congress should not abolish the filibuster

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
the filibuster keeps our country stable and predictable. it encourages negotiation so that laws can get passed, moderation is a good thing. 

liberals are pushing to abolish it... but the real test is, would they want to abolish it if trump and the republicans were in change? the question answers itself... of course they wouldnt wanna abolish it at that point. but that's the nature of politics.... different parties control things at different points, so they will have complete control with a majority vote. 
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm okay with abolishing the filibuster as long as the controlling party gets 100% of the blame for the predictable fuckups of misguided policies with no understanding whatsoever of the consequences of the policies, such as the inevitable loss of entry-level jobs with an artificial wage mandate. Or the loss of low skill jobs when poor people have to compete with immigrants from 3rd world nations.
Topic's author
#3
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
so all you care about is the blame game and you dont care about the actual consequences of abolishing the filibuster? do you really wanna see what happens when the liberals get their way on everything? 
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
How else can you hold people accountable? Do you have a better idea?
Topic's author
#5
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
the better idea is to keep the filibuster 
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
So DC can have a perpetual fall guy when policies don't work? You're just asking DC to do whatever they want to as long as it gets them votes and they can blame someone else (a filibuster) for policy mistakes. This is why establishment Republicans are so fucked up. Pretend like they are doing something knowing a filibuster will save their ass from being called out for not doing anything productive for Americans while they only care about themselves. It's a game DC has played far too long. 

ZERO accountability.
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why not simply make a 2/3 majority a requirement for all legislation?
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
So DC can have a perpetual fall guy when policies don't work? You're just asking DC to do whatever they want to as long as it gets them votes and they can blame someone else (a filibuster) for policy mistakes. This is why establishment Republicans are so fucked up. Pretend like they are doing something knowing a filibuster will save their ass from being called out for not doing anything productive for Americans while they only care about themselves. It's a game DC has played far too long. 
ABOLISH POLITICAL PARTIES.
#9
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
I agree with Greyparrot. When people realize how hypocritical and terrible Liberal policy is then the Conservative majority will win and when they figure out that Auth Right is bad, it will be Lib Right dominating, and that's perfect
#10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
the filibuster keeps our country stable and predictable.
evidence?  I don't think there was a single filibuster during the Civil War years.  The last four years have been among the least stable and least predictable in US history but no filibuster did anything to prevent that.  The only really notable filibusters in history were both used to delay voting rights for black people and unequal treatment of some groups is a classic recipe for instability and unpredictability.

The heart of democracy is the expression of majority will and filibusters in practice only and always obstruct that free expression by the majority.  Therefore, filibusters are inherently anti-democratic. 


Topic's author
#11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
 The last four years have been among the least stable and least predictable in US history but no filibuster did anything to prevent that. 
evidence?

The heart of democracy is the expression of majority will and filibusters in practice only and always obstruct that free expression by the majority.  Therefore, filibusters are inherently anti-democratic.  
simple majority will isn't the maximum of democracy. filibuster requires consensus building, so it's even more democratic as it better represents the population and not mob rule 
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
The problem is that the modern Republican party's only plans are:

1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy
2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
3) obstruct literally anything the democrats try to do unless it is points 1 or 2. 

Things like the filibuster made sense when parties were objecting to things because they actually had a problem with the policy. The filibuster could be used to force debate and negotiation so that things could be passed. But that doesn't really happen any more. Republicans aren't really interested in debate or negotiation. Their goal is to block anything positive getting done so that they can campaign on how ineffective the democrats are. 

Unfortunately, the filibuster's only purpose at this point is to stop the government from functioning. It doesn't serve any actual purpose. 
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
The problem is that the modern Democrat party's only plans are:

1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy
2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem is that the modern Democrat party's only plans are:

1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy
2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
what? it is the republicans that push for tax cuts on the wealthy (like trump). It is the republicans who constantly want to cut services for the poor or middle class. How could you possibly think those things apply to the democrats?
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
How could you possibly think those things apply to the democrats?
Tell me again which democrat voted against their own automatic pay raises?

Trump bellowed. “Those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”

The legislation never materialized, for a simple reason: What Trump proposed is already the law of the land. Thanks to the massive “welfare reform” bill that President Bill Clinton signed two decades ago, new immigrants are ineligible for public assistance during their first five years in America. It’s a mean-spirited policy. But it was the creation not of nationalist demagogues like Trump but of Democrats like Clinton, who pledged in his 1992 campaign to “end welfare as we know it.” [LINK]
#16
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgmi
but the real test is, would they want to abolish it if trump and the republicans were in change?
It’s true that many Democrats only want to abolish the filibuster when it benefits them. However, an actor with poor credibility doesn’t make their conclusion false. That’s a tu quoque argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque).

It encourages negotiation so that laws can get passed.
But currently, it acts as a blockade on any serious legislation – which is legislation voters voted for (they vote for particular platforms). I agree some negotiation/moderation is a good thing, but there is a line. The existence of moderate swing Senators (in the current Senate, that looks like Sinema and Manchin among the Democrats and Murkowski and Collins among the Republicans) ensures, by median voter theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem), that negotiation is required to pass most policy. Even when Democrats had a 60-Senator supermajority in 2009–10, moderate Democrat Joe Lieberman ensured that the Affordable Care Act didn’t have a public option. So the marginal benefit of the filibuster in terms of ensuring policies aren’t extreme continues to exist thanks to moderate Senators who are swing votes, but the existence of the filibuster causes gridlock that prevents good policy – policy that voters voted for – from being passed. 
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tejretics
But currently, it acts as a blockade on any serious legislation
It's used as an EXCUSE.

One of the main problems with legislation is that the bills are too big.

ALSO,

From a legal theory perspective, we shouldn't have to be constantly changing our laws.

Our system of laws should be based on logically-coherent principles that apply universally.

JUSTICE MUST BE BLIND.
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
Consensus decision-making or consensus politics (often abbreviated to consensus) is group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. The focus on avoiding negative opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin meaning "agreement, accord," which in turn comes from consentire, meaning "feel together".[1] Both the process and outcome of consensus decision-making are referred to as consensus (e.g. "by consensus" and "a consensus" respectively). [LINK]

A consensus government is one in which the cabinet is appointed by the legislature without reference to political parties. Consensus government chiefly arises in non-partisan democracies and similar systems in which a majority of politicians are independent. Many former British territories with large indigenous populations use consensus government to fuse traditional tribal leadership with the Westminster system.[1] Consensus government in Canada is used in Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Nunatsiavut, and similar systems have arisen in the Pacific island nations of Fiji, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, as well as the ancient Tynwald of the Isle of Man.[1] [LINK]
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Either legislation makes sense and is truly good for all citizens, or it is a messy cesspool good for only a few. I favor 3R7AL's suggestion of 2/3 majority, but I'd impose it on all members of both Houses and not just "of members present," unless a member has a damn good reason to be absent [justifiably ill, etc.]. Legislation is their primary purpose, after all, "investigations" be damned, since those are to occur only for legislative purpose, and not as  an arm of the DOJ to uncover crime. legislation is why they are elected, yet they demonstrably use damn little time actually doing it. There is my beef with Congress; they're wasting our money to spend it more than they earn it.
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
unless a member has a damn good reason to be absent
Yep.  They should be removed from office for dereliction of duty.