Is fillibuster the American "liberum veto"?

[Martinus]

Originally, a tool of encouraging consensus, eventually preventing the legislative from taking any decision due to partisanship of people involved.

Discuss.

[Tamas]

No. Polish fail is unique.

[Eddie Teach]

I wouldn't say it prevents them from taking "any" decision. The health care bill for instance wasn't really beaten by need for cloture but rather by the scaremongering campaign on the Right that turned the public heavily against it(which was aided by the insistence of Pelosi and other House members on having a bill with teeth in it). Bush managed to get his tax cut through, both Bush and Obama have gotten SC justices approved.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, does anyone know where to find figures on actual percentage of votes cast at the national level behind the 40 "super-minority" Republicans have? Am I right to assume that, with each state sending 2 senators irrespective of its populace, this may be well below 40% of those who voted?

[Eddie Teach]

Dude, Massachusetts just elected a Republican. Fish for a different narrative.

[Martinus]

I wouldn't say it prevents them from taking "any" decision. The health care bill for instance wasn't really beaten by need for cloture but rather by the scaremongering campaign on the Right that turned the public heavily against it(which was aided by the insistence of Pelosi and other House members on having a bill with teeth in it). Bush managed to get his tax cut through, both Bush and Obama have gotten SC justices approved.

What are the statistics of Republicans vs. Democrats when it comes to using/invoking filibuster? My understanding is that Democrats are (for some reason) much more reluctant to do so, but this is purely anecdotal.

[Martinus]

Another thing that I find personally to be deteriorating American politics are mid-term elections, btw - at least in Poland you can have periods of work (including unpopular but necessary reforms) and election campaign. It appears to me that America is in the permanent state of election campaign, which means legislators are never really doing what they think is right for the country, but what will get them (or their buddies) reelected.

[Eddie Teach]

What are the statistics of Republicans vs. Democrats when it comes to using/invoking filibuster? My understanding is that Democrats are (for some reason) much more reluctant to do so, but this is purely anecdotal.

Well, the Dems did filibuster a bunch of Bush's judicial appointees.

If such a discrepancy exists, it might be due to lack of party unity. "Blue dogs" are a lot more common than moderate Republicans, so it's easier for Republican majorities to peel off enough for a cloture vote if needed. If there's not enough votes for it, there's no filibuster, even though Dems may *want* to do so. I can't think of any major bills over the past decade that haven't gotten 60 votes in the Senate.

[chipwich]

There's also the fact that before roughly 2006, No one bothered to vote on a bill that couldn't pass without a supermajority.

[Sheilbh]

I wouldn't say it prevents them from taking "any" decision. The health care bill for instance wasn't really beaten by need for cloture but rather by the scaremongering campaign on the Right that turned the public heavily against it(which was aided by the insistence of Pelosi and other House members on having a bill with teeth in it). Bush managed to get his tax cut through, both Bush and Obama have gotten SC justices approved.

Of course Bush got his tax cut but it came with an expiry date.  Democrats threatened to filibuster it if it didn't have an expiry date.  Some Democrats proposed a smaller, permanent tax cuts that wouldn't be filibustered but the Republicans decided a deeper, temporary one would be better.

I don't think Democrats are more reluctant to use it, though I think they've focused in the past on judicial appointees which I'm not keen on.

[Vince]

It doesn't help it's being used way too much now...

[DontSayBanana]

It doesn't help it's being used way too much now...

It is, but this will change if things ever calm down enough in Washington.  It used to be that the filibuster was simply talking at length to fill the time allotted for voting; now, there's a "process" for filibustering.  Some time when the parties aren't at such polar extremes, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cloture rules change slightly again to add more limits to the process.

[jimmy olsen]

Incidentally, does anyone know where to find figures on actual percentage of votes cast at the national level behind the 40 "super-minority" Republicans have? Am I right to assume that, with each state sending 2 senators irrespective of its populace, this may be well below 40% of those who voted?

I believe I read somewhere that it's 37%.

[Sheilbh]

Some time when the parties aren't at such polar extremes, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cloture rules change slightly again to add more limits to the process.

When has there not been polar extremes in Washington?  I think bipartisanship is an aberration that happened in the early post-war.  From Federalists and Democratic-Republicans through the 19th century and the early 20th century the norm in American politics has been polarised extreme partisanship.  There was a brief blip in the post-war era because, I think, many issues, most especially civil rights, were defined by geography rather than party.

[DontSayBanana]

Some time when the parties aren't at such polar extremes, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cloture rules change slightly again to add more limits to the process.

When has there not been polar extremes in Washington?  I think bipartisanship is an aberration that happened in the early post-war.  From Federalists and Democratic-Republicans through the 19th century and the early 20th century the norm in American politics has been polarised extreme partisanship.  There was a brief blip in the post-war era because, I think, many issues, most especially civil rights, were defined by geography rather than party.

Fine; let me amend that- when the parties aren't being quite so aggressive toward each other as toward everyone else(as that seems to happen at least slightly more often).

Also, which "postwar" period are you talking about?  Post-Civil War?  Post-World War I?  II?  We've gotten quite a few under our belt in the last 250 years, so I'm confused as to which one you're talking about.