Should the U.S. Senate eliminate the filibuster?
It now takes 60 votes for the Senate to pass bills, which many feel has weakened the ability of Congress to do anything. Elizabeth Warren says she wants to get rid of the filibuster. I don’t know what she would be able to do if elected president, but this matter should be discussed. In recent years, the filibuster has been eliminated in votes for judicial nominees. Has the time come to completely eliminate it?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
14 Answers
No. Although it’s controversial, a filibuster is a way of slowing a headlong rush into a mob doing something relentlessly partisan and stupid.
The republicans should NEVER have gotten rid of the judicial nomination minimum 60 votes; that was a sheer power grab.
What we need is cooler heads and better politicians. What we don’t need is cheats around time-honored circuit breakers. Changing the rules to get around temporary problems will come back to bite us, long term.
Perhaps for everything except political appointments?
I am sure as the self proclaimed “greatest democracy in the universe and beyond”, you can find a better solution to prevent over-hasty law-making, than some arsehole reading from a phonebook for a million hours.
For example, every law passed, automatically gets sent to the supreme court for review.
@elbanditoroso
Except it’s not time-honored. Though it’s been in the Senate rules since the early 1800s, the filibuster was rarely used until the 1970s, and has pretty much just been used as a tactic employed to obstruct and annoy the Senate – such as when Huey Long recited liquor recipes for 15 hours. Or when a group of southern Senators attempted to sink the Civil Rights Act by filibustering for 72 hours. Or Mitch McConnell’s constant abuse of it during Obama’s tenure.
They should put it in a bag, with the EC, and throw them to the curb.
Both, are stupid.
What should be eliminated are votes for politicians who abuse their majority positions, not real statesmen who know and believe in the art of making compromises. These Senate rules are meant to temper political radicalism not wielded as weapons by rabid idealogues. The rules are not the problem imo.
No. It’s already been weakened enough.
The design of this country is incredible. If tools like the Electoral College and the filibuster work when properly managed.
Now that I think about it, didn’t McConnell once filibuster his own bill when the Democrats agreed to vote for it? If that’s not a sign that the filibuster is little more than a tool for obstruction then I don’t know what is.
If it isn’t a tool for obstruction, what is it? A bladder control contest?
Yup. Kill it or weaken it. Regardless, it has become a hinderance to governance, and has weakened the whole Legislative Branch considerably. Bring back ideas and accountability.
Every objection seems to be some version of how some other awful Americans will do awful things in the future with a shockingly unthinkable 50–59 vote majority. If we empower legislators to legislate, rather than incessantly block the actions of others, we incentivize passing laws, incentivize cooperation, and maybe we can actually make good laws a lot of us can agree on.
And even if we don’t agree, gasp, we can try things and let the voters see the results, instead of this endless and siloed handwringing about what might happen.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
