Can Someone Explain the Filibuster?
 

So it looks like Republicans are filibustering Hagel's nomination.

Can someone explain to me how the filibuster works and why it exists? I frequently read about how this wasn't so common in the past but they never really get into whats changed or how it works. So why does it require 60 votes? What's changed?

These are all honest questions - no political motives here. I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

What's changed is that a Senator used to have to hold the floor, speaking non-stop to filibuster, which prevents a vote on a bill.

Now he just notifies them of his objection. Much too easy.

It takes 60 votes to override his objection.

So why doesn't the opposing party just call them on it and make them hold the floor?

The Dems were threatening to do that earlier. They could do it with a simple majority on one day.

But they chickened out for some reason.

We have a bunch of lazy catfooters in office so the threat of a filibuster is sufficient to act as a filibuster.

Everybody wants to defend the status quo. In the end, neither Democrats or Republicans really want things to change. They can each envision themselves with 40+ Senator minorities. The fact that the Republcians are using the filibuster to block a defense secretary is a new level of obstruction, though. And to link Hagel's nomination with Benghazi is just beyond absurd.

there's a lot of reasons. one big reason is that a few probably like being the 55th vote on a measure they know won't pass. that way they can wring their hands and say "look we tried!"

It requires 60 votes to cloture, which is to put a time limit on debate (filibuster) before the bill comes to a vote.

Democrats chickened out because they couldn't get 60 votes to cloture.

The process is being delayed because Democrats still need one more Republicans for cloture. The problem is a lot of the more flexible Republicans like McCain / Graham are are blocking Hagel's nomination, so Democrats have much less Republican votes to work with.

I can't see a practical justification for this to be acceptable - I mean, it's sole purpose is to use procedure to block something from happening - to prevent a vote.

:lol: Completely new... [nytimes.com]

According to what I've heard, on the first day of a new Senate, the rules can be changed with a simple majority. The Dems were threatening to change the filibuster rules then, but chickened out.

Well a filibuster is technically considered to be 'debate'...

Not to take anything away from them, but commerce secretary and interior secretary isn't even in the same ballpark as secretary of defense.

Funny thing is half the Republicans don't like Hagel because he's supposedly "anti-Israel" and whatever else, while other Republicans don't like him because he loves NDAA indefinite detention and things.

Rand Paul has asked him if he would approve of using drone strikes on American citizens in America. That's a good question. But no answer yet.

Filibusters are typically used when you have a majority party that will not negotiate and is typically adversarial to the minority party. Is ensures that the voice of the minority is taken into account. It is a product of a Republic. In a Democracy this would not exist which is why you don't want a Democracy.

Having a filibuster is a good thing. When used, it is even better.

You do not understand a Republic. This is not only an important procedure, it is CRITICAL to the success of the state. You don't even want to consider where we'd be without it.

Except in this case the minority party won't negotiate and just wants to do nothing.

Yet it is not in the Constitution.

Hmm...

This filibuster is a good thing IMO. The more energy the Dems (and Republicans) must put into mundane stuff like nominations, the less they can spend stealing our money and ruining our country.

Divided government is good.

Gridlock is Good.

Maybe in your own mind but filibustering a cabinet level position is not new, the door was opened by Democrats.

I can see that you still don't understand at all why the filibuster is important. You completely missed the point.

But doing this to elicit more information from the White House on a completely unrelated issue? In this case it's Benghazi. They've also thrown the nominee for CIA director into the mix as part of the obstruction. This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary. But the U.S. secretary of defense is arguably the third or fourth most powerful person in the world.

Whatever. Who cares. I hope the Pubs filibuster them forever if the administration wants to continue to hide and lie about Benghazi. They have no other tool to get the truth.

The country already has a defense secretary. But continue playing fast and loose with the facts.

Yes, Ted Kennedy made an attempt to filibuster John Ashcroft 12 years ago.

The post was in reference to the importance of the defense secretary as discussed earlier in the thread.

The following sentence does not make logical sense unless you're trying to pretend the nation doesn't have a defense secretary, after you pretended that a cabinet filibuster was never done before.

This country can run for a long time without a commerce secretary or interior secretary.


Of course, the country isn't running without a defense secretary now and won't be next week, either.

Again, please read the rest of the thread. I did not claim that a cabinet filibuster has never happened.

You're right, I do miss the point. What is there to negotiate in this instance?

So you're just grumbling for absolutely no reason at all. In 2001, the country went 12 days without an attorney general because your party didn't like John Ashcroft. And unlike now where Panetta is staying on, the position was vacant.

The right of the Senate to create its own rules is though.
Verity was filibustered by ... Republicans. Kempthorne's nomination was threatened with filibuster but Dems crossed the aisle to vote to close debate, so calling that a filibuster is not exactly telling the whole story. If Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for cloture right now, would we still call it a filibuster? No, of course not.

Dishonest post is dishonest.

Funny story about Kempthorne: He's the one that got his bathroom remodeled for $220k taxpayer dollaz. And when he was investigated by the Senate, they found him and his leadership deleting emails. And of course he was the head when MMS was found taking money from oil companies for personal use. Oh, and there was cocaine use at their parties. Oh, and employees were banging reps of the industry they were supposed to be regulating.

Great choice to stand tall on. Really, a top quality guy.

Of course it is. But it is surprising that something that is characterized as this....

...is not in the Constitution.

If it is not clear, I do not agree with the quoted comments. I think filibuster could/should be used to ensure the minority gets to be heard (unlike the republicans in a state gov who recently passed a significant piece of legislation in matter of hours), and gets to offer amendments. Beyond that using filibuster for stuff such as minor bills and say filibustering in case A (SoD) to get info in case B (Bengazi) is just not good government.

Fair enough.

Does anyone doubt that if every single thing in Congress was filibustered for this entire term, that this country would be in BETTER shape in 4 years?

Do you think Republicans are patriotic enough to filibuster every single thing in congress then?

...really? We're that far down the rabbit hole?

Are Democrats? I'm not either one so I don't care which one initiates it.

Dems are in the majority.

True. It matters not, 99% of all congressmen/woman are not patriotic. They are concerned with one thing; getting reelected which means pushing forward whatever agenda assures that will happen.

Whether 99% or 95 or 90, I agree with the sentiment. But we can change the system so that they are rewarded for acting patriotic instead of for acting/being against the interests of the general public.

Elections are generally about who has the most money. This ensures the elite class will always rule. I see no way to stop this unless you equalize what candidates have to spend on their elections, which would never fly. Term limits would also help. 1 term that's it. It isn't like there is a shortage of people to fill the roles. This would also never fly. Also perhaps a total media blackout on election coverage from 6 months before the election until a winner is declared. Also not going to fly. Other then that, I see no way to get any candidate to uphold their vows and work towards the common good instead of their own good.

If you really think hard about this, the only solution to fix the rampant governmental problems of corruption, country killing back-door deals and unpatriotic legislation that we have is to break the system down and start over. I see no way other than revolution to do that. We are at the design limits of a Democracy at this point anyway. And it does look like this administration is trying to accomplish just that; Revolution

I disagree with you. We already have limits on campaign contributions so obviously further limit would/could fly.

The influence of money on our elections notwithstanding, we have free enough elections that IMO talk of revolution is ridiculous. But sadly, there are a small group of people and politicians who have seen their grip on power irreversibly weakened and as a result are intent on destroying our government and wishing for revolution. Hopefully they will be ignored by the general populace and even shunned and ostracized.

Free elections? I guess that depends on how you look at it. Your choices are Dumb or dumber. Both of which will take more of your freedoms and spend more of your great-great-great-great grand-children's money. And to say we have limits on campaign contributions is ludicrous. This POTUS more than ever has flaunted that when his entire campaign was financed by "private" entities with NO accounting/auditing. This is important and goes to my first point that he with the most money wins. If you have a benefactor with nefarious intentions they can get whoever they need elected with enough money, again as proven with the current POTUS.

I think you underestimate man's desire for freedom. Freedom has been so usurped under the past few administrations, especially this one, that revolution is more possible now than ever. Gun-control legislation could very well be the last straw. Certainly granting amnesty to 10 million new Democrat voters will make a big impact. Not wanting to believe it will only leave you unprepared when it happens. Minimizing it by saying it is a "small" group may work on some people, but the majority are not going to be swayed by the left's misinformation and propaganda campaign. The truth is too hard to hide anymore.

New Democrat [sic] voters? Hmm...

The way I see it TeaPartiers are not really against the two party system. They are just pissed off that they are, nay, might be, losing their influence over the Republican party. Yes, they are against the Dems but they also pretend to be against the GOP, aka against the two party system and wanting to weaken also the GOP in as much as it will help them maintain their grip on the GOP. So the pretense of being against both parities is a win-win situation: weaken the Dems -- (always) a win. Weaken the establishment GOP so that TeaParty type people will retain their influence -- win. And I do believe them when they talk of revolution. Yes, if they lose the grip on the GOP, they would prefer revolution just like a spoiled child who if he cannot constantly play would rather take his ball and go home.

Now whether this also explain your position, I have no idea. It is difficult to read a single person. But IMO the TeaParty agenda is pretty transparent (at least to me).

Regardless of how legitimate your overall argument might be, you do yourself (and your credibility) a huge disservice by tossing in such hyperbolic, and obviously false, propaganda. Not only that, but then you double-down by emphasizing how supposedly "important" such false claims are to your argument.

Libertarians (big L and little l) botched the whole Tea Party, OWS, anger at the government window. If there was ever a time for a third party to get a few seats, that was it. Unfortunately, no one capitalized. :(

His entire campaign WAS financed privately and there was no audit performed on it. This is not propaganda, it is common knowledge. There was no attempt to hide this information.

Hmmm, what? That you don't understand that each chamber of Congress determines its own rules and proceedings? That each chamber is empowered to do so by the Constitution?

My goodness...

I understand that real well. Why would you ask that?

Do you disagree that filibuster is not in the constitution?

My goodness...

Link?

If there was no "audit" of his campaign finances, then how did the FEC fine his campaign for not returning improper donations fast enough? :scratchh:

A jockey that weighs over 600 lbs

So what if it is not in the Constitution? No reasonable person would expect the Constitution to you include such rules of order...

Are we talking about Obama not accepting public campaign finance dollars...

You seem to work too hard to disagree......similar rules (of order?) indeed are in the Constitution. For example to override a presidential veto both Houses must vote 2/3.

If the filibuster was the intent or desire of the FF sand if it is as important as the poster top whom I was responding believes, they would have put it in the Constitution.

Congress overriding an action of another branch would kinda belong I am the constitution, no? As the document animates that relationship between the branches.

On the other hand, specific rules of order such as how and when amendments may be offered, the organization and structure of committees, why would the ff ever presume the foresight to cement how the chambers should operate day today by codifying it in the constitution?

You see this is what you miss about the ff... They possessed a humble sense of restraint. The constitution seeks to manage the power and tension between the branches of government.

You seem to think the constitution exists to control anything you perceive to be important. And that simply ain't the case.

Well, the Constitution says 2/3 vote of the senate is required for constitutional amendments. so it could have said the same thing about bill passing by the senate.

But it did not.

and that is the point. That is, they did not think requiring 60 votes for cloture was as important as the poster that i initially responded to thought. Else the FF would have put it in the constitution as they did wrt constitutional amendments.

Why are you trying so hard to be disagreeable. This is not that big of a deal and IMO it is rather clear cut issue.

It's important we all remember where the filibuster originates: Cato the Younger fighting against Julius Caesar.

I'm not sure why you the think the constitution exists to codify really important things as opposed to, say, animating the concept of separate, co-equal branches of govt, empowering the branches while also limiting their authority and providing a method for amending the constitution itself.

Why would you think that how the Senate conducts it's business is on the same order of providing a mechanism for amending the founding document?

That makes no sense. Hence, that's why you don't see in the constitution codified rules managing each chamber's business.

Well there you go. I wonder what that says about people that make such statements...

The entire Bill of Rights was argued against by the Federalists, the very folks that gave us implied powers. The Bill of Rights was unnecessarily redundant as the Constitution only granted limited powers to the federal government, no need to list the innumerable rights that they can't violate. I think Hamilton argued something like the more rights that are listed, the more problematic it is. Governments tend to abuse rights that aren't listed.

There are some people that don't care about the ideas of those old white, slave-owning fogeys. Interesting though how they could predict - and warned against- how the future of their government they were setting up could actually end up looking like. It serves them to ignore supporting documents of the Constitution like letters, journals, convention notes, Federalist and other various papers,. It is here that we can see the outlines and justifications for various decisions and wording. Let's ignore everything written about arms and militias but Jefferson's letter describing the wall of separation of church and state suddenly becomes useful - which predictably the zealot right wing ignores. :eek:

Anyone that attempts argue against filibusters because they aren't in the Constitution and also happens to argue that the right to bear arms is limited to militias only demonstrates to me that original intent doesn't matter to some people. They make a decision that something is good, bad, right or wrong, even if not because of rational, critical thought but on emotion or intuitive 'feeling' and then look for support to justify their position even if it means completely ignoring/dismissing reason.

If a person that claims to support our Constitution also says they support the Executive branch to have the power to kill our own citizens without any oversight or due process, cannot be trusted to have any opinion based on anything other that appeal to emotion.

Either how many votes it takes to pass an item in the senate is managing their business or not. Make up your mind. Passing a bill, passing a constitutional amendment. They are bothe passing an item in the senate. Potato potahto.

This hits the nail on the head, and I doubt you will get a response to it. Quote the Constitution when it suits you. "No" fillibuster is "cut and dry" but "shall not be infringed" is not. Does that make sense to anyone?

I hope you recognize that I was talking about something very specific when I commented "So what if it is not in the Constitution." And I was replying to someone who was arguing against filibusters because they're not explicitly provided for in the Constitution. It should be quite clear why something like the filibuster would not be noted in the Constitution...

Lol. Ok...

FTR: I am not against the filibuster. I think it can be abused but I think protecting the right of the minority is a good thing.

Rand Paul is doing a classic, talking filibuster on CSPAN2 right now.

What was Pelosi saying about the dignity of their job? F'ing Filibustering children I swear...

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Rand Paul live filibuster still going.

Judge Napolitano ‏@Judgenap
"This isn't a struggle between Republicans and Democrats. This is a struggle between the President and the Constitution." @SenRandPaul

nah, it was purely partisan.

no one actually watched it.

I don't expect you to support or defend any of your opinions based on your history so I guess it would be a waste of time to actually request you to do so.

Nobody else commented, so I just wanted to let you know that I :rofl2:

as expected - knew before postin it was above everyone's head, especially democrats

big respect to mr Paul for this

:iagree:

Ditto.

It's too bad his point is lost on both sides of the aisle.

So I guess in the end it didn't work...

http://www.reuters.com/article/20...7F20130307

The Senate on Thursday confirmed John Brennan as the Obama administration's next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

partisan showmanship didn't win, in this case.

it worked. everyone paid attention to what he wanted to say

it worked. rand paul's brand-building stunt was successful.

It could be a brand building stunt. But he did get the answer he was looking for from the administration. That's all he claims he wanted.

I like "stunts" that help solidify the notion that the government can't bomb me during lunch just because they feel like it.

If eating lunch is an 'extreme circumstance' and an 'imminent threat to the United States' then we're all doomed!
:eek:

The road to tyranny is tested and paved brick by brick, otherwise people might wake up and see whats happening.

They already bombed one 16-year-old American kid when he was eating lunch.

Which is totally unrelated to what Rand Paul was filibustering for in the first place from what I've understood.
He was wanting clear validation as to whether the use of drones to execute attacks on Americans citizens on American soil who pose no immediate threat against national security was viable.

I don't see how that is totally unrelated to bombing a 16-year-old American kid on foreign soil who poses no immediate threat against national security.

If the U.S. bombs me while I'm eating lunch in Australia, I'm going to be really upset.

It isn't related to the actual subject Rand Paul was contesting with a filibuster. He was discussing drone strikes on U.S. soil.

They weren't specifically targeting the 16 year old, either (though, loss of life due to collateral is wrong in any case).

It's so unrelated that Rand Paul mentioned it during his filibuster. :wink2: