2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

I thought about adding a 3rd option which would have been preferable for me as well but I decided to force the issue here.  Naturally you need not participate.

That's where I am at. Filibuster needs some sort of refinement, it is overused... But if I am forced to go one way or the other, I'm out. Get rid of it.

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

That's where I am at. Filibuster needs some sort of refinement, it is overused... But if I am forced to go one way or the other, I'm out. Get rid of it.

Would you say that if the Dems weren't in power?

Each side is against it, until they are for it. When it serves their political purpose, it makes a nice threat.

9 hours ago, Outlaw said:

Would you say that if the Dems weren't in power?

Filibuster is not something framers had in mind when they created the branches of government. I'd kill filibuster only to force the each side to work together, rather than let them simply kill any piece of legislation they don't like... Preferably I'd like to amend it. House has rules in place to limit debate; perhaps that's what the Senate needs too.

20 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Each side is against it, until they are for it. When it serves their political purpose, it makes a nice threat.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm 100% in agreement with Toast.

9 minutes ago, toolg said:

Filibuster is not something framers had in mind when they created the branches of government. I'd kill filibuster only to force the each side to work together, rather than let them simply kill any piece of legislation the don't like... Preferably I'd like to amend it. House has rules in place to limit debate; perhaps that's what the Senate needs too.

The problem is that if EVERYTHING is simply passed by one party fiat, then when the other party comes to power, they'll just repeal what the last Congress did. Which means we will have zero consistency on laws, taxes, etc. This will make it impossible for businesses to invest. The stability of our laws and regulations is one of the major reasons our economy has thrived. We can't have some back and forth insanity.

39 minutes ago, toolg said:

Infrastructure is not tied to inflation. Also this isn't some short-term shot in the arm to the economy. It is a long-term investment. It will lead directly to jobs, working on roads and bridges, etc. Those improvements will lead to more better jobs....   Money being printed we don't have?    Do you even know what you're talking about?

That's a naive statement.  This is not the time to invest in infrastructure with a massive spending bill.  We can't afford it right now.

Let me rephrase this for you, how about infrastructure bills where only a fraction of the bill is used for infrastructure, but the lion's share goes to pork and special interests.  Is that the sort of thing tied to inflation?

18 minutes ago, toolg said:

Filibuster is not something framers had in mind when they created the branches of government. I'd kill filibuster only to force the each side to work together, rather than let them simply kill any piece of legislation the don't like... Preferably I'd like to amend it. House has rules in place to limit debate; perhaps that's what the Senate needs too.

This is EXACTLY the type of thing envisioned by the founding fathers.  The Constitution itself is built on compromise and consensus.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

This is EXACTLY the type of thing envisioned by the founding fathers.  The Constitution itself is built on compromise and consensus.

Dude, the founding fathers thought political parties were a serious risk and warned against them. Yet here we are, playing team sports in our political system because we can't resist some inherent tribal need to "belong", and our system is structured in a way where a party duopoly is more or less assured. 

I'm all for ranked choice voting. 

Eyeronically, the Democrats filibustered a bill that would have sanctioned Putin yesterday 

 

 Jim Crow's alive and well.

18 minutes ago, Procus said:

This is EXACTLY the type of thing envisioned by the founding fathers.  The Constitution itself is built on compromise and consensus.

 

 

22 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Dude, the founding fathers thought political parties were a serious risk and warned against them. Yet here we are, playing team sports in our political system because we can't resist some inherent tribal need to "belong", and our system is structured in a way where a party duopoly is more or less assured. 

I'm all for ranked choice voting. 

Dude - the founding fathers consisted of a diverse set of individuals with widely different points of view.  They had to work through consensus and compromise and would be in favor of anything that promoted that.  They were against unilateral rule by a slim majority.  Your reference to political parties is a red herring.

3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Well done citing the Federalist Papers!

A bit of context is in order. 

Federalist 10 addressed how to reconcile citizens with competing sets of interests - rejecting direct democracy and factionalism.  In large part, it dealt with how to counter the ability of factions to break apart the republic.  The behavior of the current Democratic party is just the type of concern that Federal Paper 10 addressed.

Federalist 58 addressed the number of representatives in the House, and the potential for the House to grow as the population of the country grows.  Federal Paper 58 did not address the Senate.

Federalist 22 written by Hamilton was in direct response to the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, and that the nation needed a more cohesive structure of a Republic.  Here's what wikipedia quotes and has to say:  "The sense of the majority should prevail. However this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common sense." He then argues that it is entirely possible that there can be a majority - seven - of the States in favor of something, which would then carry the support of Congress, but which would have far less than a majority of the actual population of the Union. And he adds to this argument, "for we can enumerate nine states, which contain less than a majority of the people and it is constitutionally possible, that these nine may give the vote."

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Well done citing the Federalist Papers!

A bit of context is in order. 

Federalist 10 addressed how to reconcile citizens with competing sets of interests - rejecting direct democracy and factionalism.  In large part, it dealt with how to counter the ability of factions to break apart the republic.  The behavior of the current Democratic party is just the type of concern that Federal Paper 10 addressed.

Federalist 58 addressed the number of representatives in the House, and the potential for the House to grow as the population of the country grows.  Federal Paper 58 did not address the Senate.

Federalist 22 written by Hamilton was in direct response to the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, and that the nation needed a more cohesive structure of a Republic.  Here's what wikipedia quotes and has to say:  "The sense of the majority should prevail. However this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common sense." He then argues that it is entirely possible that there can be a majority - seven - of the States in favor of something, which would then carry the support of Congress, but which would have far less than a majority of the actual population of the Union. And he adds to this argument, "for we can enumerate nine states, which contain less than a majority of the people and it is constitutionally possible, that these nine may give the vote."

Ok...and these are quotes where they specifically address concerns with requiring supermajorities, which is exactly what the filibuster does. Of course they weren't speaking about the Senate specifically, because the filibuster didn't exist at that time.

Keep the filibuster.......if they can't work together, compromise and get pass legislation that is truly good legislation than f--- them.........no legislation should be passed.

 

 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

Ok...and these are quotes where they specifically address concerns with requiring supermajorities, which is exactly what the filibuster does. Of course they weren't speaking about the Senate specifically, because the filibuster didn't exist at that time.

 The quotes are out of context though.  I don't have the time to review the federalist papers in detail, but if I did, I could find you quotes that counter the point you are trying to make.  Indeed, if you look at the context of each of the papers you cite, you can see that these quotes should not be used to support the narrow situation that we have today where one group controls both branches of the legislature and the executive branch and is trying to ram through legislation that would change the very fabric of the republic.

You'd make a good lawyer.  They cherry pick quotes from depositions and cases to support their position, and gloss over the material that isn't helpful to their side.

Hamilton and Madison favored proportional representation. They had to compromise on a bicameral system in order to keep small states in the union, but had they been able to they would not have had a senate constructed as it is.

The Senate itself gives a stronger voice to a minority of citizens. By itself it was the nod to the need for some kind of bulwark against the tyranny of a slim majority.

There's no way they would have in any way supporters the additional perversion of this embellishment of minority power by agreeing that the filibuster, at least as a simple procedure to signal intent to filibuster and thereby stopping legislation that doesn't have 60% of an already perverted body politic to agree.

The Senate already enhances significantly the political power of low population states. And it does so in a way far more significantly than it did for Delaware and Rhode Island 250 years ago.

Finding support for the Senate filibuster as our government is constructed in 2022 among founding fathers like Hamilton and Madison in particular is laughable.

Aaron Burr created the filibuster in 1806 and was tried for treason in 1807.

10 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Finding support for the Senate filibuster as our government is constructed in 2022 among founding fathers like Hamilton and Madison in particular is laughable.

Its also quite laughable that you would assume 21st century sensibilities to people who didnt know what phones are.

I wonder what their position would be regarding incandescent versus LED light bulbs.

Couple of interesting things here with the poll.  Hunt sticking to principle and voting across the aisle short term, kudos!  Toast, JohnSnow, and Vikas active in the thread but not voting which is a good sign of how Fed this situation is at the moment.

 

 

I would love to see a crazy hail mary that links filibuster reform (say dropping the number to 55 and modifying the cloture rules) and voting rights as a manner to improve our guardrails generally, make the filibuster a bit more practical, and take a big whack at Trump and any slow coup plans he may have for 2024.  This hail mary entails getting Manchin/Sinema and a small chunk of anti Trump Repubs to come together.  First, they pass the filibuster reform and then they vote thru a modified version of the voting rights bill.  The entire motivation for this two prong approach is fear of Trump both in 2024 and long term for the country.  It would seem Cheney and Murkowski would be no brainers.  The question is if the likes of Sasse, Romney, Collins and maybe even Ole Mitch could get their heads around something like this.  The progressives would scream a bit at first as they would lose control of the details in the voting rights bill and wouldn't actually remove the filibuster but in the end they would play ball to disrupt Trump and ensure that the voting rights bill makes it across the finish line.

Obviously a pipe dream long shot won't ever happen sort of thing but if it were too happen it would be historical and possibly save the democracy at least for now.  I could see the likes of the Lincoln Project and even former presidents Clinton/Bush/Obama getting behind something like this in a "save the country" style mission.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Obviously a pipe dream long shot won't ever happen sort of thing but if it were too happen it would be historical and possibly save the democracy at least for now.  I could see the likes of the Lincoln Project and even former presidents Clinton/Bush/Obama getting behind something like this in a "save the country" style mission.

We don't need filibuster reform.  And we have far more problems, that POLITICIANS create and exacerbate, than the filibuster.  Neither side is interested in "fixing the country"...only how to get in power and then stay in power.  So it all revolves around getting or, in more accurate terms, buying votes.

All the division in this country has been driven by politicians......racial, economic, societal, etc.......they have put the country in $30 trillion in debt without ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.  For God's sakes, in what universe can you drive something into such a financial disaster and not pay consequences?   Ever.  The housing crisis and COVID should be perfect reasons for reducing the government's power......but we don't demand ANY accountability from them.  And the media are just as bad.

There is no reform that will "save the country".  And do we really need another lip service slogan from poiliticians? People dismiss the Constitution because it represents an obstacle to forcing your ideology onto everybody.  When people want to create legislation from a simple majority, in this case, from Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote, that's not a slippery slope, that could be a disaster.  If you can't get 10 senators from the other party to buy in, then that legislation is a piece of sh--. 

The only way to "save the country" is to follow the Constitution, limit terms of politicians, hold them accountable if financial promises from their legislation if it doesn't meet the projections.  Every business leader and executive is held to those standards, sh--, we're all held to expectations in our own finances.....time to start holding politicians PERSONALLY accountable.

I could go on, but none of this is ever going to happen.  The country has been divided way too far on economic and racial lines among others.  Blame and labeling are what people think will change others opinions.  Honest debate is dead....forcing others to like thinking is by intimidation and namecalling.  Look at what is going on with Manchin and Sinema from their own party.  

The country is swirling down the bowl and waaaaaay too many people are more concerned about their own singular issue.  Being american is considered a bad thing by half the population. We're killing the golden goose....We're taking the greatest country in the history of the world and destroying it from the inside....and we're all standing around arguing about winning the midterms......f------- ridiculous.

 

17 hours ago, Procus said:

 The quotes are out of context though.  I don't have the time to review the federalist papers in detail, but if I did, I could find you quotes that counter the point you are trying to make.  Indeed, if you look at the context of each of the papers you cite, you can see that these quotes should not be used to support the narrow situation that we have today where one group controls both branches of the legislature and the executive branch and is trying to ram through legislation that would change the very fabric of the republic.

You'd make a good lawyer.  They cherry pick quotes from depositions and cases to support their position, and gloss over the material that isn't helpful to their side.

 

I have the full writings, so I can go back and give you precisely the context that's in there, but it'll have to be next week. Generally, they're arguing for the best way to structure the federal government. This isn't just a Hamilton/Madison thing, either. I believe I can find you Jefferson quotes making similar arguments. Suffice it to say, many of the Founders had qualms with the essence of supermajorities. It's always been a controversial subject, and if anything, we are merely engaged in the continuation of a debate that began in the Early Republic.

21 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The Senate itself gives a stronger voice to a minority of citizens. By itself it was the nod to the need for some kind of bulwark against the tyranny of a slim majority.

 

Precisely, and I truly believe that one of the reasons we've been able to maintain such vast nation for so long under the oldest constitution in the world is the uniquely federated system that we have. We have the strength of union combined with a good degree of minority rights and home rule in the states. By ensuring that the minority has sufficient leverage, we guard against chaos and a total breakdown of our democratic institutions that could ultimately lead to domestic disturbances and civil wars. It promotes stability. But while I agree with the basic principle of ensuring a voice for the minority, I believe that it is too disproportionate, too outsized for us to continue functioning as a reliably democratic republic. I feel similar consternation in regards to both the filibuster and the Electoral College.

Hot take: keep the cloture rules the same as it can only help to ensure that Congress remains gridlocked for the sake of not getting anything done. 
 

Pros: the legislature will have trouble enacting "need to do something” legislation, keeps the government from getting bigger. 
 

Cons: keeps the legislature from doing something that actually needs to be done. 

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Precisely, and I truly believe that one of the reasons we've been able to maintain such vast nation for so long under the oldest constitution in the world is the uniquely federated system that we have. We have the strength of union combined with a good degree of minority rights and home rule in the states. By ensuring that the minority has sufficient leverage, we guard against chaos and a total breakdown of our democratic institutions that could ultimately lead to domestic disturbances and civil wars. It promotes stability. But while I agree with the basic principle of ensuring a voice for the minority, I believe that it is too disproportionate, too outsized for us to continue functioning as a reliably democratic republic. In this regard, I feel similar consternation in regards to both the filibuster and the Electoral College.

Sounds like you are arguing for the filibuster and the electoral college though you'd perhaps like to tweak it.  Any suggestions?

The filibuster in the Senate is an overcorrection that has given the minority too much power. The EC already gives small population states a hugely disproportionate amount of power relative to what the framers envisioned, no way they'd support additional power allocated to the minority via the filibuster.