Posted on 09/21/2020 5:34:20 PM PDT by SpeedyInTexas
FEINSTEIN on ending filibuster and expanding SCOTUS: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Idea must be polling badly. Go figure.
Why do the Chinese want to keep the filibuster?
I think I read Manchin, Feinstein and Sinema have come out against killing the filibuster.
Liar. The filibuster is used on EVERY vote of the full Senate. Filibuster is simply deemed to apply. Every ballot, except for judges, must have 60 votes for passage.
How did Harry Reid unilaterally abolishing the filibuster for Presidential nominations work out for the Democrats? Perhaps there are some Democrats that can remember.
If it’s such a good idea, the Constitution should be amended to incorporate it in the procedures of the U.S. Senate.
A lot of senators — especially Republicans — love the filibuster because it gives them an excuse for failing to pass bills that their voters want but their donors oppose. They can keep winning 51-59 seats without ever passing anything of substance. If the GOP ever got 60 seats in the Senate, I’ll bet they’d change the Senate rules to require 65 votes to kill a filibuster.
FEINSTEIN
I like the original filibuster where it took 67 senators to pass a bill (or close debate) .
Laws should be passed by a supermajority if you treasure freedom, because the essence of every law is to curtail freedom.
We have more than enough laws, if anything we need to get rid of many of them.
I think that many of them are deeply regretting that Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations and don’t want to repeat that mistake.
Exactly. The filibuster has become the defacto standard, and without 60 votes, no law, bill or budget is passed. The tyranny of the minority.
If I recall correctly, the original filibuster rule called for actually continuing debate, far into the night sometimes, with someone holding the floor, and actually having to debate.
As I understand, nowadays, they take a cloture vote, and if 60 senators don’t vote for cloture, then everyone goes home. And this can happen indefinitely, with no cut off, so that legislation never gets to the cloture vote. In the old days, filibusterers eventually had enough of actually holding the floor, and then legislation would proceed to the final vote.
The filibuster was intended to ensure that legislation doesn’t get rammed through, and that everyone gets to have their say. The intention was not to indefinitely derail legislation by never bringing the issue to a final vote.
Every ballot, except for judges, must have 60 votes for passage.The senate makes their own rules, that's one of them.
They could change it to simple majority or 75 votes...or whatever they choose.
You are correct. The filibuster vote was for ending “debate” , rather than the actual vote on the bill itself. Even so it was quite effective at killing bills. You can have a tag team of opposed senators for days slowly reading all the works of Shakespeare.
From the senate website...
“Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as “ cloture .” The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote.”
Again I would not mind having some type of supermajority needed to pass a bill. Great way to keep the federal government small and out of our lives and pass more power to the states. States could choose individually whether to have it or not and in doing so would act like a living laboratory in governance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.