Current Events > RE: The Filibuster

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ok so I understand there's a need to try and abolish the filibuster because the rebublicans are just filibustering everything the democrats try and do or something like that.

So at this point in time, why are the democrats not just bringing literally every single thing to the floor and forcing some republican to stand there and talk constantly and constantly for hours after days on end? Is there something preventing democrats from just putting forward bills over and over which would force the republicans to physically be there all the time to prevent the vote?

takes 50 votes to change procedure, and the two conservative dems won't even agree to change procedure

Given how I've seen TC post before I'm not certain this is being asked in good faith

Filibuster doesn't require actual physical filibustering for some reason anymore.

They got rid of the "just talk and talk" section of the filibuster years ago. Its literally just "if you don't have 60 votes, we'll just scrap it".

When you see a conservative doing a "filibuster" and talking for hours on end, they're doing it for PR.

You know that democrats do the same thing right? Its not just "because the rebublicans are just filibustering everything".

Doom_Art posted...

Given how I've seen TC post before I'm not certain this is being asked in good faith

This is absolutely, completely being asked out of my own ignorance on the topic.

What makes you think otherwise? Please be honest. I want to know what is leading you to think it's not an actual good faith question.

emblem-man posted...

Filibuster doesn't require actual physical filibustering for some reason anymore.

Oh, what the fuck. So in practicality, how is it actually used?

Because they're all on the same team and its just theater

Proto_Spark posted...

They got rid of the "just talk and talk" section of the filibuster years ago. Its literally just "if you don't have 60 votes, we'll just scrap it".

when did this happen? they literally decided to just change a vote count from 50 to 60 on a whim? i mean, if you don't have to be there physically to defend it, then effectively they just raised the required count from 50 to 60.

When did it stop requiring them to actually do it?

TaylorHeinicke posted...

when did this happen? they literally decided to just change a vote count from 50 to 60 on a whim? i mean, if you don't have to be there physically to defend it, then effectively they just raised the required count from 50 to 60.

To override a filibuster, its always taken a 3/5 majority (or 60 votes) - so even if the democratic senate would like to push a new bill through with their 51 votes, a republican can "filibuster" and because they don't have 60, the bill will never pass.

The mood regarding the filibuster in recent decades has been "fine lets just move on then" meaning you don't need to stand there on a soapbox for 3 straight days to stop the bill. It was heavily strengthened starting in the 1970s (?) under the idea that the Senate you know, has better things to do with their day than let someone stand on a soapbox all day. However this instead made the filibuster vastly stronger and basically guaranteed a "controversial" bill wouldn't pass.

This means that while you only technically need 51 votes to pass a bill, you really need a 60% majority.

Proto_Spark posted...

To override a filibuster, its always taken a 3/5 majority (or 60 votes) - so even if the democratic senate would like to push a new bill through with their 51 votes, a republican can "filibuster" and because they don't have 60, the bill will never pass.

The mood regarding the filibuster in recent decades has been "fine lets just move on then" meaning you don't need to stand there on a soapbox for 3 straight days to stop the bill.

This means that while you only technically need 51 votes to pass a bill, you really need a 60% majority.

Right.

So in practice, you need 60 votes now.

That's a fucking massive change. The whole point of the filibuster, even used in shows like The West Wing with a guy standing there reading a cookbook, was that you had to at least be there. If you aren't there then debate can end and a vote can be counted.

EDIT: Wait if it happened in the 70s then why did The West Wing and Parks and Rec both do physical filibuster lmfao