Filibuster rules

[DGuller]

Here is a question to people more familiar with American politics:  at what point does it become feasible to adjust the Senate rules that do away with the requirement to get 60 votes to break it?  It seems like we're now close to the point of our country being ungovernable, with some asshole in Alabama blocking all Obama's appointments because he didn't get enough pork.  Surely there has to be a breaking point somewhere?

[Strix]

I think if you make it easier to break than you risk one side taking over government ala dictatorship.

[DGuller]

I think if you make it easier to break than you risk one side taking over government ala dictatorship.

That's certainly a concern to some extent (although dictatorship stuff is just silly).  There are still elections, but they don't ensure against periods when the whole country is suffering from temporary insanity (like it did after 9/11). 

However, like with most things, what's good in moderation can be destructive when used to ridiculous excess.  Requiring supermajority to govern a country that split among partisan lines is asking for the country to be ungovernable.

It only makes sense for actions to have repercussions.  If you push too far with the filibuster, you're inviting to be pushed back with the nuclear option.

[derspiess]

Waaah waaah waaah filibuster waah waah waah

[DGuller]

Waaah waaah waaah filibuster waah waah waah

Insightful comment, as usual.

[Viking]

Well, it seems that if you have an obstructionist minority of 41 in the senate then you can't make any laws. This seems to be a problem...

[Drakken]

Well, it seems that if you have an obstructionist minority of 41 in the senate then you can't make any laws. This seems to be a problem...

Can't the majority buy off the one greedy, seedy member of the minority to break off the filibuster, or is the party discipline insanely tight when a filibuster is occuring?

[DGuller]

Well, it seems that if you have an obstructionist minority of 41 in the senate then you can't make any laws. This seems to be a problem...

Can't the majority buy off the one greedy, seedy member of the minority to break off the filibuster, or is the party discipline insanely tight when a filibuster is occuring?

The Republican party discipline is insanely tight, and the Democrat party discipline is not.  It's not like Democrats made much headway when they had 60 members either. 

In fact, thinking about what might happen if Republican get back all three branches is what gives me pause.  You can always count on Democrats to fight with each other, but Republicans with their Prussian discipline could be disastrous.

[Hansmeister]

Well, it seems that if you have an obstructionist minority of 41 in the senate then you can't make any laws. This seems to be a problem...

Can't the majority buy off the one greedy, seedy member of the minority to break off the filibuster, or is the party discipline insanely tight when a filibuster is occuring?

They normally could, but when they had 60 votes they went out of their way to alienate even the two center-left Republicans from Maine.  Combine the arrogance of acting like you'll never need cross-over votes with pushing an extremely unpopular agenda and you're not going to end up being able to get anything done.

The US is was governable when Bushitler was in the White House and he never enjoyed a governing majority such as the Democrats have.  I think the only thing that has been proven is that the Democrats are incapable of governing.

[DGuller]

The US is was governable when Bushitler was in the White House and he never enjoyed a governing majority such as the Democrats have.  I think the only thing that has been proven is that the Democrats are incapable of governing.

This is disingenuous, unsurprisingly.  As long as you don't have a reliable supermajority, it doesn't matter how sizable your advantage is if the opposing party decides to gum up the works.  The use of filibuster has been getting out of hand for almost two decades now, but the level of Republican obstructionism has broken all kinds of precendents. 

I do think that Democrats have displayed their characteristic political weakness by not making the Republicans pay for it.  That let Republicans neutralize the strength of Democrats, and simultaneously turned it into a great liability.  It's a shame that acts of irresponsible political sabotage seems to be the ticket to popularity these days.

[Hansmeister]

The US is was governable when Bushitler was in the White House and he never enjoyed a governing majority such as the Democrats have.  I think the only thing that has been proven is that the Democrats are incapable of governing.

This is disingenuous, unsurprisingly.  As long as you don't have a reliable supermajority, it doesn't matter how sizable your advantage is if the opposing party decides to gum up the works.  The use of filibuster has been getting out of hand for almost two decades now, but the level of Republican obstructionism has broken all kinds of precendents. 

I do think that Democrats have displayed their characteristic political weakness by not making the Republicans pay for it.  That let Republicans neutralize the strength of Democrats, and simultaneously turned it into a great liability.  It's a shame that acts of irresponsible political sabotage seems to be the ticket to popularity these days.

You're obviously delusional.  The only way to get things done is by governing in a centrist fashion, which is why Bush pushed policies such as NCLB and Medicare prescription plan.  Obama has governed as a left-wing extremist, first with the porkulus, then cap-and-trade, and finally Obamacare, and that in a generally center-right country.  Combining bad policies with bad politics is never a winning combination.  When you push an agenda that will bankrupt the nation, throw millions out of work, and strip the majority of their current benefits you can't expect the opposition to jump off the cliff with you.   Indeed, opposition to Obama is now bipartisan.  Democrats are running scared and worrying about an epic meltdown in November.  Not because they failed to pass their agenda, only crazy people believe that, but because the extreme left planned to ram their policies down everybodies throats without even bothering to have a debate or to let the public in on what they're crafting in secret and because they were ignoring the economy in order to focus on left-wing phantasy projects.

[ulmont]

The only way to get things done is by governing in a centrist fashion

...that's why Shelby just put a blanket hold on all Obama nominees for any position until Alabama gets 40 billion dollars, right?

[Berkut]

The only way to get things done is by governing in a centrist fashion

...that's why Shelby just put a blanket hold on all Obama nominees for any position until Alabama gets 40 billion dollars, right?

If Obama had better middle of the road support, Shelby would not be able to hold his nominations hostage.

Or something.

[derspiess]

I'm gonna start a thread entitled 'Filibusters Rule!'

[jimmy olsen]

The filibuster doesn't have to be gotten rid of, they just have to change the rules to the way they were in the 70s and make them actually carry out their threat.