The Congressman is back yo

[Negatory]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Schumer: Ditching filibuster not ‘off the table

You’re really grasping at straws if you think that a grown man reciting Shakespeare or reading a recipe book for 24 hours is a constitutional way to force a majority to not pass legislation.

My eyes immediately glaze over when I hear that someone supports the holy filibuster.

Imagine the founding fathers in the senate when this happens. A lively debate brews. A majority of 51 votes is obvious. An idiot gets up front and runs the clock out by reciting the dictionary for 18 hours. “WTF is happening?” asks Ben Franklin. “Well, we tried,” says John Adams. “No, I give up. These guys are f*cked,” ends Thomas Jefferson.

[ViperMan]

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You’re really grasping at straws if you think that a grown man reciting Shakespeare or reading a recipe book for 24 hours is a constitutional way to force a majority to not pass legislation.

My eyes immediately glaze over when I hear that someone supports the holy filibuster.

Imagine the founding fathers in the senate when this happens. A lively debate brews. A majority of 51 votes is obvious. An idiot gets up front and runs the clock out by reciting the dictionary for 18 hours. “WTF is happening?” asks Ben Franklin. “Well, we tried,” says John Adams. “No, I give up. These guys are f*cked,” ends Thomas Jefferson.

How many 5000+ page bills did the founding fathers have < 24 hrs to read, evaluate, consider, and sign? Oh. Right.

If it was me, I'd just bring a book I wanted to read anyway. Shit, I'd stop by the library on my way. Probably grab a few magazines, maybe some penthouse letters, definitely one of those astronaut piddle-packs that lets you drive maniacally across the country without stopping once...

Don't miss the point of the filibuster because it seems ridiculous to you. It's point is to protect the minority in this country - and increasingly, all of us from a supposed majority.

[ClearedHot]

11 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

How many 5000+ page bills did the founding fathers have < 24 hrs to read, evaluate, consider, and sign? Oh. Right.

If it was me, I'd just bring a book I wanted to read anyway. Shit, I'd stop by the library on my way. Probably grab a few magazines, maybe some penthouse letters, definitely one of those astronaut piddle-packs that lets you drive maniacally across the country without stopping once...

Don't miss the point of the filibuster because it seems ridiculous to you. It's point is to protect the minority in this country - and increasingly, all of us from a supposed majority.

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

[El Duderino]

Filibuster didn’t seem to be a problem all that long ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/26/democrats-have-vigorously-used-filibuster-its-pathetic-they-now-wont-pledge-protect-it/

[Negatory]

I don’t think you understand. I don’t support Democrat or Republican filibusters. They’re all horseshit, and your opinion article doesn’t present any real reasons for them.

And youre delusional if you think its current usage is whatsoever in line with effective governance. Also, it’s so-called “nuclear” usage in the past 40 years is new. With it especially peaking in... checks notes... the senates of the Obama presidency.

The only thing it actually does is stop legislation when the house and the senate aren’t the same color. That’s when filibusters happen, and it’s not conducive to any legislative effectiveness.

But I guess, overall, policies that aren’t conducive to legislative effectiveness help the Republican mantra that the government is ineffective. Mind you, republicans support policies that hamstring effectiveness because it limits scary change. Oogabooga!

Edited February 4, 2021 by Negatory

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

I don’t think you understand. I don’t support Democrat or Republican filibusters. They’re all horseshit, and your opinion article doesn’t present any real reasons for them.

And youre delusional if you think its current usage is whatsoever in line with effective governance. Also, it’s so-called “nuclear” usage in the past 40 years is new. With it especially peaking in... checks notes... the senates of the Obama presidency.

The only thing it actually does is stop legislation when the house and the senate aren’t the same color. That’s when filibusters happen, and it’s not conducive to any legislative effectiveness.

But I guess, overall, policies that aren’t conducive to legislative effectiveness help the Republican mantra that the government is ineffective. Mind you, republicans support policies that hamstring effectiveness because it limits scary change. Oogabooga!

There are a couple of good things about the filibuster I'm not sure you've thought of that generally protect rights.

1.) It forces bipartisan cooperation. A majority congress can't throw a bill before congress that is too left or right wing because they will require between at least 1-10 votes from the other party to make it work. 
 

2.) It protects large minorities. Because even if only 41% of people believe a certain way, that is a LOT of people to just discount and trounce on. 

 

3.) It actually improves government efficiency over a long term period because it prevents either party from putting forward bills that would just be turned over the next time they lost the simple majority. 
 

4.) I'm going to assume you know this, but for anyone that's confused, filibuster rarely refers to reading from a dictionary or text book anymore. Since 1970 its largely a procedural rule that just means you need 60 votes to pass legislation besides budgetary bills, confirmations or certain national security priorities. 

 

I mean if you want to argue the threshold of 60 votes is too high, that might be valid, but I would be hesitant to throw it out all together. For one, as soon as the party that throws it out loses the majority again, they are going to get hosed. All bets are off at that point. 

[busdriver]

Blah blah blah.  Repeal the 17th amendment.  Popular vote of senators is dumb.

[ClearedHot]

18 hours ago, Negatory said:

I don’t think you understand. I don’t support Democrat or Republican filibusters. They’re all horseshit, and your opinion article doesn’t present any real reasons for them.

And youre delusional if you think its current usage is whatsoever in line with effective governance. Also, it’s so-called “nuclear” usage in the past 40 years is new. With it especially peaking in... checks notes... the senates of the Obama presidency.

The only thing it actually does is stop legislation when the house and the senate aren’t the same color. That’s when filibusters happen, and it’s not conducive to any legislative effectiveness.

So much disagree with this post...

I wish more people would read the Federalist Papers and the reasoning and logic behind what the framers built in the Constitution.  They had a longer view of government based on history and study of the great philosophers like Locke, Plato and Socrates.  They understood the extremes and challenges as presented by Machiavelli.  They were great thinkers and did not resolve every concept to a 30 second sound bite. 

One thing is certain, the framers in an attempt to build a "more perfect union" wanted their to be debate, discussion, consensus.  They did not want rapid change or Crazy Ivan's that reacted to public opinion.  Time as a function of legislation served to let tempers cool and logic persist.  The filibuster serves that purpose along with many others.  Going to a simply majority in the name of timely legislation is a gross misunderstanding of what our system is supposed to be. 

Again, SLOW change, build on logic and consensus.  That was the intent of America.

[Negatory]

We can agree to disagree. Personally, I believe that our current form of government is most definitely not optimal and should be updated. Many of you will say that is not the case. Some of you will say that’s not the case because it was designed this way from the beginning. Malarkey.

I have read the federalist and anti federalist papers, and I’m not convinced they have as much foresight as you think. I personally believe that - hot take - the founding fathers couldn’t actually predict everything that would happen in a complex modern society. And I believe their glorification is actually counterproductive to discussions about how to change things to work better in a society that no longer resembles 1770s New England.

I mean, the original government of the US only had to represent the ideals of a couple million homogenous white American males who all lived in the same place and did the same thing for a living. It’s more akin to the governance of Delaware, New Hampshire, or Vermont than a multicultural, 4000 mile wide nation with vastly varying interests, beliefs, and economic factors. And we are feeling the cultural issues with non-homogeneity and have been ever since our country expanded.

A few obvious mistakes: the original constitution still enabled the oppression and non-representation of women and slaves. The founding fathers knew that a two party system would be a terrible thing for government, yet they couldn’t do anything or have any foresight to stop its formation.

Additionally, I must say that our government since the early 1900s has taken sharp turns away from the original founding with both formal laws and amendments and informal changes, whether it comes to how/how many electors are appointed, how senators are chosen, tactics to stonewall legitimate legislation and appointment of officials, or powers of the executive/legislative branch. “We the people” used to mean a lot more when they had proportional representation, yet it was casually changed just so it was easier to deal with.

And my point is that the changes that have led to the current American government are not necessarily a good thing. You could call me pro-reform.

Pragmatically, we don’t stand a chance of uniting and making valid national change to strategy without a new boogeyman. The World Wars and Cold War were the only thing that brought Americans together over the last century, and without them, we resort to infighting. For many Republicans, their only policy is that they want to “own the libs.” Beyond that, they’re stumped. Many Democrats just want to expel “fascist Republicans” and sing Kumbayah.

And now we on this forum are fighting about whether or not it is a valid tactic to read a cookbook for 16 hours because the majority of people don’t agree with your point. YGBSM. Maybe the actual governmental system is f*cked if people have to do that as a “balance of power.”

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, Negatory said:

We can agree to disagree. Personally, I believe that our current form of government is most definitely not optimal and should be updated. Many of you will say that is not the case. Some of you will say that’s not the case because it was designed this way from the beginning. Malarkey.

I have read the federalist and anti federalist papers, and I’m not convinced they have as much foresight as you think. I personally believe that - hot take - the founding fathers couldn’t actually predict everything that would happen in a complex modern society. And I believe their glorification is actually counterproductive to discussions about how to change things to work better in a society that no longer resembles 1770s New England.

I mean, the original government of the US only had to represent the ideals of a couple million homogenous white American males who all lived in the same place and did the same thing for a living. It’s more akin to the governance of Delaware, New Hampshire, or Vermont than a multicultural, 4000 mile wide nation with vastly varying interests, beliefs, and economic factors. And we are feeling the cultural issues with non-homogeneity and have been ever since our country expanded.

A few obvious mistakes: the original constitution still enabled the oppression and non-representation of women and slaves. The founding fathers knew that a two party system would be a terrible thing for government, yet they couldn’t do anything or have any foresight to stop its formation.

Additionally, I must say that our government since the early 1900s has taken sharp turns away from the original founding with both formal laws and amendments and informal changes, whether it comes to how/how many electors are appointed, how senators are chosen, tactics to stonewall legitimate legislation and appointment of officials, or powers of the executive/legislative branch. “We the people” used to mean a lot more when they had proportional representation, yet it was casually changed just so it was easier to deal with.

And my point is that the changes that have led to the current American government are not necessarily a good thing. You could call me pro-reform.

Pragmatically, we don’t stand a chance of uniting and making valid national change to strategy without a new boogeyman. The World Wars and Cold War were the only thing that brought Americans together over the last century, and without them, we resort to infighting. For many Republicans, their only policy is that they want to “own the libs.” Beyond that, they’re stumped. Many Democrats just want to expel “fascist Republicans” and sing Kumbayah.

And now we on this forum are fighting about whether or not it is a valid tactic to read a cookbook for 16 hours because the majority of people don’t agree with your point. YGBSM. Maybe the actual governmental system is f*cked if people have to do that as a “balance of power.”

Ok dude, it's clear you don't really understand what a filibuster is. 

[Negatory]

3 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Ok dude, it's clear you don't really understand what a filibuster is. 

Ok dude. Tell me - even talk down to me - how “it’s clear” my understanding is flawed.

[FLEA]

27 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Ok dude. Tell me - even talk down to me - how “it’s clear” my understanding is flawed.

Because all the term filibuster means is a floor vote to end discussion on an issue is required to end debate. You no longer have to read the cook book. Instead, you just vote not to end debate, and then senate tables the discussion and moves on to the next agenda item. 

Yes, reading a dictionary does ocassionally, rarely happen. But those efforts only amount to delaying legislation for a day or so. 

When people want to end the filibuster what they are really discussing is ending the senate house rule on requiring a vote to end discussion before bringing an item to vote. This effectively changes the # of votes required to pass legislation from 60 to 51. 

What your advocating would effectively limit the strength of moderate caucuses in a 2 party system which would allow either party to just slam through controversial legislation without bipartisan support. All this would do is serve to further divide our country by destroying the moderate middle. It's great while your party is in power, but when it's not, youre utterly boned. 

 

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster

Edited February 5, 2021 by FLEA

[jazzdude]

When people want to end the filibuster what they are really discussing is ending the senate house rule on requiring a vote to end discussion before bringing an item to vote. This effectively changes the # of votes required to pass legislation from 60 to 51. 

Why not just raise the vote to pass legislation to 60 instead of simple majority? Same end effect as keeping the filibuster, and forces a vote versus continuing to debate to avoid a vote. Plus, inaction on an issue is a decision. Not saying legislation should be rushed, but at the same time it shouldn't just be sat on for political gain.

Yes, it slows down the process to allow debate and hopefully make deliberate decisions. But that's a double edge sword.

Because it's so slow, a lot of power has been ceded to the executive branch, who can react a lot faster through executive orders, or through selective enforcement of non-enforcement of laws and policies. This grants one party a lot of power to make the changes they want without debate, though if only temporarily for 4-8 years. And as we've seen, with a gridlocked Congress, it becomes difficult to hold the President accountable.

[ClearedHot]

59 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Why not just raise the vote to pass legislation to 60 instead of simple majority? Same end effect as keeping the filibuster, and forces a vote versus continuing to debate to avoid a vote. Plus, inaction on an issue is a decision. Not saying legislation should be rushed, but at the same time it shouldn't just be sat on for political gain.

Yes, it slows down the process to allow debate and hopefully make deliberate decisions. But that's a double edge sword.

Because it's so slow, a lot of power has been ceded to the executive branch, who can react a lot faster through executive orders, or through selective enforcement of non-enforcement of laws and policies. This grants one party a lot of power to make the changes they want without debate, though if only temporarily for 4-8 years. And as we've seen, with a gridlocked Congress, it becomes difficult to hold the President accountable.

Raise it to 60...if that were the intent I would consider but the Dems want to eliminate any discussion and go to a simple majority, dangerous regardless of who is in power.

Then stop accepting that power has been ceded to the executive branch...fight it, in the court if necessary.  Regardless of how the SCOTUS lean politically they have been fairly brutal to many EOs (Obama's immigration EO in particular), but both sides have been reluctant to truly press the EO issue through the courts to the SCOTUS, instead the fight in the context of each EO.

[jazzdude]

Raise it to 60...if that were the intent I would consider but the Dems want to eliminate any discussion and go to a simple majority, dangerous regardless of who is in power.
Then stop accepting that power has been ceded to the executive branch...fight it, in the court if necessary.  Regardless of how the SCOTUS lean politically they have been fairly brutal to many EOs (Obama's immigration EO in particular), but both sides have been reluctant to truly press the EO issue through the courts to the SCOTUS, instead the fight in the context of each EO.

I think the political parties don't want to push reducing the EO power in general, because they want that power when it's their turn in power. Hence the laser focus on individual EOs and overturning the individual issue, rather than addressing EO power in general.

Filibuster makes sense to ensure adequate debate to make an informed decision, but only if the issue is debated in good faith. Otherwise like has been pointed out, it acts as a means to just increase the vote required to 60 (and doesn't require any real debate).

I do agree that a simple majority vote can be problematic, mainly because of the 2 party system we have in place, for the reasons you mention. In theory, the president would be the balance on stopping something pushed through on party lines on a simple majority through veto power, but since the president may be aligned with the party in power, in practice this fails unless Congress and the President are controlled by different parties.

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, jazzdude said:

Filibuster makes sense to ensure adequate debate to make an informed decision, but only if the issue is debated in good faith. Otherwise like has been pointed out, it acts as a means to just increase the vote required to 60 (and doesn't require any real debate).

Having worked on the hill and seen how the sausage is made, more often than not there is a lot of back room negotiating that takes place during a filibuster.  i want that debate...I want it to be painful and slow to make large course corrections.

[jazzdude]

Having worked on the hill and seen how the sausage is made, more often than not there is a lot of back room negotiating that takes place during a filibuster.  i want that debate...I want it to be painful and slow to make large course corrections.

Yeah, you make a great point, and I think I'm sold on it. I'm sure that in general there's a lot of back door, non public discussions to hash out bills.

Plus lots of talk between staffers to work out fine details and brief their representative/senator/committee. A lot of what's on C-SPAN is done for public effect, and a lot of the real work is done outside. Chances are any questions asked in session Congress already knows the answer to (or at least a very good idea of what it will be).

And I'm sure that debate isn't just between parties, but within them as well (gotta keep everyone in your political voting block in line).

I guess if an issue is important enough, there will be enough people to keep the debate alive, draft a bill, and get it voted on.

Not sure if I want the process to be painful, but definitely should be reasoned and deliberate, and not an emotional knee jerk.

[FLEA]

9 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

Yeah, you make a great point, and I think I'm sold on it. I'm sure that in general there's a lot of back door, non public discussions to hash out bills.

Plus lots of talk between staffers to work out fine details and brief their representative/senator/committee. A lot of what's on C-SPAN is done for public effect, and a lot of the real work is done outside. Chances are any questions asked in session Congress already knows the answer to (or at least a very good idea of what it will be).

And I'm sure that debate isn't just between parties, but within them as well (gotta keep everyone in your political voting block in line).

I guess if an issue is important enough, there will be enough people to keep the debate alive, draft a bill, and get it voted on.

Not sure if I want the process to be painful, but definitely should be reasoned and deliberate, and not an emotional knee jerk.

 

This is absolutely true. Take for instance the current senate. Republicans know Democrats need 10 votes to pass things. They also know they have several seats of members in vulnerable swing states. It's actually good for republicans to help identify those individuals because they know they will be targets for negotiation. Those 10 senators then get the choice to push their own agenda or advocate the agenda of the Republican party. There is some real game theory to how this all happens but the most important take away is they work together to find something that works for most seats. With out the filibuster you get legislation that's good for 51% of Americans. With the filibuster you get legislation that's good for 60% of Americans. (Making a broad generalization that senate seats are representative of population which we know isn't true but you get the point. We get better legislation this way.) 

 

 

 

[jazzdude]

Those 10 senators then get the choice to push their own agenda or advocate the agenda of the Republican party.

This right here is the crux of the problem, and I don't know what the solution is (besides a radical reform on campaign financing, because that's the biggest tool the parties have to get politicians to vote the party line).

Those senators should be voting for the interests of their state and the people they represent, and not to represent a political party. That's probably too idealistic to be practical though.

That's not to say there isn't a reason for political parties to exist (helps facilitate support for bills through trades and agreements between similarly minded politicians), but the parties have gotten powerful enough to set the agenda, rather than be a means for individual states to achieve their agendas (which is the point of having the Senate the way we have it set up with equal representation from each state).

[Negatory]

Functionally, whether it’s an actual 24 hour reading or a pushing of the entire agenda by 41 senators, it’s the same. The founders intended on majority rules in the legislature. That’s how the constitution is written. That’s no longer a thing.

Now, less than 15% of the population of the US (the population of the least populated 21 states) can stonewall all legislation. I get that that is nice for conservatism and not changing anything. Is that in line with the intent of government? 

Should Wyoming votes count 68 times more than California votes when it comes to legislation? Or do you defend it because it benefits “conservatism?”

[jazzdude]

Should Wyoming votes count 68 times more than California votes when it comes to legislation? Or do you defend it because it benefits “conservatism?”

Yes. Because that protects smaller states from getting railroaded by larger, more populated states. It's the whole point behind having the Senate at all.

More emphasis should be put on states providing for their citizens (both in terms of services, and taxation to pay for those services). Want more social services? Move to NY or California. Want something else? There's probably a state that will suit you.

Otherwise, what's the point of having states? Or state governments?

The issue is that we've allowed political parties to become too powerful, and allowed them to drive political discourse, rather than states and local representatives.

[Negatory]

We’ll agree to disagree.

Taken to an extreme, imagine it’s 2050 and only 100 people total lived in the 21 least populated states and 100 million lived in Texas. 100 people shouldn’t be able to stonewall the rest of society. All men are created equal and deserve fairly equal representation in their government. We are at the point now where it’s not even close. There is a limit, and the system as it is now is not a universal truth.

[Homestar]

It’s like people forget that we’re a Republic. 

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, Homestar said:

It’s like people forget that we’re a Republic. 

Amen!

[jazzdude]

We’ll agree to disagree.
Taken to an extreme, imagine it’s 2050 and only 100 people total lived in the 21 least populated states and 100 million lived in Texas. 100 people shouldn’t be able to stonewall the rest of society. All men are created equal and deserve fairly equal representation in their government. We are at the point now where it’s not even close. There is a limit, and the system as it is now is not a universal truth.

Nothing really gets stone walled-Texas can enact whatever programs it wants for Texans pretty much on its own if it was important enough to them. And Texas has the resources to do so if it wanted to. States don't have to wait for federal funding or laws, especially the bigger states whose economies rival other nations. For example, if universal healthcare was so important to Californians, they could implement it without federal funding. It would likely raise their state taxes, but there's nothing federally that bans them from implementing it. If it's a good idea, other states will do so, and maybe eventually other states will get on board and vote at the national level. And California has done things like that in the past (like for car emissions standards).

Smaller states will have trouble doing things unilaterally; they likely have a much smaller economy, so it's harder to implement government programs if they want to; they have to lobby for outside help from other states.

Without the Senate, big states can screw over small states, as well as the people within those states. For example, federal funding for programs (from federal taxes levied on individuals and businesses) could be diverted from small states into big states, and the small states would have no recourse due to their small population. Or big states could decide "nuclear power is great, let's do it, but where should we put the waste?" and vote to put it in say South Dakota, because SD wouldn't have enough representatives to block that vote.

You do see this issue within states as well, with the conflict between urban centers and rural areas. So the even dividing down to states isn't perfect. But it helps protect minorities (not just race/ethnicity in this context, but rural vs urban, big vs small businesses, industrialization vs environmentalism, etc) within the population.

Otherwise, democracies (both direct and representative) can devolve into mob rule or a significant consolidation of power once a majority realizes it can vote for things that only benefits then.