Discussion for article #234826
The filibuster was a terrible idea from the beginning. Having a Senate where South Dakota and California get equal representation is bad enough; but adding on the ability of 41 Senators to block the will of the majority is even worse. At least the original filibuster required active work on the part of the minority; its modern day painless version doesnât even have that virtue, so it is used on literally every piece of legislation or action. No other democracy requires super majorities and they seem to manage just fine.
Sure, Sahilâs point about what Republicans could do if they hold the Senate and take the White House is valid. But the solution for that is simple-donât vote for them. If the people ignore this, then they get what they deserve. They can always throw the bums out at the next election and vote in a new bunch to reverse their actions. Thatâs how a democracy is supposed to work (or a democratic republic, for those who prefer that term).
19 Likes
I think that laying the credit and the blame for weakening the filibuster at Harry Reidâs feet is a bit much. In the 1970s they changed the rules so that you could filibuster without actually having to do the work, making it possible to force any piece of legislation require 60 votes.
The more polarized politics became, the harder it became to get that many votes on big legislation, and the more incentive both parties had to use it. That basically came to a head with the Obama presidency, with the new de facto rule that any legislation in the senate needed 60 votes. That status quo couldnât go on.
There was no downside for Reid to to eliminate the filibuster, and getting rid of it had a huge upside. I donât think thereâs a single politics junkie right or left that could seriously argue that had Reid done nothing about it and Republicans took both houses and the presidency in 2016, that Republicans would have the decency to let the democrats gridlock them the same way for next four years.
20 Likes
The divide among the people of this country in beliefs and values grows, it does not heal. The antics in the Senate is merely a reflection of that divide.
1 Like
âImagine a Republican presidency with majorities in the House and Senate, a very plausible outcome in 2017â
Horrors! The American people would be governed by people they elected! (and they would deserve every bit of it.)
9 Likes
âItâs hard to put the toothpaste back in the tubeâ
Especially after conservatives squeezed the living bejeesus out of it.
7 Likes
I think itâs time elections really did have consequences. Weâve devolved to the point where nothing major happens, unless itâs a crisis. 90% of the people hate Congress, but 98% of the incumbents get reelected.
So if the people who arenât on the far right wing are too lazy to vote for reasonable people, they get tap water filled with fracking chemicals, coal slurry runoff in their rivers, no one to protect them when a boss treats them like serfs, and no health care. Maybe then they realize that President Bush and the rest of the Republicans donât have their best interests at heart.
In the meantime, Iâll be tucked away in my liberal state, bemoaning the fact that my federal tax dollars are sucked up by the moocher states where they complain about moochers.
6 Likes
If Sahil Kapur believes that if the GOP has the White House and the majority in both chambers of Congress that the pressure on Republicans to eliminate the filibuster wouldnât exist if Reid hadnât made his change to the filibuster rules I have some prime ocean front property in the mid - lands of S.C. that he can get real cheap.
9 Likes
The Republicans engaged in obstructionism unprecedented in its extremism and bad faith. Itâs not Harry Reid who should be held responsible for the introduction of the nuclear option.
11 Likes
The filibuster serves a purpose. The Senate has traditionally been a more deliberative body, and harder to ramrod a âpopularâ but perhaps stupid piece of legislation. As such, the filibuster acts as a check against stupid stuff being passed by a majority of idiots.
Tell you what, guarantee that the congress folk are never idiots and I will gladly support the elimination of the filibuster!
It would not take much imagination to predict thatâŚif it were not for a filibusterâŚthe Reps could manage a majority in both houses to pass an Indiana-style âreligious freedomâ law discriminating against gays or whomever they choose. Or abolish the Civil Rights Acts for that matter, by a simple majority vote.
Sounds good on the outside, look deeper, and the elimination of the filibuster could have some really serious risks.
2 Likes
I think itâs completely disingenuous to call this Reidâs legacy. Itâs really McConnellâs, for driving the Senate to dysfunction and forcing Reidâs hand simply to keep the government minimally functional. It serves the GOPâs intensely partisan purposes perfectly. But they should be careful what they wish for.
12 Likes
So many concern trolls so very concerned about the very concerning intrusion of democracy into the august chamber of the Senate.
Because, oh yes, obviously the biggest problem facing America today was the risk that weâd stop clinging to 18th century notions about the dangers of too much democracy. Because if thereâs one problem America faces today, itâs definitely that we just have too gosh darn much democracy going on.
And clearly the problem is because that mean Harry Reid wouldnât play by the rules anymore. It cannot possibly be that any of the blame for this terrible, terrible infiltration of 21st century democracy into the Great National Saucer for the 18th century style cooling of hot coffee is due to the degeneration of the Republican Party from a normal American political party into an authoritarian movement party. No possible connection can be drawn from the partial elimination of the filibuster to the fact that since a backstabbing byzantine guttersnipe named Newt Gingrich schemed his way into the Speakerâs chair, the Republican Party has engaged in a project of systematic demolition of each and every boundary, unwritten rule and code of conduct for members of Congress that used to be the grease that made our inherently unworkable checks and balances constitutional kludge function.
13 Likes
Imagine a Republican presidency with majorities in the House and Senate, a very plausible outcome in 2017
No, Sahil, itâs not a âvery plausible outcomeâ. I realize that another insane horse race is all that todayâs âjournalistsâ crave, but that really is only plausible if the Republickens find a hidden store of several million old, white conservatives.
Pretty unlikely Iâd say.
But donât worry - Iâm sure youâll get your insane horse race - it just wonât turn out the way you believe to be âplausibleâ.
4 Likes
The greatest threat to the country, tyranny of the majority, is not the loss of the filibuster. Its the potential change of the electoral college to proportional voting by congressional districts. Only two states have this, but Republicans are talking about bringing this to purple/blue states (only), where they control the state legislatures. Gerrymandering has been made this possible and together they would destroy the country.
6 Likes
Well said.
I can only support the concept of a filibuster if it requires some actual commitment, preferably accompanied by discomfort or even actual pain. This painless stuff serves no purpose at all; just like all of the secret holds and other customs that depend on the public not knowing whatâs actually happening. Itâs bad for democracy.
That said, Iâm still investing in pitchforks and guillotines, just in case Sahil turns out to be correct (which would certainly require cheating, but we know Republickens are capable of that).
2 Likes
The 2016 election is going to be the ultimate test of the notion that if enough money is spent, the âsome of the peopleâ who Lincoln said could be fooled all of the time can all be fooled into voting the same way and that those always fooled people are enough added to the Republican loyalists to win the presidency.
6 Likes
Well, Sahilâs got the angst flowinâ, this Tuesday morninâ.
Check.
4 Likes
You got it Steve - right on the money.
But now youâve gone and hurt their fee-fees. Oh dearâŚ
âŚis the Republican Party.
2 Likes
It was the GOP who brought up the ânuclear optionâ and even fired a parliamentarian who wouldnât give them extra cover for it. The democrats let a bunch of evil stuff pass rather than give up the filibuster, thus setting the stage for republican extremism.
2 Likes