Miles D

Fillibusters are currently allowed in the U.S. Senate. What is a fillibuster? Click here for a definition.

The most recent fillibuster was enacted by democrats opposing Bush's nominations for appeals court justices. But as reported here, Bill Frist, the republican majority leader, believes fillibusters should come to an end and propose rule changes to the Senate.

Do you believe fillibusters as a necessary evil, or an obstruction to appropriate legislation / confirmations?

I believe they still have value because it still takes 60 senators to close debate. And that sounds reasonable.

SangReal

I disagree. A simple majority should suffice. I've always believed this, even when Democrats dominated the Senate and Republicans used filibusters. The way I see it, each Senator should get his or her time to have his or her say, and then it should be time to vote. As citizens, we should be outraged that our elected officials are wasting our tax dollars talking endlessly and mindlessly about nothing instead of voting on legislation. I'm all for debate, but reading the dictionary is not a debate. We pay them to be legislators, not obstructers of legislation. The whole idea is absurd.

<3 Mary

Miles D

Here's an interesting commentary about the topic. According to Mr. Amar, the senate can pass senate rules (it's their constitutional right), but it will still take a 2/3 majority (that's 67 out of 100 senators) to overturn the filibuster rule itself.

And Thanks, Mary, for correcting the spelling. It should be "filibuster"

Nelson...

One would wonder why they ever came about in the first place...

No sir, I don't like em.

Filibuster: a fancy word for "bullshit".

MSI101

I agree with Miles that filibusters are a neccessary evil. I believe that they were enacted so that the minority party couldn't be completely marginalized by the majority party, but I could be wrong.

SangReal

I want to clarify. I am not against the filibuster all the time. Some issues need to be debated more fully to allow for informed voting. BUT I am against the Democrats blocking Bush's judicial nominees with filibusters. This particular practice could be enacted with only a simple majority (51 Senators, easily within Republican reach).

Here's how.

The presiding officer of the Senate (Vice President Cheney or Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist) would rule that Senate Rule XXII does not apply
to executive submissions to the Senate (i.e., nominees or other submissions made by the President). Senate Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all Senate legislative issues unless 3/5 of the Senate members vote to close debate (60 out of 100). So if Senate Rule XXII did not apply, debate could be ended by a simple majority vote (51 Senators). The presiding officer's ruling can only be overturned by a simple majority (51 Senators who support the filibuster rule's application in this case, unlikely in a Senate with 55 Republican Senators).

Therefore, if 51 Senators are willing to vote that the filibuster rule does not apply to nominations made by the President, the practice will be ended, at least until the Senate balance of power shifts. Normally, it would take a 2/3 vote (67 Senators) to change a Senate rule, but this is a neat sidestep around that rule.

<3 Mary

etherealme

When I was a freshman our American Political Govt'class did a mock session complete with filibusters. It was rather amusing as several of the participants read The Sun and other garbage magazines to stall everything. In real life they are a complete waste of time and our tax dollars.

Miles D

Filibusters are over for now, as it appears. It used to be 50/50, but with the republican pickup of 5 seats... It's clear the American People spoke and gave Republicans the power to take care of business (on Republican terms).

For better or for worse, us democrats need to suck it up and live with the people's decision and current nominations... and this may include shaping the U.S. Supreme Court for a long time to come. At the very least, I expect to see Reinquist replaced and a Bush choice installed while Republicans have the advantage over the filibuster rule.

Nelson...

Honestly, I'm not too worried about potential Supreme Court Justices. Conservative, Liberal, or otherwise.

But to clear the record, most of Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed without incident. They've only used it 10 times for Bush's 229 nominees. But the rate of confirmation/denial has exceeded previous first-term Presidents dating back to Reagan.

happyskittles

sometimes it can be a useful strategy when trying to pass a bill but mostly its just a waste of everyones time, and it really has no point