Why Filibusters Should Be Allowed

The Washington Post ^ | March 20, 2005 | George F. Will

[Cyclopean Squid]

But the Democrats have no actual power to do that since they haven't a majority in either house of Congress.

I believe their tactic would be to simply filibuster everything; don't allow a vote on any item. Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't believe that all the Dems would be on board with this plan for very long. Within a week at least 5 would jump ship and vote for cloture on something, anything.

[thoughtomator]

But if the closure rule is changed, the Democrats can't even sustain a filibuster. What do they do then?

[TheDon]

LOL! Even the USC allows ammendments. Senate and House rules can be changed. If the majority party feels the minority party is abusing the rules, it makes good sense to change the rules.

[Cyclopean Squid]

I think the constitutional option would affect only the filibuster on the judicial nominees. The filibuster on legislative bills/issues would remain in play, and that would be what the Dems embrace.

[smoothsailing]

Why 67? Why not 51, or a ruling from the President of the Senate?

[streetpreacher]

Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Doesn't this line defeat the whole pretext of Will's argument?

[thoughtomator]

If the filibuster is going to be a tool for such abuse, then it needs to go. Whatever virtues it may have, its potential for abuse threatens our entire way of life.

[spokeshave]

" Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt

Fine .. BRING IT ON

As for Goerge Will ...I fart in his general direction.

[thoughtomator]

Yeah that's what I thought... what's wrong with them determining that the filibuster is no longer acceptable if it is going to be systematically abused, given that they can set their own rules?

[CyberAnt]

"It merely requires 60 votes to call the question"

Would you like to restate that in plain English so the rest of us can understand what you're talking about.

If you're saying that a senate rules change takes 60 votes - then why is Frist saying he has the 51 necessary to change the rule ..??

[Mike Darancette]

If the RATS are going to filibuster then make them do it the right way. I want readings of Bibles and phone books, quorum calls and the whole Mr. Smith package.

It's too easy to say you have 41 votes till those 41 have to do the heavy lifting.

[Cyclopean Squid]

I'm with you on the elmination of the filibuster entirely; but then I've often been accused of authoritarian tendencies. Without any filibuster, the Senate could pass virtually every bill that the House does, notwithstanding the RINOs. The President's agenda will be passed in no time at all.

I think it be great, but I don't believe it will be eliminated entirely. It's been around for so long. The Senate is supposed to be a debating society; well, let them debate. The faux filibuster they have is just a procedural obstuction. A true filibuster is about as worthless as having none, because there's only a handful of ultra-moonbats who would make fools of themselves by speaking endlessly, and one of them has plans for higher office and would ergo probably not participate anyway.

[thegreatbeast]

Rather weak Will. What is his prescription? Get out there, Bush, and hit the stumps! Let other things wait and make this your top priority."
No, not Will at his best. As soon as the 2006 election cycle completes, 43 becomes a lame duck

[nothingnew]

George Will is intelligent and amusing. That's about it.

FMCDH(BITS)

[rcocean]

One of Will's worst columns. This is why he is the WaPO house conservative.

Don't change the filibuster because the Repubs might want to filibuster in the future. Wait till we have 60 senators - after all it happened 7 times in the last 100 years.

1) The Repubs voted for Ginsburg and a lot of the 9th circuit on the bench when they were in the MAJORITY. President Hillary could nominate Fidel Castro in 2009 for the 9th circuit and the Repubs would go along with it. Who are they going to filibuster in the future?

2) The idea the RATS would not institute the Constitutional option -when they have the majority -because the Repubs didnt in the past is so laughable it hurts. The DEMS tried to change the filibuster in the past when they were the majority. In the minority they've spun 180 degrees on filibusters and if back the majority in 2009 will spin back again. They play to win.

3) The President represents all the people and is elected to appoint judges. His judges should be confirmed on an up or down vote. 41 Senators shouldn't have veto power over his nominees.

[ambrose]

I would like ask George Will what he think we need to do if we don't use the constitutional option? Cave-in to the Democrats?

How about requiring an actual filibuster, not these "Gentlemens' Filibusters" that we have been seeing?

The Republicans have allowed the Rats to transform a rule which permits extended debate into a de facto super majority rule.

[Blackyce]

If the Democrats ever take control of the Senate and Presidency, they will not hesitate to change the rules. Let's not pretend that by not changing the rules we are preserving the system. The Dems have already thrown precedent and respectability out the window, it's over, now put their feet in the fire.

[Restorer]

If you're saying that a senate rules change takes 60 votes - then why is Frist saying he has the 51 necessary to change the rule ..??

As I understand it:

Presently the new Senate generally votes to accept the rules of the previous Senate, normally a complete formality. The existing rules, once accepted, require a vote of 60 to change any given rule.

However, only a simple majority is required to change the rule that requires a vote of 60 to a rule that requires a simple majority for rules changes.

If that makes any sense. Or possibly I'm just confused. Wouldn't be the first time.

[10mm]

However, only a simple majority is required to change the rule that requires a vote of 60 to a rule that requires a simple majority for rules changes.

Quote Of The Day. I'm still trying to parse it :^)

[Restorer]

If you get it straightened out, let me know!

Seriously, this is one of the most arcane controversies I've ever seen in the news. When reading about it, I'm sure the average person's eyes start to glaze over long before they really understand the issue.

However, the critical point is that allowing filibusters in the Senate is a tradition, not a constitutional requirement. It is truly hilarious to see liberals getting their panties all bunched up over the mere idea of a majority deciding to change a tradition.