not a bad idea!

~joshua

Yea.. When monkees fly outta my butt..

i'm usually too busy singing to put anybody down, but i'm a believer in trying to correct repeated grammatical errors where i see them. since i can't have pet monkeys i have pet peeves, and reining/reigning is one of them. you meant the one without the G.

Reining in spending = Holding spending in check, like reins on a horse. Congress does this almost never.

Reigning in spending = Exercising the power of a monarch or dictator to spend as he likes. Congress does this almost always.

[/rant]

This is somewhat of a tangent, so forgive me. I was talking with my wife about the West Wing episode "The Stackhouse Filibuster" which I always maintained was pure fiction, because filibusters just don't happen anymore.

But then I remembered the whole plotline -- this wasn't a filibuster called by any party or party leader, it was just a Senator who stood up and kept talking.

So my question is: is such a "rogue" filibuster still possible? Can one Senator just refuse to yeild the floor and mount a singlehanded filibuster? I seem to even recall someone attempting this a year or so ago... someone (a Dem? I forget) just kept talking... and talking... and talking.

Granted, it's not a "real" filibuster, but is such a thing still possible? I'm curious.

-CW

I almost agree with the CW.com consensus, but not if it's a unilateral action by the Senate majority leader. It's can't be. It has to be a rules change.

Go back to the "one-track" filibuster.

Before the 1970s, the filibuster was a tactic. To filibuster, you had to keep a question before the Senate, not letting it come to a vote. That's because the rule said that once a question was taken up, it either comes to a vote or stays before the Senate.

In the 1970s, they decided filibusters had become too disruptive, so they changed it. Now, the "filibuster" is not a tactic. It's simply a threshold. A senator declares opposition to a bill (or resolution); the majority leader (at his option) decides to bring the bill to a vote (called cloture, nominally a procedural vote but in fact it's the real vote on the bill); if 59 or fewer senators vote "yes", the bill is defeated. Meanwhile, the majority leader is free to conduct other business despite the "filibuster".

The majority leader is also free to hold up all other Senate business. But if he does so, that's his choice, having nothing to do with the "filibuster".

If you're still advocating that Reid respond to Republican obstructionism with obstructionism of his own, and try to spin it as "making them filibuster for real instead of just threatening to", I'm very much not on board. That spin would not work because it's not true, it's a hard type of lie to sell, and the Democratic party as a whole isn't good enough at that type of lying.

It needs to be a rules change. Put the rules back the way they were before the 1970s, except keep the cloture threshold at 60 (technically, three-fifths of all senators, i.e. lower if there are vacant seats) instead of putting it back to two-thirds of those voting. Or maybe put it down to three-fifths of those voting. And make it explicit that rules changes can be done by simple majority at the start of a session.

I have my moments. Few and far between though they may be.. :D

Filibusters DO have their use.. Like David said above, the combat the tyranny of the Majority..

But Congress really didn't do themselves (or us) any favors by making filibusters easy and painless..

Well, painless for THEM.. Very painful for us...

I think the solution is to take filibusters back to where they actually took great effort in impose and maintain..

Congress does that, I bet we see a huge drop in filibusters..

But Congress reigning in their own radical elements??

Yea.. When monkees fly outta my butt..

Michale...

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/

OUCH! That's just GOTTA hurt...

Maybe Democrats should have filibustered... :D

Michale....

Everyone agrees? This must be some kind of record. I agree with Michale, we've entered the Twilight Zone here...

Heh.

In this new-found spirit of agreeing with each other (I would say "I fifth it" but then there's two obvious jokes there about the Bill of Rights and how liquor is sold, so I will refrain...), allow me to say Michale put his finger on something which I really should have included in the article:

Follow that link. See the graph. The same point where they lowered the limit to 60 was when they came up with "cloture" votes instead of actual filibusters. And you can see the graph spike as a direct result.

I tend to like Bukeye54's suggestion of limiting the filibuster numbers per year, but it's easy to come up with a workaround to that (majority party would flood the floor with poison-pill bills -- all slightly different -- in January, to force the other side to use up all their slots for the year).

Oh, wait, I meant to say "February" since they mostly take January off... what was I thinking?

Sigh.

Anyway, "Be careful what you wish for" is the operative warning here -- whenever thinking up a solution, ALWAYS imagine yourself in the minority under those rules.

It's a tough nut to crack. But forcing the actual filibusters would at least wake a lot of people up to the size and scope of the problem.

-CW

Plus it might make for some hilarious moments..

FilibusterTV!! ALL FILIBUSTERS!! ALL THE TIME!!

Be bigger than The Truman Show :D

Michale.....

Well said, Michale. I think de Tocqueville defined it best as the tyranny of the majority. A good example is civil rights.

Civil rights might never have become law if it were left up the judgment of states with majority rule.

-David

p.s. I'll jump on the CW bandwagon too and state that I think it would be a great idea to make people actually filibuster though. We might actually get some work out of some politicians! :)

Interesting article..

While there are definitely downsides to the filibuster there are advantages..

Wasn't there an issue recently that brought up the concept of the country being held hostage to the whim of the majority???

I am sure ya'll would be ecstatic about a simple majority uber alles when it's Democrats that hold the majority.

But would ya'all be so keen on a simple majority when it's Republicans who hold the majority in both the House and the Senate AND hold the presidency???

I think that would firmly come under the heading of "Be careful what you wish for"...

Michale.....

And perhaps we could limit the total number of filibusters either Party could call in each session. So the tool would be available but would have to be used wisely and judiciously.

Both excellent suggestions..

But neither Party really wants to change things, as they might end up shooting themselves in the foot...

Michale.....

The least that should be done is to make Senators actually conduct a physical filibuster. Make them take to the floor and stand there talking if they want to delay voting. Prohibit members from leaving Washington while a filibuster is in progress.

I like the idea of three successive votes (if necessary) with lowering vote limits.

And perhaps we could limit the total number of filibusters either Party could call in each session. So the tool would be available but would have to be used wisely and judiciously.

Oh no.. I've gone and shifted into a parallel reality again.. :D

Michale....

Make it a REAL filibuster, make the politicians actually WORK to make a filibuster viable...

The reason we're seeing such an uptick in filibusters is that the Congresscritters have made it painless...

"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."
-Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, A Taste Of Armageddon

Congress has made filibusters easy and worry free....

They have only themselves to blame if filibusters are availed of more and more often...

"afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"
-Romulan Proverb, roughly translated to the latin term "sans humanite" which means, "I will give them no pity, they deserve no mercy and it serves them right!"

Michale....