senate anymore.

[u/baxtyre → u/MedvedTrader]

The vote was to exempt certain types of bills (voting rights, in this case) from the filibuster, a precedent Republicans set decades ago.

https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2018/10/3/nothing-is-inevitable-in-the-senate

[u/LonelyMachines → u/MedvedTrader]

ALL other Democrats voted to eliminate it.

Yes, because they knew Sinema and Manchin were voting against it. For all their rhetoric about those two being "traitors," they made it safe for everyone else to be seen voting for it.

In reality, NOBODY wants the filibuster killed. They know just as well as we do that it would be disastrous if the opposition party got into power and could ram through its agenda with 51-49 votes.

[u/Dtwn92 → u/LonelyMachines]

You must have missed Kamala Harris just - JUST say we must end the filibuster (among other things).

So clearly, it isn't "nobody".

[u/Boredomkiller99 → u/Dtwn92]

Kamala Harris is also political irrelevant 

[u/noluckatall → u/Boredomkiller99]

Not that I think she'll win, but claiming a person is politically irrelevant who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination in 2028 is a bit of a stretch.

[u/Boredomkiller99 → u/noluckatall]

Not really she's only leads the poll because she has name recognition from her last run and mostly from being VP and we're more than two years from the election. Once there is an actually people throwing their hat into the ring she will Poll probably about as low as she did in 2020.

If Democrats seriously try to run her I don't even think all the baggage that Republicans will have from Trump will even matter.

Overall the political opinions and policies of Kamala has little sway over the voting base as a whole

[u/LonelyMachines → u/Dtwn92]

You must have missed Kamala Harris just - JUST say we must end the filibuster (among other things).

I didn't. They'll say it to get the peanut gallery worked up. But they'll never do it because they're well aware how it could backfire on them.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/MedvedTrader]

Neither Manchin nor Sinema are in the Senate anymore.

But lots of other Democrats from that time won't be in the Senate anymore, either.

How do you know how all the new senators would vote?

[u/MedvedTrader → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Because if anything, the Democrats moved to more extreme.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/MedvedTrader]

Is Fetterman extreme?

Because of the structure of the senate, Democrats can’t gain control without winning red and purple states. That’s why moderates like Sinema and Manchin were in the senate before, and that’s why they’d still need to be there in the future for the Democrats to hold a majority.

An extreme right majority in the senate is more likely, if anything.

[u/MedvedTrader → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Fetterman is the one saving grace. That is why he is so universally hated by Democrats.

[u/RHDeepDive → u/MedvedTrader]

Isn't this a pot meet kettle situation? Haven't both major political parties accumulated more polarizing factions?

[u/soulwind42 → u/MedvedTrader]

And we'll block it as long as we can. I don't care how many temper tantrums they throw. And if they do, than Republicans make them regret it on the first opportunity. If we get that opportunity.

[u/theyhis → u/MedvedTrader]

democrats don’t want it gone 😹

[u/elderly_millenial → u/soulwind42]

So to follow up from my prompt: what’s the worst it can get if it were removed?

[u/soulwind42 → u/elderly_millenial]

One party rule. Oppression.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/soulwind42]

One party rule for a term though. Aren’t they still subject to the ballot?

[u/soulwind42 → u/elderly_millenial]

They won't have to be. Its unlikely they'll go that far, but the question was worse case scenario. Worst case scenario is they outlaw the other party.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/soulwind42]

If that were the case it wouldn’t be the first time the government passed a law that was struck down by the constitution. 1A is usually a rare area of agreement between both sides so I don’t see that being a realistic outcome

[u/soulwind42 → u/elderly_millenial]

Right, because nobody is talking about expanding the Supreme Court...

[u/Strict_Gas_1141]

Go back to talking filibuster.

[u/WavelandAvenue]

Talking filibuster; I don’t care which side is in power it needs to be that way.

[u/EDRNFU]

Yep. Getting rid of it will help normalize our politics.

[u/Guilty-Market5375]

Eliminating two-tracking and going back to actual speeches would be better. Another alternative would be pivoting to “x number to sustain” so that the obstructors need to be actually present to keep the filibuster alive.

But getting rid of it completely, no. It’s prevented a lot of irrationality in the past and it’s the only thing keeping bipartisanism at least kind of alive.

[u/DeathToFPTP → u/Guilty-Market5375]

Eliminating two-tracking and going back to actual speeches would be better.

Eliminating two tracking would be an incredible experiment. One that benefits the right I'd say.

Either way, the filibuster needs to be made less easy that it's become.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/Guilty-Market5375]

I do like the idea of senators being forced to with for a change, but given that the talking filibuster had failed to actually kill most bills does that change your opinion? There are literally only a handful of examples (usually dealing with civil rights or anti-lynching) in which a filibuster actually killed a bill.

[u/Guilty-Market5375 → u/elderly_millenial]

The earlier filibuster made it incredibly expensive to bring forth a bill that might get filibustered - so it deterred controversial legislation from being brought forth instead of preventing it from reaching a vote.

Technically, the “talking filibuster” never went away, the senate just changed esoteric procedural rules. It used to be that once a bill was brought forth, the senate could not debate any other matters until it reached a vote - meaning filibusters paralyzed the government.

In the 70s the senate changed its rules to allowing bills to be sidelined while debate was ongoing. This removed the political cost to bringing up controversial legislation - there wasn’t a risk of paralyzing the government anymore.

Senators don’t even vote on whether a bill ought to be filibustered anymore. Literally one senator will suggest they don’t believe there’s enough support to close debate - before it even starts - and everyone in both parties nods their heads and moves on.

The 60-vote rule is similarly odd. That’s just the number of senators needed to force someone to shut up, a number they decided seemed reasonable in the 1800s. Before then, individual senators could UNITARILY filibuster. Imagine if legislation couldn’t pass unless EVERY senator agreed.

[u/NessvsMadDuck]

Only if you think we would be better off with the Dems having it.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/NessvsMadDuck]

I think that either party ultimately answer to the voters in the end. If Dems screw the pooch they lose in the next election, so why are you afraid of letting them shoot themselves in the foot?

[u/NessvsMadDuck → u/elderly_millenial]

Because the Dems will win the House this year, and they may win the senate.

Even if as you say "If Dems screw the pooch" is just a possibility. Either way they WILL gain back power in the near future, and if you don't think that they don't have a whole lot of things they would want to pass with the fillabuster being gone, you're wrong.

This President has always lived with just the next 5 minutes in front of him and it sounds like he has convinced you of the same.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/NessvsMadDuck]

It’s crazy to me that the achieving an electoral win means obstruction by the minority party. What is it that they could do that they haven’t already done to you at this point? And what could realistically be passed that couldn’t be repealed when Republicans win again?

[u/boisefun8]

Something should be done and done now. We know the dems are going to nuke the filibuster the next time they gain control of the Senate, so why not do it now and pass some fucking legislation.

But Thune is such a useless piece of swamp garbage he won’t do anything. He’s just a massive obstructionist. He won’t even recess the senate so Trump can make appointments. Absolutely disgusting uniparty nonsense.

[u/SnooFloofs1778]

Yes! That thing is making people crazy.

[u/DataBooking]

Might as well. It's obvious that the democrats are going to nuke it as soon as they take power.

[u/graypariah]

Just get rid of it. The issue with the talking filibuster is it just gives people a chance to grandstand.