It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Senate to Restore Filibuster Rules???

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:16 PM

Time for U.S. Senate to restore filibuster rules
From an editorial by The San Jose Mercury
Posted: 12/06/2012 01:05:45 AM PST

The Senate needs to go back to the future on filibuster reform. Senators should have to stand their ground and raise their voices on the Senate floor, around the clock if necessary, a la Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," to keep legislation from coming to a vote.

Back in the day, a minority senator had to have strong personal convictions against legislation to undertake the onerous, sleep-depriving filibuster, talking and talking and talking to block action.

Today, a senator, or a group of senators, can merely threaten a filibuster and suddenly the legislation requires a 60-vote supermajority to move forward to a vote.

It's outrageous.

Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid wants to change the rules, and President Obama should be helping to persuade the handful of Democratic senators who are on the fence.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of them. She told the publication The Hill that she thinks it would be a mistake to use the Senate's power to change the filibuster rules, but she said, "I'll listen to arguments."

Senate Republicans' record should be argument enough. And if the parties' control of the Senate were reversed, that would be just as wrong.

Not one filibuster was recorded in the Senate until 1841. The average in the decade of the Reagan and Carter years was about 20 per year. Senate Republicans used the filibuster a record 112 times in 2012 and have used it 360 times since 2007.

It has widespread public support. GOP senators blocked a major military spending bill, a badly needed veterans' jobs bill and the Dream Act, all of which would have passed with a majority. They stifled the Disclose Act, which would require greater transparency in campaign advertising.

In a particularly craven abuse of the system, they have halted the nominations of nearly two dozen judicial appointments, causing backlogs in courts that delay justice for people and businesses across the country.

Some Democrats fear that Republicans will win control of the body in 2014, when 20 Senate Democrats will have to defend their seats, and they'll want the power minority Republicans have now. But then Republicans could change the rules.

In "Mr. Smith," an idealistic Jimmy Stewart used the filibuster in an admirable way. But it has an ugly history, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop overdue change.

In 1957, Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for a record 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act, which he labeled unconstitutional and "cruel and unusual punishment."

The Senate is supposed to debate the great issues of the day, not stop them from being debated.

Senators should change the rules and get back to work.

Hello ATS it has been a while since I found anything interesting to start a thread about as far as politics goes since the election but I heard this being talked about on the radio the other day and did a search on here but didn’t find anything. Basically they want to return the rules to where if you want to filibuster you will have to stand up and talk to fill the time you can’t just say I object and then the bill dies in obscurity. I think it will make the senate a little more interesting and things might actually get done. I do not know a great deal of anything else this might change but I was hoping it would be a good topic to discuss on here.

So how do feel about this ATS? Do you think this would be a good thing or not? By the way I heard they will not need a non-filibuster proof vote to accomplish this I think I heard that there is a day that they can change the rules coming up where it will only take a simple majority vote next month.

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
I firmly think that the filibuster should be in place, as it was written, and intended to be used whether the Dems or Republicans have control of the Senate. Fair is fair, and this president wants fair taxes, then he should also support what is fair in senate.

Of course, the dems want to change it because they know that in 2014, they are going to have the election run of their lives...

Or, lets just decrease the pay for senators and the fringe benefits. Then lets see who we get into office then -- when money doesn't matter.

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
If you're going to filibuster, you're going to have to make an ass out of yourself. That's the way it should be. Can you imagine how many more recordings there would be of Senators saying really dumb things just to fill hours and hours of time? We would probably have a "legitimate rape" type laugh fest once a week.

Are they required to stay on subject or make any sense during these? Can they just read to you out of a book? If so, that needs to stop too. When I first learned what a filibuster was when I was younger, I was in disbelief that that sort of thing actually happens in government.

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by jessejamesxx

I think they can talk about anything they just have to continually do it. I can just imagine that shows like Colbert or the daily show love this idea.

new topics

top topics

log in