Originally, a tool of encouraging consensus, eventually preventing the legislative from taking any decision due to partisanship of people involved.
Discuss.
No. Polish fail is unique.
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.
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?
Dude, Massachusetts just elected a Republican. Fish for a different narrative.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 30, 2010, 05:47:15 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:51:25 AM
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.
There's also the fact that before roughly 2006, No one bothered to vote on a bill that couldn't pass without a supermajority.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 30, 2010, 05:47:15 AM
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.
It doesn't help it's being used way too much now...
Quote from: Vince on January 30, 2010, 08:57:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:49:21 AM
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%.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 30, 2010, 09:00:42 AMSome 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2010, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 30, 2010, 09:00:42 AMSome 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.
Pretty sure he meant post-WWII.
And I tend to agree with him that broadly speaking, the years 1950-1980 were just about the least partisan in our history, at least since Washington's first term.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 30, 2010, 11:22:30 AM
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.
Sorry I meant post-Second World War. I thought that was a standard short-hand, post-World War I was inter-war, I think post-Civil War was the Reconstruction era. But also I don't think I'd use the inter-war years or the reconstruction years as a wonderful example of bipartisanship :P
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:38:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:51:25 AM
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.
Anecdotal, or just based upon your prejudice in favor of the Demoncrats? :lol:
I was under the impression that the filibuster of judicial nominees was a relatively rare thing until Bush's presidency. It's happened, what a couple thousand times since then?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 30, 2010, 04:19:20 PM
I was under the impression that the filibuster of judicial nominees was a relatively rare thing until Bush's presidency. It's happened, what a couple thousand times since then?
Republicans popularized it during the Clinton administration. Why do you think Bush had so many nominations? Clinton couldn't get many of his out of committee.
Clearly not. The US, unlike Enlightenment Poland, can function.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 30, 2010, 09:00:42 AM
It is, but this will change if things ever calm down enough in Washington.
Isn't this like the equivalent of "hell freezing over"?
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2010, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:51:25 AM
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.
Anecdotal, or just based upon your prejudice in favor of the Demoncrats? :lol:
I got it from my usual sources* on American politics but just wanted to double check. :P
*Advocate, HuffPo, Daily Show and Colbert Report
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2010, 10:09:49 PM
Clearly not. The US, unlike Enlightenment Poland, can function.
Liberum veto dates back to mid-15th century. It started to be used as a purely political tool in mid-17th century. That's still a long time before the Enlightenment-era disfunctionality.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2010, 03:29:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2010, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:51:25 AM
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.
Anecdotal, or just based upon your prejudice in favor of the Demoncrats? :lol:
I got it from my usual sources* on American politics but just wanted to double check. :P
*Advocate, HuffPo, Daily Show and Colbert Report
The leadership does it whenever they can, the Dems just can't do it as much because their caucus is more disunited.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2010, 03:42:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 30, 2010, 10:09:49 PM
Clearly not. The US, unlike Enlightenment Poland, can function.
Liberum veto dates back to mid-15th century. It started to be used as a purely political tool in mid-17th century. That's still a long time before the Enlightenment-era disfunctionality.
The filibuster dates back to ages ago. And it was used as a purely political tool from day 1.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 30, 2010, 04:19:20 PM
I was under the impression that the filibuster of judicial nominees was a relatively rare thing until Bush's presidency. It's happened, what a couple thousand times since then?
Holding up nominees became a problem in the 1990's. I think it was also a problem during reconstruction as well but not with filibuster as much. They had other methods in those days.
Quote from: dps on January 30, 2010, 12:07:17 PM
Pretty sure he meant post-WWII.
And I tend to agree with him that broadly speaking, the years 1950-1980 were just about the least partisan in our history, at least since Washington's first term.
Don't forget the Era of Good Feelings.
Judicial nominees I can understand, but some ass in Congress is currently holding up a couple Treasury department appointments (relating to international commerce) over slow implementation of some online gambling regulations. This is really starting to get out of control to the point I am tempted to agree with Martinus' troll - our political class is no longer mature enough to be trusted to use certain weapons only sparingly.
Quote from: Martinus on January 31, 2010, 03:26:02 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 30, 2010, 09:00:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:15:30 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:15:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2010, 08:55:33 AM
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! :lmfao:
I'd say that indicates a greater willingness to filibuster.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:15:30 AM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2010, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:38:46 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on February 01, 2010, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 30, 2010, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 30, 2010, 05:38:46 AM
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...
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.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 10:15:07 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:09:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 01:13:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:09:04 PM
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%.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 01:17:33 PM
I don't remember. But it was a very large and significant bill, and certainly controversial, even if support for it was over 50%.
Republicans were offering counter proposals in the 400s and 500s, with more tax cuts and less spending. The details may have been controversial but the concept of a large stimulus was not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 02:00:55 PM
Republicans were offering counter proposals in the 400s and 500s, with more tax cuts and less spending. The details may have been controversial but the concept of a large stimulus was not.
Is your point that the stimulus doesn't count as an unpopular initiative because the opposition wanted to spend a lot too, only on other things?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 02:09:31 PM
Is your point that the stimulus doesn't count as an unpopular initiative because the opposition wanted to spend a lot too, only on other things?
My point is that both sides were in broad agreement of the need for a Keynesian stimulus.
To the best of my knowledge the only person opposed entirely to the concept was our own Conservative White-Wash Express.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 02:19:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 02:09:31 PM
Is your point that the stimulus doesn't count as an unpopular initiative because the opposition wanted to spend a lot too, only on other things?
My point is that both sides were in broad agreement of the need for a Keynesian stimulus.
To the best of my knowledge the only person opposed entirely to the concept was our own Conservative White-Wash Express.
A stimulus through tax cuts is not keynsian. But in any event, the spending of a lot of money on something other than you want seems like more than a minor quibble.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 01, 2010, 02:30:16 PM
A stimulus through tax cuts is not keynesian.
Quoted for truth. The very essence of Keynesianism is, during crisis tax cuts are less efficient than direct government spending because people is afraid and hoard the money rather than spend it.