Filibuster in or out?
 

Just where do you stand and why on the Senate and Filibuster?

Allow the 60 vote threshold or simple majority?

I say 50 plus one.

We have been shown the Republicans can not be trusted to act with the countries best interests in mind. Past practices and current actions should make any future apparent. Reach a hand in bipartisanship across the isle and it will be slapped back!

If the Republican party were interested in something other than obstructionism we could leave the filibuster in place.

Just stacks the senate even more in favor of the small population rural red states.

Been there had it done to us already.
Time to remember fool me once......


Yes a carryover from slavery for sure.


You think, it is time to quit being nice, rational with good intentions to a party controlled by those who that condone Coups and hostile takeovers...:eek:!

That's a big hell no!

+1.................:)

Can someone explain the whole filibuster thing to me? I know how it happens, a politician talks and talks and talks, but, I'm just not sure of how this tactic works and what it works for or against.
Thanks in advance.

Originally, yes it was a filibuster was a long winded speech intended to draw attention to a issue. In hope of gaining support or airing of grievances. The evolution to how it has been in use dates back to slavery as a means to allow a minority to stall or shelf legislation.
This was accomplished by the agreement to speed up floor debate by allowing a 60 vote majority vote on legislation if filibuster was triggered by a senator.
The senate sets up the rule by a simple majority vote to then allow a 60 vote threshold and what type of bills to include. Budget, judges ....

There's no time limit for how long a filibuster can last. Under current Senate rules the only way to end a filibuster is by getting 60 votes in favor of ending debate so a vote can be taken on the legislation being debated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibu..._States_Senate

Thanks for the explanations. So, if I am understanding this correctly, the party in power (currently the democrats) would be against a filibuster.... right?

I think in a attempt at bipartisanship Democrats were willing to allow the filibuster. Hoping for constructive arguments leading to agreements.
But the Republicans used it effectively to block just about everything under Obama, judges and any reforms, just look at what happen to the ACA!

Here is a chart showing the filibuster in use over the year.

The thing to realize is that the Senate now has rules that streamline filibuster, make it easy and convenient. No more endless speeches. One just has to announce a filibuster, and your ability to speak endlessly is assumed. The matter is blocked unless and until a motion succeeds with 60 votes to invoke cloture, to put the filibuster aside.

If the Democrats want to preserve filibusters for another day, I think they should at least change the rules back to the traditional requirement that a speaker actually hold the floor.

Right.

Thanks for that chart, Oerets. Very helpful.

In theory the agreement on 60 votes only works effectively to pass bills when both want it to. When one uses it to deny the majorities agenda without any serious negotiations as has been the norm of late.
Much like the Electoral College the 60 vote filibuster agreement is an arcane remnant of our slavery days.