All 53 returning Senate Democrats sign letter in support of filibuster reform

[Free Palestine]

It seems like Democrats only support abolishing the filibuster when they have a majority in the Senate.

The filibuster should stay.  It forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.

[cinyc]

It seems like Democrats only support abolishing the filibuster when they have a majority in the Senate.

The same can be said of Republicans, really.

[tpfkaw]

The Dems. loved their filibuster under Bush.

They did?

Oh yes they did.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Do any of you actually know what the proposed filibuster reform does?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, most of the legislation passed that you mention were "compromises" needed to get members of the minority on board to reach 60. In many cases the actual purpose of the bill was at least partially defeated (e.g. Stimulus, Financial reform). I don't think I would have liked what Democrats on their own would have produced in many cases, but that's their job as a majority: to legislate and to govern. Indeed, we can judge their work every 2 years, that's what elections are for. Elections become meaningless if the majority can't pass its policy.

And Cinyc: That's what the courts are for. To protect the minority from majority opinion should it be illegal or unconstitutional.

No, no, no. Why do Europeans never understand this?

That is what the Senate is suppose to do. You enact debate a large number of major reforms you are going to get a lot of compromises and a lot of killed legislation as a result.

The founders intended for the Senate to block bad legislation and improve good legislation. It is a check on the Majority and they interpreted rights of the minority much differently then Marokai is in this thread. They would have included the killing of ideas or altering of them significantly even if it had as much as 65% - 75% of the people if it was either unconstitutional or a bad idea. You may not like it, but thats the way this system has been created and it has served us well since 1789.

They didn't intend for it to be a second House of Representatives otherwise we would have a unicameral legislature, it was suppose to be the elder statesmen who would kill or alter the bad ideas out of the House. As beet has said, the founders didn't even create judicial review in 1789, they did create the Senate however. A senate choosen by state legislatures not direct popular vote (and no I don't support repeal of the 17th) and it had rules far more favorable to the filibusters then the current ones. Has it delayed or pushed back some important and great things, yes because no system is perfect, but they all got sorted out eventually and the country is still here today.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even the Ben Nelsons and the Manchins like this because they and their 4 ultimate DINOs on many legislative votes can now give the Republicans a working majority in the 112th Senate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Please, please let democracy work. Abolish the filibuster.

Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it - and the shaft to the so-called progressive agenda come 2012. 

The filibuster is there for a reason.  The Senate was always meant to be a check on the popular opinion of the week. 

The progressive agenda doesn't need filibuster reform to get shafted. The Senate has no problem getting 60 votes to quickly rush through major horrible legislation like the Iraq war or the tax cuts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Please, please let democracy work. Abolish the filibuster.

The Senate is highly undemocratic to begin with. California has 66 times the population of Wyoming, and yet they have the same number of Senators, and the power of Senators is determined by seniority and not the size of their state. Of course all of the more reason to not have the Senators of the 21 least populous states be able to block all legislation.

[Landslide Lyndon]

What a joke thread! If any of you bothered to read the article, then you would see that there is no intention by the Democrats of actually abolishing the filibuster.

What they intend to do is to forbid flibustering the motion to begin debate, reduce the amount of time between filing for cloture and voting for it, expedite nominations so they don't languish in the senate for months, and other assorted changes. 

[Free Palestine]

What a joke thread! If any of you bothered to read the article, then you would see that there is no intention by the Democrats of actually abolishing the filibuster.

What they intend to do is to forbid flibustering the motion to begin debate, reduce the amount of time between filing for cloture and voting for it, expedite nominations so they don't languish in the senate for months, and other assorted changes.  

I'm aware.  I'm addressing the general idea on the left of abolishing the filibuster.  Which is incredibly hypocritical, since they all seem to shut up about it whenever Republicans gain power.  Some go as far as supporting the abolition of the Senate itself, mostly when their favorite legislation tanks once it gets to the upper house.

Majoritarianism is not very just.  In elections, it's really the only thing that works, but in a legislature you have the capability of gaining a wide consensus through debate and change to legislation, which is what should be the goal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What a joke thread! If any of you bothered to read the article, then you would see that there is no intention by the Democrats of actually abolishing the filibuster.

What they intend to do is to forbid flibustering the motion to begin debate, reduce the amount of time between filing for cloture and voting for it, expedite nominations so they don't languish in the senate for months, and other assorted changes.  

I'm aware.  I'm addressing the general idea on the left of abolishing the filibuster.  Which is incredibly hypocritical, since they all seem to shut up about it whenever Republicans gain power.  Some go as far as supporting the abolition of the Senate itself, mostly when their favorite legislation tanks once it gets to the upper house.

I'm fairly sure I've been consistent on this, and most people around here have as well. The filibuster should be abolished, cut down to 55, make more difficult to invoke, whatever, regardless of the party in power.

I personally still support the abolition of the Senate. That means I'd end up having one House with a solid right-wing majority. So what? Elections have consequences, and maybe having just the House would cause more people to pay attention to their representatives instead of voting for them as an afterthought.

Parties should have free reign to govern if they are elected solidly to do so. Left or Right. It's not such a radical idea.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Majoritarianism is not very just.  In elections, it's really the only thing that works, but in a legislature you have the capability of gaining a wide consensus through debate and change to legislation, which is what should be the goal.

Well, that's very noble and well-thought. Unfortunately it doesn't work that well when you have an opposition that filibusters bills that eventually pass with 99-0 votes.

[Smash255]

The Dems. loved their filibuster under Bush.  Hypocrites.  The filibuster is a good thing, always has been. 

The GOP used the filibuster FAR more than the Democrats did, this despite the Dems having an even larger majority which generally makes a filibuster even more difficult.

[beneficii]

What a joke thread! If any of you bothered to read the article, then you would see that there is no intention by the Democrats of actually abolishing the filibuster.

What they intend to do is to forbid flibustering the motion to begin debate, reduce the amount of time between filing for cloture and voting for it, expedite nominations so they don't languish in the senate for months, and other assorted changes.  

I'm aware.  I'm addressing the general idea on the left of abolishing the filibuster.  Which is incredibly hypocritical, since they all seem to shut up about it whenever Republicans gain power.  Some go as far as supporting the abolition of the Senate itself, mostly when their favorite legislation tanks once it gets to the upper house.

Majoritarianism is not very just.  In elections, it's really the only thing that works, but in a legislature you have the capability of gaining a wide consensus through debate and change to legislation, which is what should be the goal.

I support requiring filibusters to actually get up and debate the issue in order to sustain their filibusters.  That way the filibusters would constantly have to make their case to the public as for why they are holding up Senate business, and it would remove the incentive for a lot of the backroom deals that happened during the health care reform to get cloture.  Nevertheless, I agree that abolishing the filibuster is a bad idea, and I like the idea of the minority delaying legislature, but they must actually get up and make their case in the Senate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah, while I despise the way the GOP has abused the filibuster, abolishing it is a terrible idea.

[beneficii]

What a joke thread! If any of you bothered to read the article, then you would see that there is no intention by the Democrats of actually abolishing the filibuster.

What they intend to do is to forbid flibustering the motion to begin debate, reduce the amount of time between filing for cloture and voting for it, expedite nominations so they don't languish in the senate for months, and other assorted changes.  

I'm aware.  I'm addressing the general idea on the left of abolishing the filibuster.  Which is incredibly hypocritical, since they all seem to shut up about it whenever Republicans gain power.  Some go as far as supporting the abolition of the Senate itself, mostly when their favorite legislation tanks once it gets to the upper house.

Majoritarianism is not very just.  In elections, it's really the only thing that works, but in a legislature you have the capability of gaining a wide consensus through debate and change to legislation, which is what should be the goal.

I support requiring filibusters to actually get up and debate the issue in order to sustain their filibusters.  That way the filibusters would constantly have to make their case to the public as for why they are holding up Senate business, and it would remove the incentive for a lot of the backroom deals that happened during the health care reform to get cloture.  Nevertheless, I agree that abolishing the filibuster is a bad idea, and I like the idea of the minority delaying legislature, but they must actually get up and make their case in the Senate.

Also, I like the idea of requiring the minority to muster 41 votes to sustain a filibuster.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I certainly agree with the provision that would require Senators to actually filibuster when they filibuster. However much I may disagree with him, I genuinely respect Bernie Sanders, and his masterful showing the other day is one of the reasons why. Senators have gotten lazy. Let them work for once.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I've been calling for a return to true filibusters for years.

[Sewer]

The Dems. loved their filibuster under Bush.

They did?

Oh yes they did.

And yet...

Where is Alito now?

[Sewer]

The Democrats are the party of the spineless.

[Brittain33]

Please, please let democracy work. Abolish the filibuster.

Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it - and the shaft to the so-called progressive agenda come 2012. 

I accept that. We have to grasp the nettle here. The Senate is broken. If people vote for Republican majorities, they have a right to expect Republican governance. We need accountability.

[Brittain33]

The Dems. loved their filibuster under Bush.  Hypocrites.  The filibuster is a good thing, always has been.  

Check the numbers. It's been taken to extreme levels in the last two Congresses. Democrats never used the filibuster to bring the entire Senate to a halt time and time again.

[Franzl]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

[Badger]

Long, long overdue.

The biggest success at grotesque abuse of the filibuster the past two years wasn't killing the popular public option, defeating Cap and Trade or DREAM, or forcing an extension of tax cuts to the very wealthy as a bargaining chip. Its been to ensure Obama is viewed as ineffective leader unable to get things done even when his party "controls" Congress, and punctures his post-partisan crossing party lines campaign promises.

Not a coincidence.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Of course this is all bs. The senate originally didn't have any filibuster, a simple majority could decide to end debate and proceed to voting.
It was "created" almost 20 years later, when the senate changed its rules, as a loophole, not a deliberate attempt to protect the rights of the minority.

[J. J.]

I'd favor the change.  I favored it when the GOP was in the majority.