The filibuster

[pjohns]

Very often, we hear it declared that something must pass "the 60-vote threshold" in the Senate in order to have a chance of becoming law. Well, this is certainly news to me. Evidently, what is being (obliquely) referred to is the filibuster. But this requires--at least, it historically has required--someone to speak continuously, perhaps for several days (i.e. to filibuster). Nowadays, it seems that all that is required is for someone to raise his hand, and then say, "If you attempt this legislation, I am filibustering it." Does this strike others as cheating just a bit? We did not used to have a "60-vote threshold" in the Senate. That is because senators were required to really filibuster if that was their firm intention. I wonder why that ever changed--and why we cannot get back to that...

[jigglepete]

I think if you're going to filibuster you should have to follow through...and filibuster...was the classic filibuster movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

[Captdon]

Very often, we hear it declared that something must pass "the 60-vote threshold" in the Senate in order to have a chance of becoming law. Well, this is certainly news to me. Evidently, what is being (obliquely) referred to is the filibuster. But this requires--at least, it historically has required--someone to speak continuously, perhaps for several days (i.e. to filibuster). Nowadays, it seems that all that is required is for someone to raise his hand, and then say, "If you attempt this legislation, I am filibustering it." Does this strike others as cheating just a bit? We did not used to have a "60-vote threshold" in the Senate. That is because senators were required to really filibuster if that was their firm intention. I wonder why that ever changed--and why we cannot get back to that...

What would that accomplish? It doesn't mean one person at all. It can be any number of Senators. Why hold up the Senate for no gain? It used to take a 2/3 note to stop one.

[pjohns]

What would that accomplish?
Well, for openers, there would be far fewer "filibusters," in my opinion. And that would be a very good thing.

The Founders never intended for someone to simply announce a "filibuster," do nothing more--and then require 60 votes in order to "break" it.

If something is of supreme importance to a person, then he should be willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to achieve it.

Failing that, 51 votes--or 50 votes, plus the vote of the vice-president--would suffice.

And that is exactly the way I would prefer it...

[Crepitus]

Very often, we hear it declared that something must pass "the 60-vote threshold" in the Senate in order to have a chance of becoming law. Well, this is certainly news to me. Evidently, what is being (obliquely) referred to is the filibuster. But this requires--at least, it historically has required--someone to speak continuously, perhaps for several days (i.e. to filibuster). Nowadays, it seems that all that is required is for someone to raise his hand, and then say, "If you attempt this legislation, I am filibustering it." Does this strike others as cheating just a bit? We did not used to have a "60-vote threshold" in the Senate. That is because senators were required to really filibuster if that was their firm intention. I wonder why that ever changed--and why we cannot get back to that...

Yes, it is cheating. If you're gonna philibuster you must keep the Senate floor by speaking continuously until one side or the other concedes.

[Crepitus]

What would that accomplish? It doesn't mean one person at all. It can be any number of Senators. Why hold up the Senate for no gain? It used to take a 2/3 note to stop one.

It would mean they would only filibuster for things they truly felt were worth the effort.

[Captdon]

Yes, it is cheating. If you're gonna philibuster you must keep the Senate floor by speaking continuously until one side or the other concedes.

That isn't what happen in a filibuster. They other side sets the bill aside and moves on to something else. You're advocating legislation if 60 people vote for it. That's what we have now. So, what did we gain from it?

[Crepitus]

That isn't what happen in a filibuster. They other side sets the bill aside and moves on to something else. You're advocating legislation if 60 people vote for it. That's what we have now. So, what did we gain from it?

That is the way filibusters were designed to work. These days it just bullshit due to total lack of commitment on the part of our elected officials.