Does the Filibuster serve the interests of the US Senate?

Post Reply New Topic

This was spun off from another thread, becuase that was too closely tied to other matters.

Does the Filibuster serve the interests of the US Senate?

As currently applied, it takes 60 votes, or the appearance of 60 votes, to cut off debate on some form of pending business. In effect, this imposes a 60 vote requirement to move highly contested legislation or nominations to a floor vote.

There are 2 major exceptions. Spending and Fiscal bills go under a different set of rules (which are beyond my understanding), and 2/3 of the Senate is required to consent and ratificiation of a treaty.

The modern form came about after the 1960s and 1970s, when the "two-track" system allowed any member to express opposition to a piece of pending legislation, which could lead to a full-blown filibuster.

This poll is not covering the "Blue Slip" system, which customarily refers to the privlidge of a sitting senator from a state to informally block nominees to offices in that state. For instance, the Senator from....say....Alaska can question nominations to be US Attorney for that judical district.

Integral part of democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected. This is not mob rule. You hear the Democrats whine about the the filibuster but they were whining about George Bush plotting to get rid of the filibuster just a few short years ago.

The whining about the gun bills is just political theater. It had ZERO chance of passing in the house and Democrats crossed the aisle in the senate to vote against them too. The Republican proposals actually received more votes and were blocked by the Democrats.

... Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the question: "Does the Filibuster serve the interests of the citizens of US?"

Silly rules to allow one person to gum up the works is what led to the partition of Poland.

I whileheartedly agree, GGPViper. And I will go so far as to say that it does.

Because you live in what is effectively a two-party state, the ability of a simple majority to entirely coopt the legislative process is a significant danger. While filibuster cannot stand in the way of a majority that is content to allow an issue to be talked out, it does serve to focus public attention on a subject, and can exercise a level of political influence that can sway results.

When minority members act to highlight policy with which they disagree; and when the majority acts to silence the minority, both of these acts propel the question at hand to the political radar of the body politic (well, that part of the body politic that bothers to keep itself aware of the news of the day).

The United States Senate is an extraordinarily powerful and complex institution. It has significant responsibilities beyond those of the House, and it has fewer members with which to discharge those responsibilities. It is not in the least surprising, therefore, that complex rules have arisen to govern its proceedings.

The Senate is not the House. We've only been directly electing senators for the last 100 years. The Senate was suppose to represent the states and the House was suppose to represent the people. If the Senate is just 50+1 then what is the point of even having it? How does it differ at all from the House?

Russia and Prussia knew it was paralysing Poland so they forbade any attempts to change the rule. They used it to help themselves until Poland disappeared from the map.