Filibuster in or out?

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by barbara

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.

[donquixote99]

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.

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by barbara

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

Right.

[barbara]

Thanks for that chart, Oerets. Very helpful.

[Oerets]

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.