Filibuster... Kill it or save it?

[evince]

Yes now two thirds can end one


I believe that was an improvement of the process

Do you agre?

 

[Damocles]

Telling you that it is not a constitutional thing and filibuster didn't become a thing until 1850 is simply the truth.

 

[Damocles]

Yes now two thirds can end one


I believe that was an improvement of the process

Do you agre?

No, now 3/5 ends it rather than 2/3, which was much more difficult to overcome.

 

[evince]

I have researched. Long speeches were overcome with a simple majority vote in the first sessions of the Senate.

Please pay attention.

Things that have changed over time for the filibuster:

In 1806, the beginnings of the filibuster started with the removal of the "previous question" rule which allowed a simple majority to end debate, this inadvertently allowed for infinite debates.

About 1850 it became a thing when some Senators started using the new rule to block legislation indefinitely. Using the Dutch and Spanish word for Pirate they called it a "filibuster".

Later rules were instated:

Rule 22 (1917): Frustrated by obstruction, the Senate established the cloture rule, which required a two-thirds vote to end a filibuster

Lowering the cloture threshold (1975): The cloture requirement was lowered to 60 votes.

U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview

www.senate.gov

They have exsisted as long as the house and senate have been meeting


Tell me what kinds of people were elected to the very first body?


FOUNDERS

 

[evince]

It was a founders idea wasn’t it

Post 65


you were saying?

 

[Damocles]

U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview

www.senate.gov

They have exsisted as long as the house and senate have been meeting


Tell me what kinds of people were elected to the very first body?


FOUNDERS

They have not. Long speeches are not filibuster (which means hijacking).

Again. Until 1806 they ended debate with a simple majority vote. Clearly not "filibuster", the Founders worked in a system that debate was shut down when there was a simple majority of Senators voting to end that debate.

This ending of debate from a simple majority vote is not the thing we call a filibuster. And it was not a design of the Founders.

In 1806 they changed the rules that allowed them to end debate with the simple majority vote (it was called the "previous question" rule). This inadvertently (unplanned) made it so someone could infinitely keep debate open.

It was not until 1850 that Senators started hijacking the debate for an infinite period shutting down the Senate...

By 1922 people were so annoyed by it they changed the rules and created cloture. And again in 1975, because of things like the last government closure, they changed the cloture vote to make it easier to reach cloture...

 

[Diogenes]

No emergency was ever "pretended", Zen...

He'd know that if he'd bothered to do any research. Lower court rulings as yet awaiting review, allegations, opinions, speculations, etc. are all he's got, AFAIK.

 

[Damocles]

Trying to give the Filibuster "sainthood" is weird to me. I am glad they didn't use the "nuclear option" but I do believe that very soon one of the parties will end it entirely and we'll go back to simple majority ending debate, when that happens that party will pack the SCOTUS and add two states (DC and Puerto Rico) in an attempt to take over government for the foreseeable future. Personally I'd prefer the infinite filibuster rule because it would stop them from believing that their "job" is to pass laws rather than to represent people.

 

[Diogenes]

Trying to give the Filibuster "sainthood" is weird to me. I am glad they didn't use the "nuclear option" but I do believe that very soon one of the parties will end it entirely and we'll go back to simple majority ending debate, when that happens that party will pack the SCOTUS and add two states (DC and Puerto Rico) in an attempt to take over government for the foreseeable future.

Hence my recommendation.

Democrats have already said they intend to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance.

We MUST strike first.

If the GOP packs the court now, while they can, they can quash a lot of the lawfare that's currently clogging the District Courts with obstructionism.

If the GOP hesitates, they may not get another chance for decades, because the Trump-hating Democrats will raise the bar to 13 or more Justices as soon as they can.

How do I know?

Lots of 'em have said so, and on this question, I believe them.

If we don't try, a generation of Republicans could be shut out of governing.

 

[evince]

No. It became a thing right around the time of the beginning of the Civil War.

No. It became a thing right around the time of the beginning of the

They have not. Long speeches are not filibuster (which means hijacking).

Again. Until 1806 they ended debate with a simple majority vote. Clearly not "filibuster", the Founders worked in a system that debate was shut down when there was a simple majority of Senators voting to end that debate.

This ending of debate from a simple majority vote is not the thing we call a filibuster. And it was not a design of the Founders.

In 1806 they changed the rules that allowed them to end debate with the simple majority vote (it was called the "previous question" rule). This inadvertently (unplanned) made it so someone could infinitely keep debate open.

It was not until 1850 that Senators started hijacking the debate for an infinite period shutting down the Senate...

By 1922 people were so annoyed by it they changed the rules and created cloture. And again in 1975, because of things like the last government closure, they changed the cloture vote to make it easier to reach cloture...

Damo

You are resorting to redefining words because you refuse to admit I am correct on the facts

It has been called a filibuster for centuries


Even back in Roman days


The person you used to be would NEVER stoop to such tactics

What happened?

 

[evince]

The very first group of Americans voted into the senate did a filibuster

You know

The founders

 

[evince]

It was a founders idea wasn’t it

Who got elected to that first congress?

Most of the people who designed the system

You are really looking silly here

 

[gfm7175]

Of course they were. Again, you're blindly agreeing with it because a) he's mean to Democrats and b) his misusing powers to do what you agree with.

You haven't named anything that he's "misused". He has the power to declare emergencies, as he's done. What has he done that's beyond the confines of the Constitution/Federal Law?

If the roles were reversed, you'd be on here losing your mind about the abuse of power.

I'd be THRILLED if a Democrat were doing what Trump is doing right now.

 

[Damocles]

Damo

You are resorting to redefining words because you refuse to admit I am correct on the facts

It has been called a filibuster for centuries


Even back in Roman days


The person you used to be would NEVER stoop to such tactics

What happened?

I am not.

Geebus.

The Filibuster came along inadvertently when they removed the "previous question" rule, and it was not a thing until 1850. These things are truths. This was no design of the Founders. This should not be put into "canon"... because it isn't.

I told you to pay attention, but I expected you to remain ignorant. I once again got what I expected.

 

[evince]

I am not.

Geebus.

The Filibuster came along accidentally when they removed the "previous question" rule, and it was not a thing until 1850. These things are truths. This was no design of the Founders.

One took place the very first senate meeting

Why are you just Denying the actual history?

 

[gfm7175]

He'd know that if he'd bothered to do any research. Lower court rulings as yet awaiting review, allegations, opinions, speculations, etc. are all he's got, AFAIK.

... and all of those unconstitutional abuses of power of the lower courts are getting overturned by higher courts (which is why Team Donkey wants to stack the higher courts with leftist ideologues).

So yeah, he has nothing.

 

[Damocles]

One took place the very first senate meeting

Why are you just Denying the actual history?

No, one did not. It could not because a simple majority vote ended debate at that time, because of the "previous question" rule. You continue to be ignorant, purposefully misunderstanding because you want to give the filibuster "rule" (not even a rule, the rules are cloture not filibuster) some kind of weird sainthood.

You WANT it to be something the founders created, but it simply isn't.

 

[evince]

It would not take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the filibuster, it is not a constitutional thing.

It was a founders idea wasn’t it

I proved it was used by some founders the very first time the senate met

You can’t just erase history for your cult

 

[Damocles]

No, a filibuster did not take place during the maiden session of the United States Senate, which convened on March 4, 1789, in New York City.

The Senate's first day involved basic organizational steps: administering oaths to senators as they arrived (only 8 of the 22 were present initially), electing a president pro tempore (John Langdon of New Hampshire), and appointing a secretary and doorkeeper.

Proceedings were brief, adjourned quickly due to lack of a quorum for substantive business, and focused entirely on setup; no debates, bills, or prolonged speeches occurred.

Filibusters as a tactic emerged much later, with the first recognized instance in 1837 during a debate over expunging a censure of Democrat President Andrew Jackson.

The Senate in 1789 operated under simple majority rules inherited from the Continental Congress, without the extended debate traditions that later enabled obstruction.

Why are you quoting me on this?

 

[evince]

Wow

Is Damo a bot hole too