The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #134618   Message #3063584
Posted By: Genie
29-Dec-10 - 09:08 PM
Thread Name: BS: Hate the Filibuster??? You can...
Subject: RE: BS: Hate the Filibuster??? You can...
Are you sure about that last part, Bobert? When was that rule enacted? Or do you mean that the Senate rules can be changed at any time with a 2/3 vote?

As for the filibuster, I'm not in favor of totally abolishing it, but I think major changes need to be made to prevent the kind of abuse of it that we saw during this past Congressional session.

1. If a filibuster motion is introduced, all 40 Senators who support it (i.e., who will vote against cloture) should have to go on record as such.   It should not be incumbent on the majority to prove that they have 60 votes for cloture.

The politicians and the media should also start talking about filibusters AS filibusters -- i.e., as the minority preventing an up-or-down vote on a bill or nomination -- instead of making it sound like a bill has "failed" or "not passed" when it was never allowed a vote.

Even under current rules, it does NOT "take 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate." It takes 60 votes to ALLOW a vote.

2. The filibuster should not be permitted to PREVENT debate on a bill or issue.   Its purpose was to EXTEND debate -- presumably so issues could be examined more thoroughly and/or to give each side more opportunity to increase support for their position.

3. Either require the filibusterer(s) to actually take the floor in the Senate and keep talking, or at least require the would-be filibusterers to be PRESENT when the cloture motion is called.      Perhaps if a quorum is present in the Senate, the cloture motion should require only 60% of those who are present.   But the minority should not be able to block a vote on a bill without attaching their names to the filibuster and being present for the "debate" that the filibuster was designed to extend.

4, Prevent the use of the filibuster for cabinet positions and other limited-term political appointments.

5. Confirmation votes on Federal Justices, who are given lifetime appointments, I think should be prevented only by an actual continued-debate filibuster.   These appointments are too important, IMO, to require only a vote of 50% +1, but neither should they be blocked by the minority without there being good reasons, and such reasons need to be expressed openly and thoroughly.