Is fillibuster the American "liberum veto"?

[DontSayBanana]

It is, but this will change if things ever calm down enough in Washington.

Isn't this like the equivalent of "hell freezing over"?

Way to point out the blunder long after I admit it and rephrase.

[alfred russel]

It takes 40% of the senate to pull of a filibuster. Yes, it may stop healthcare. But if it wasn't for the filibuster, Bush's plan to "privatize" (aka wreck) social security probably would have happened, as well as much deeper tax cuts that would have made our deficit even larger. And probably Harriet Meirs on the USSC.

[Fate]

It takes 40% of the senate to pull of a filibuster. Yes, it may stop healthcare. But if it wasn't for the filibuster, Bush's plan to "privatize" (aka wreck) social security probably would have happened, as well as much deeper tax cuts that would have made our deficit even larger. And probably Harriet Meirs on the USSC.

Why would any of those things be a negative? Both parties would still be accountable to the electorate in the event of political overreach. Conversely, fixes to entitlement solvency and structural deficits would be much easier to accomplish if a super minority wasn't able to ground the Senate's business to a halt.

Britain seems to function just fine with a majority rules system and you don't see the NHS getting repealed/reinstated every time a no confidence vote succeeds.

[Razgovory]

It takes 40% of the senate to pull of a filibuster. Yes, it may stop healthcare. But if it wasn't for the filibuster, Bush's plan to "privatize" (aka wreck) social security probably would have happened, as well as much deeper tax cuts that would have made our deficit even larger. And probably Harriet Meirs on the USSC.

Dunno, Democrats worked with Bush on the Tax cut, nobody liked the social security plan and it never really got off the ground and the same with Harriet Meirs.

[grumbler]

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.

The Republicans filibustered themselves, when they were in the majority! 

I'd say that indicates a greater willingness to filibuster.

[Fate]

It also happens to be that Republican pet projects (tax cuts) are harder to filibuster and much easier to pass through reconciliation and 50 Senator + VP votes than Democrat pet projects.

[Neil]

It takes 40% of the senate to pull of a filibuster. Yes, it may stop healthcare. But if it wasn't for the filibuster, Bush's plan to "privatize" (aka wreck) social security probably would have happened, as well as much deeper tax cuts that would have made our deficit even larger. And probably Harriet Meirs on the USSC.

They really dodged a bullet with that privatization, didn't they?

[dps]

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

Discuss.

I actually thought of that on the night Brown got elected.  Given how the political landscape changes by one person changing, it's actually even closer to the original liberum veto, which required just one obstinate fool to gum up the works, not 41.

That's only really relevant because the split before Brown's victory was exactly 60/40.  If it had been 65/35 or 53/47, the GOP getting Kennedy's seat wouldn't have been as significant as far as tge abilty to filibuster is concerned.

[Fate]

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

Discuss.

I actually thought of that on the night Brown got elected.  Given how the political landscape changes by one person changing, it's actually even closer to the original liberum veto, which required just one obstinate fool to gum up the works, not 41.

That's only really relevant because the split before Brown's victory was exactly 60/40.  If it had been 65/35 or 53/47, the GOP getting Kennedy's seat wouldn't have been as significant as far as tge abilty to filibuster is concerned.

Regardless of Senate makeup there's still a "hold" that an individual Senator can place on a nomination or piece of legislation. When coming from the opposition party it is practically a one man filibuster as it forces the majority party to jump over a 60 vote hurdle.

Jackasses like Coburn use it on popular legislation that ends up getting 90+ votes when it passes (ex. a recent Veteran's bill) that he himself ended up voting for, without any changes made...

[Fate]

Interesting tidbit... today the motley collection of nihilists that passes itself for a Republican Party in the Senate is now on pace to break the all time record, which they shattered just last year, for cloture voting in a single two-year Congress.

[Admiral Yi]

Fate, something puzzles me about your claim that Bush had a backlog of judges to fill because so many of Clinton's were filibustered.   After the first two years the GOP had a majority in the Senate and presumably didn't have to filibuster Bubba's nominations. 

Do you mean they just refused to confirm a bunch?

[Fate]

Fate, something puzzles me about your claim that Bush had a backlog of judges to fill because so many of Clinton's were filibustered.   After the first two years the GOP had a majority in the Senate and presumably didn't have to filibuster Bubba's nominations. 

Do you mean they just refused to confirm a bunch?

Many (not all) of Clinton's nominees were filibustered. Richard Paez was nominated in 1996. He was only confirmed after a failed Republican filibuster (or successful cloture vote) in 2000. There were quite a few squishy Republicans in the Senate at that time. Hard liners would have to filibuster to stop the Democrats + a handful of RINOs from voting on nominations by a simple majority.

Bush also had a huge amount of federal judiciary vacancies to fill through a combination of holds (the amazing one man filibuster), bottling up the nominees on the committee level, and the majority simply refusing to hold nomination hearings.

[alfred russel]

As a counterpoint to the idea the American government is "paralyzed", look at the major legislation the past 16 months. You have the passage of a very unpopular TARP bill, an unpopular stimulus bill, and are on the brink of passing a very unpopular health care bill.

[Admiral Yi]

As a counterpoint to the idea the American government is "paralyzed", look at the major legislation the past 16 months. You have the passage of a very unpopular TARP bill, an unpopular stimulus bill, and are on the brink of passing a very unpopular health care bill.

I don't think the stimulus bill was unpopular ex ante.

[alfred russel]

As a counterpoint to the idea the American government is "paralyzed", look at the major legislation the past 16 months. You have the passage of a very unpopular TARP bill, an unpopular stimulus bill, and are on the brink of passing a very unpopular health care bill.

I don't think the stimulus bill was unpopular ex ante.

I don't remember. But it was a very large and significant bill, and certainly controversial, even if support for it was over 50%.