Looking at you Neil.

See now THERE is a real troll

I’m not against some moderated form of the filibuster. I’m not looking to totally railroad current and future minorities.

However, I do think it should be limited. It can’t last forever. The minority should be able to raise a stink and hold things up but at the end of the day if there are a majority of votes in congress than there are a majority of votes in congress.

As, again, bringing America to a grinding halt should not be a legitimate political strategy. The Senate was not designed to be run with only 60 votes in play and anything from routine confirmation to massive legislation requiring a unanimous vote of the only 60 allowed to take part.

You’re not even right.

We never touched the filibuster on ordinary legislation when Democrats WERE obstructing us.

You lose. Go bother someone else now, kid.

is not “bringing America to a grinding halt.” I bet life will go next week if the Shelby blanket hold stays in place and a few bureacrats have to wait a few more days for a confirmation vote. I agree that earmarks are a not a good reason for a hold. I would also argue that Shelby’s actions do not give your lefty buddies and excuse to exterminate the filibuster.

I think it is absolute true that Republicans hated the filibuster when it was used to block the confirmation of Miguel Estrata to the Washington DC circuit court of appeals in the 2003-2004 Senate.

I know, because I was one of those enraged Republicans, mad at John McCain for being unwilling to support the nuclear option. I believe I was right back when the GOP held the majority. I believe that 41 US Senators should not be able to defeat 59 US Senators, regardless of the party affiliations of the respective senators.

I understand the temptation on the part of conservatives, now that the GOP is in the minority, and some very bad legislation is being discussed in Congress, to say, “the filibuster is essential.”

I think that is wrong on two counts.

(1)

If it really is essential, Republican US House members and Republican US Senators should propose an amendment to the US Constitution stating that it takes 3/5ths of the Senate to end debate on legislation in the Senate. The reason is because without this being in the Constitution, a majority of the US Senate and the Vice President can ignore the filibuster at any time. This is known as the Byrd option or the Constitutional option or the nuclear option.

(2)

It really doesn’t make sense for the minority to be able to dictate terms to the majority; nor does it make sense for the minority to be able to defeat the majority. Simply in abstract terms, it makes no sense. The interests of the minority party are often, if not always, incongruent with the interests of the majority party. Allowing the minority party to have an effective veto over the majority party simply allows for gridlock, which is great under the current balance of power in the Senate. But it’s horrible when a conservative nominee for the appeals court is waiting for a vote.

It’s not a matter of doing what’s right or just or reasonable. Shelby’s exercise of senatorial power is a check on the Executive Branch. It may annoy other senators, but none would want such power curtailed so that it weakens the Senate as a body. His power is actually everybody else’s. This goes for the filibuster in a chamber where elections change majorities frequently. Everybody’s aware that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The problem the Dems have right now is that their wish for a health care bill is not in sync with public opinion . If they move to curtail the filibuster, it will likely be perceived as still another high-handed ploy to ram something down our throats. It would certainly make huge headlines at a time when their best chance to raise their dismal approval numbers would be by dropping health care and cooling the public ire. They know they’re in a weakened position and could even lose the majority. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that come November they may well rue any rule changes they impose right now.

Last I checked the best thing for the economy now is for the federal government to leave it alone! It seems everytime the D’s get active in Congress more people start saving money and hiding it in the matress. As an investor I hate unpredictable behavior and teh Government right now is an unpredictable massive ball-n-chain, to which means I hide more money in tangible assets and reduce my gambling in new business.

The filibuster is like the designated hitter rule in baseball, the 3 point line in basketball or sudden-death overtime in the National Football League.

You can make a case for it or against it. Certainly, you want “your team” to use the current rules, whatever they are, to its full advantage. So, I support GOP filibustering on health care, cap-and-trade, judicial nominations, anything that emits leftist stink.

But we also must realize that the framers of the US Constitution didn’t say, “We need the US House to have quick up or down votes on issues while the US Senate should have unlimited debate.”

No. The loophole in the Senate rules that lead to the emergence of the Senate filibuster was created when Vice President Aaron Burr (the VP is the presiding officer of the Senate) deleted a rule allowing “majority cloture.”

The original US Senate allowed a majority of US Senators to vote on “Shall the previous question be put to the Senate?” And if a majority of Senators said, “Aye,” a vote on the legislation would be held.

So, it was by accident, not constitutional design that lead to our current filibuster rule. But the rules of the Senate are enforced and interpreted by the Senate itself, not the courts. So, a simple majority of the US Senate can ignore or bypass the filibuster any time it wants, as long as the Presiding Officer (possibly the Vice President) is willing to cooperate.

Ok. I did a Kowalski. Forgive me.

I could be a hypocrite and say the filibuster is an important check and balance against mob rule when the Republicans are in the minority and then, when the Democrats are in the minority say that the filibuster is wasteful, damaging delaying tactic which undercuts our democracy.

Both arguments are reasonable. But I will not argue against what I said back in 2003, when the Democrats were filibustering Miguel Estrata’s nomination to the DC circuit court of appeals in a senate where the GOP held a 51 to 49 seat majority. I said then that the Republicans should use the nuclear option (also known as the Constitutional option or the Byrd option).

And that’s something that gets too little attention. If Vice President Joe Biden and 51 of the 59 Democrat Senators decide to ignore the filibuster or set a new Senate precedent in direct contradiction of Senate Rule 22 (the rule that contains the 3/5ths requirement for cloture), there is nothing that can stop them. Courts do not enforce Senate rules and neither does the executive branch. No. The Senate itself, a simple majority, enforces and interprets its own rules.