Skip to main content

View Diary: Filibuster reform: you still need it every day (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, Bush Bites

    filibuster!

    The problem is the Dems do not require the GOP actually to filibuster!!!

    that means:

    keep the debate going for hours, days, weeks, whatever.  MAKE THEM TIE UP THE CONGRESS (it's not like they're doing anything worthwhile anyway).  MAKE THEM bring cots into the Senate chamber and actually invest the time to filibuster!!!

    By allowing filibuster "lite" the filibuster has been turned from a tool designed to be INFREQUENTLY USED and therefore, effective in stonewalling undesired legislation or stimulating further debate about it, into a convenient way for the GOP to obstruct any legislation for any reason, any time.

    Put the filibuster back into it and see how often it gets used and/or cloture votes fail.

    NOT BLOODY OFTEN, I can tell you.  Just look at history, sheesh.

    •  I wondered about that. (0+ / 0-)

      Didn't the Dems threaten to make it a real fillibuster awhile ago and the Repubs caved pretty quickly?

      Why didn't they learn from that?

      "Philosophy is useless; theology is worse"--Dire Straits

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 10:24:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homunq

      How do you "require the GOP actually to filibuster"?

      Let's roll play. I'll be the GOP, you be the Democrats.

      I assume you now point to me and say, "Go ahead! Filibuster!"

      And I say this, "Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum."

      At that point, the rules require that the clerk call the roll and wait for every Senator's name to be called, to see if there's a quorum. If there's not, the Senate adjourns. If there is, we continue. At which point I then speak for a couple minutes, and then say, "Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum," and the whole thing starts all over again.

      When I get bored or tired, my buddy takes over the job of saying, "Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum."

      What do you do?

      •  If you want to force the GOP's hand (0+ / 0-)

        require them to honor the filibuster AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED.

        A true filibuster would require the senate to remain in session until it's over.  It would require hours, days, weeks of debate.  NO OTHER SENATE BUSINESS could be conducted before the filibuster is over.

        Become conversant with US legislative history and you will find that before BUSHIE the filibuster was very rarely used ever because it is a royal pain in the ass and is extremely time consuming.  Consequently the filibuster originally was reserved only for the gravest of issues.  Obviously it was RARELY used and, when used it was effective in actually resolving one or more issues regarding pending legislation.

        As used now, all the GOP has to do is say "filibuster" and they go straight to the cloture vote.  THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED and SHOULD NEVER have been permitted.

        So when I say make them actually filibuster I mean, the OLD GODDAMNED FASHIONED WAY.

        The way "filibusters" presently are done they are painless, have no political cost, do not consume time and actually tie up the Senate -- it's like that Star Trek (original) ep where two warring planets never fired any shots or engaged in hostilities -- instead their populations voluntarily sacrificed themselves to a machine in the name of "war."

        •  How? (0+ / 0-)

          How are you going to do it? You just gave me a wish list, and not a parliamentary tactic.

          What do you do?

          I'm pretty "conversant" in US legislative history, and in the recent history of the filibuster in particular. The "painless filibuster" you refer to is my own term. I coined it.

          And no, the "true filibuster" didn't disappear under Bush. It disappeared in the 1970s with the invention of the "two track" system in the Senate, which ironically was supposed to be a reform of filibuster rules. At the time, it was imagined that permitting other business to proceed while a bill was being filibustered would free things up in the Senate, but it inadvertently ended up making it easier to conduct extended filibusters without actually occupying the floor.

          So, again, you'd like to somehow "force" the Republicans to filibuster. And I ask you again, how?

          I've suggested the absence of a quorum now.

          What's your answer? Where's your "force?"

          Let's see it. Tell us about it. Describe it. Give us the parliamentary terminology you propose using to suspend with my time-wasting quorum call.

          Tell us.

          Go. Because right now, as it stands, the Clerk is doing my work for me.

          Make him work for you.

          Do it.

          •  I've answered your question. (0+ / 0-)

            Than you very much for asking it again.

            •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

              Ready for the real answer to your "answer?"

              "The Senator has not propounded a parliamentary inquiry or a motion on which the chair may rule, and is not recognized. The clerk will continue reading the roll."

              You just lost.

              Now what?

              Seriously. Give me a parliamentary operation to implement your reform.

              Go. Show everyone what you've got.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site