Once you've read that explanation, please click on the following 2 links and read both of these articles, as well. The first talks about why the filibuster is an outdated tradition that should be abolished, and the second gives a vehement defense of the filibuster, stressing its importance and that it should be maintained.
http://www.good.is/post/lets-end-the-filibuster (this was written before the Massachusetts special election, when Democrats still held 60 seats in the Senate)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/in_defense_of_the_filibuster_100054.html
After reading these different articles and explanations, here are some questions for you to consider:
- What do you think of the filibuster? Do you like the idea of potentially needing 60 votes out of 100 to be able to pass legislation? Is it protecting the minority so that one side doesn't force too much of their agenda down the throats of the American people, or does it make it too difficult for a side that has won an elected majority to enact ANY of its agenda?
- What are some of the most effective arguments given both in favor of and against the filibuster?
- Look at the graph on the Wikipedia page, showing the number of cloture votes in the past 60 years or so (cloture is when Senators vote to cut off debate on a topic; they're basically voting on whether or not to vote, and 60 'yea' votes are needed to move on to a final 'up-or-down' vote on a bill, a nomination, etc.). What trends do you notice on this graph? What do you think might account for those trends?
Remember, each of you need to make at least TWO (2) separate posts to the blog about this topic. There is no length or 'minimum # of words' requirement, but use your best judgement about how long your comments should be in order to effectively make your point and contribute to the discussion. One of your comments should be a response to any or all of the questions posed above, and your other comment should be a response to something one of your classmates has said. Both of your comments need to be posted by the end of the day next Friday, March 5. Have fun, and good luck!
Personally, I like the filibuster. I mean, I can see how it can be annoying/bad/inconvenient but without it the miniority would never get a say in anything. Having to have 60 people out of 100 agree to a certain proposition or bill, to me at least, seems normal. If there were 10 people and 6 wanted to go to six flags and 4 wanted to go to disneyland, wouldn't you go to six flags because a MAJORITY of the people wanted to go there? I don't know. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it makes sense to me.
ReplyDeleteQuote: "Five years ago, Republicans were thundering against the outrageous assault on democracy and majority rule embodied in Democrats' use of the filibuster against George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats were writing sonnets to the practice as a necessary bulwark against Republican overreaching." -Ruth Marcus
It's the same old story. The Democrats used it a lot when it suited them, and the Republicans were angry. Now the roles are reversed. I wouldn't say that I 100% agree with it but overall I can see its' usefullness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with KtShep when she says, "It's the same old story. The Democrats used it a lot when it suited them, and the Republicans were angry. Now the roles are reversed." But I disagree with the filibuster being allowed to contaminate and hinder our legislative process. People tend to ask why Congress can never get anything done. Maybe it's because all they do is talk until they physically can't talk anymore? An excellent example of how filibustering sucks is Strom Thurmand's filibuster that lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes. A lot of good that did, considering the Civil Rights Act he was arguing against was just passed less than a decade later anyway. All filibustering does is waste time, not just Congress's time, but America's time. Also wasted are the poor souls who have to listen to some jerk talk for as long as he wants, just because he doesn't want to lose on some issue that he's probably going to lose on anyway. I have compiled a list of things one can do in 24 hours besides listening to some dude (or dudette) talk for 24 hours:
ReplyDelete1: Watch all 3 Lord of the Rings movies in one sitting... twice
2: Watch all Star Wars movies (this includes that animated one that came out...)
3: Watch 12 football games or 1 game of golf
4: Paint the house like your significant other has been asking you to do for the last 6 months now, even though she knows how busy you've been lately
The list goes on, but in order to keep this short, I shall end there. Thank you.
I also think that the filibuster is a tradition that should be kept alive in the Senate. It may waste some time, but I agree with Ruth Marcus when he says "No doubt, the filibuster has been overused in recent years, snarling Senate action on even the most routine matters. But such abuse is evidence of a deeper problem -- the increasing polarization of politics -- and not its cause."
ReplyDeleteI believe we should focus overcoming the problems from the "polarization of politics" rather than change a long-standing tradition. Also, the current filibuster technique does not involve continuous discussion from the minority party Senators, but instead they just advise the majority party of the potential of a filibuster and the Senate moves on to a different topic. This saves time and allows the minority party not to be overriden.
Altogether, I believe that the filibuster is not the problem- the stratification of modern politics is.
Overall, I have a neutral position on the filibuster. I mean, the fact that speakers can rant on for hours with no intent of actually persuading the majority party's view on the subject is somewhat ludacrous, but at times very essential. If the Senate didn't have SOMEthing to hinder the raging legislative movements by the majority party, we as a nation would suffer serious consequences. I think that the terms of a filibuster should be rendered to better fit the actual purpose of changing the other party's mind, instead of acting childish and giving them reasons to quarrel further. As mentioned in the first article, I DO think that the annoyance used in a filibuster is a "symbol of a lot that ails Washington today.” But I think it's just overcompensation for what all of America is afraid of: the corruption of a pary with too much power. If you ask, nearly every American fears too much power over too little power. So therefor, I think an amendment to the terms of a filibuster should be made, restricting the focus of a filibuster speach to that of persuasion on the subject at hand, not annoyance through extensive foolishness. The Senate should, in my opinion, have a position (or positions) that observe the filibuster, and declare a speach significantly persuasive and on the subject, or not. resulting the current speaker to step down when told he is no longer persuasive. Other than that, I think the filibuster can go on as long as it likes, and a cloture can still be upheld.
ReplyDeleteI agree with sexycheez_92. The fillbuster is just a waste of time because it isn't going to change everyone's mind as to what the topic of discussion is about. Instead of talking on and on about one thing because you either agree or disagree with it, move on to other things that could be more important. Maybe what you are talking about in a fillbuster is very important but i dont see a reason to talk about it for so long. “I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here,” this senator said, “but it is also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today.” The fillbuster just slows down the process of voting on a bill or etc. Its not necessary to talk about one thing for a long period of time. To me it would accomplish a lot becasue most of what would be said wouldn't be so important, the speaker could be repetative.
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand why they would have a fillbuster but then have a cloture. I personally don't want to listen to someone talk for more than 5 hours or even more even if i did agree with them. i would vote on a cloture in a heartbeat.
I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. Overall I think that it is an important ace in the hole to have as a minority party to prevent drastic legislation from changing the country, but it's overuse these last couple of decades have not helped the growing cynicism with politics in the country. Every election cycle we hear about how America is a Center-Right or Center-Left country depending on who you are watching. I think that this is a load of bull because the people who say that are the people who are some of the most hard core liberal or conservative personalities who try to get the moderates voted out because they make concessions to the opposite party. With the polarization it does make it nearly impossible to make any significant changes to the country, which is angering, but on the other hand we don't have to worry about going from socialism to libertarianism every couple election cycles. The filibuster that prevents this from happening is just a necessary evil until we bring both parties back to the center.
ReplyDeleteI believe the filibuster is a good thing. Filibustering slows the process of making a bill a law, which already allows too many government intrusions to become law.
ReplyDeleteMany people think that the filibuster should be eliminated because it is undemocratic. It should be kept in place for the same reason. Although democracy sounds great on paper, in practice it is mob rule that leads to anarchy, which in turn leads to tyranny. Thus, getting rid of the filibuster on the grounds that it limits democracy is correct but misguided, especially since the constitution doesn't mention democracy once and the founders disliked and distrusted democracies.
The Wikipedia article shows two critical things to remember about the filibuster. One is that it was President Wilson who suggested changing the rules to allow cloture, essentially weakening the power of a filibuster, in the Senate. This shouldn't be a surprise considering that Wilson was one of our worst presidents, enacting such things as the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and anti-trust legislation.
The second is that the number of votes on cloture sharply increases when government tries to expand its power but not when it gives power back to the people. While this isn't always true this trend shows us the power of the filibuster in preventing further government intrusion.
I have changed my mind after reading Mr. Hemp's post. Government does interfere too much already, so I don't know what I was thinking saying filibustering is a bad thing. I guess I just wasn't thinking of it from Mr. Hemp's perspective. The only thing I have to disagree with him on is his comment against anarchy. Thank you.
ReplyDeletei believe that the filibuster is good in the fact that it gives the minority some power but it seems to be a long and arduous process that may not necessarily be needed. i don't think that it slowing the law making process is really the most important thing. if 2/3 of the senators in the chamber vote on cloture then it seems apparent that the law will most likely pass anyways.
ReplyDeletethe graph shows us that in recent years there has been a massive amount of votes on cloture and the implication is much filibustering. this shows that recently the minority parties have not has as much power because the majority's vote on cloture has ended many filibusters.
I have to agree with Hannah's comment. I believe the filibuster is a waste of time. Let's face it Congress moves slow enough. I don't however think it should be rid of entirely. I personally would not want to sit and listen to someone read names out of a phonebook for hours on end. Im surprised there hasn't been an alternative route for someone to express their ideas rather than someone flap their gumes for a lengthy period of time. I think cloture is a useful tool but at the same time it weakens the strength of the filibuster. Overrall I generally have mixed feelings on the subject. Its surprising to see how Cato used tactics considered to be "filibuster" centuries ago. This fact could make the idea of a filibuster in modern times seem barbaric or a long term tradition we still keep.
ReplyDeleteI think the filibuster is unnecessary and discourages rational and reasonable debate on the issues at hand. I disagree with Lucas, "majority" shouldn't be distorted to mean "mob". Progress begins with bipartisanship, and the filibuster creates division.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both the filibuster and cloture are beneficial, but only when used for the right reasons. If a member of the minority party is extremely opposed to a piece of legislation that the Senate is trying to pass, I believe they definitely have the right to stand up for what they believe in: "the filibuster was generally reserved for issues of great national importance, employed by one or more senators who were passionate enough about something that they would bring the entire body to a halt." The same is also true for the cloture. If the majority party, and some members of the minority party, feel the legislation should still be passed because they deem it necessary or important, they may vote 60/100 to end debate and move the legislation onto the next step.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel the practice of a filibuster is being abused in recent Congresses. It has become less of stopping legislation that they do not agree with, and more of trying to make it as annoying, tedious, and frustrating for the majority party (the opposition). If the filibuster is used to ensure only the best possible laws get passed, then great, but it should stop being used as a tool to promote “excessive partisanship and ideological extremism.”
i have to say that i agree with kfitz in saying "the filibuster and cloture are beneficial, but only when used for the right reasons." it is important for the members of the Senate to use the filibuster for the betterment of the nation as a whole, not themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a filibuster is unnecessary in the senate. Needing 60 votes out of 100 is outrageous to bass a bill, no bill will ever be passed with that large of a number needed. In a sense, one senator has power over the remaining 99. In a democratic system in which the 100 senators are supposed to be equal, and play the same role in legislation, the filibuster is blindingly wrong. The majority party is the majority party for a reason, and the minority party should not have the powers to disrupt the majority's access to legislation with the filibuster.
ReplyDeleteFor both the sides of "for the filibuster" and "against the filibuster," I find that none of the arguments are very effective. However, I do agree that Joe Lieberman was correct in saying: "I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it is also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today." This quote proves that the filibuster is not a protector of fairness, but rather a disruptor of democracy, which takes a simple majority, or 51 votes in the senate. I thought the pro-filibuster article, with an ever so clever title: "The filibuster is a good thing," really had one mean of arguing their position. This one mean was to bash the democrats and to make the republicans on their side anymore. They try to bring "fairness" into the argument, but democracy is not about being fair to the 60% of people wanting something, it is about the 50%, the majority.
Graph..? I see none
I would like to comment on Mr. Hemp's comment:
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly disagree. The our "democratic" system is not ruled by mobs, but rather by representatives. Name them what you will, but they are not truly a mob of the populous. And tyranny will not be caused by the populous deciding what is best for the country, but rather from limiting the power of the people and limiting democracy to put more power in the government so more power is given to a smaller number of people, and then eventually one.
Overall, I believe the filibuster is a necessary institution. I definately agree with the fact that it "creates a better end product" and allows for the minority to have a voice. Although time is valuable, I think a longer pending period for legislation in Congress is better than quickly passing something that could potentially fail because of lack of debate or displease the public. For most members of Congress, I believe a congressman/congresswoman's attitude towards the filibuster is subjective. They are more likely to support it if they are members of the minority party in the Senate because it gives them a chance to potentially stop or at least hinder the passage of legislation they don't support. However, I know there are those who are completely opposed to the filibuster and the delay it causes as well as those who completely support it because it levels the playing field in Congress. I, for the most part,see the filibuster as useful and when used properly, I think it can only benefit us citizens. Only when it becomes a weapon for fighting another party and its beliefs does it become harmful. I believe it should only be used for its original purpose: debating legislation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the filibuster is necessary. In the past, if the minority Senators want to talk without end just to crack down on a bill, they obviously felt like it's a strong enough issue to do it. Now, however, it is used as a political tactic used to make the opposing party look bad because they cannot get anything passed in Congress. So basically, it is used more for harassment rather than real opposition. I feel the best solution would be an alternative to cloture, that the minority party must actually debate a law for the filibuster to continue and the Supreme Court should oversee that it is indeed a debate.
ReplyDeleteThe argument against the filibuster was fairly poor. Just stating that it's "not Democratic" over and over again is no real argument, and the proposed idea wouldn't be great because Senators would be more focused on keeping their seats than passing legislation. The argument for the filibuster wasn't appealing either. It doesn't produce results if the debate is more often then not stalling rather than actually debating.
The trends on the graph of cloture are going up because of what I previously stated, the degeneration of the filibuster into a political tactic rather than thoughtful debate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the fiilibuster is a good thing even though it is not in the constituion. It is supposed to be frustrating for congress to listen for hours about a pending law. However, this helps both parties debate and lets the minority have the power to speak out. It gives them a chance for them to expand on their ideas and for the temporary majority to listen.
ReplyDelete"the filibuster was generally reserved for issues..senators who were passionate enough about something that they would bring the entire body to a halt."
The filibuster does waste time but it is important for all views to be listened to. It is beneficial for parties to understand all opinions.
I believe that the filibuster is a difficult issue in that it all appears to be a matter of perspective.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, the filibuster seems like an extremely frustrating tool, and gives the appearance of the minority throwing a tantrum of sorts if they know they cant get their way. If they keep yammering away, they can prevent anything from happening, which appears to be a very juvenile approach. This seems to be the Democrats view of the filibuster in the articles, and I do have to agree with them. The filibuster prevents things from getting done.
On the other hand, the article championing the filibuster does have some positive points that i also agree with. When you are in the minority house, a lot of the time, your party is repressed under the majority, being outvoted a lot of the time, just because of people's determination to do things their way. By using a filibuster, one can further explain their ideas and possibly move people to their side.
So in the end, i suppose the filibuster can be a positive thing, if it is used properly, and the user does not read the phone book aloud, or count to a billion merely to waste time.
I agree with KtShep when she says,
ReplyDelete"It's the same old story. The Democrats used it a lot when it suited them, and the Republicans were angry. Now the roles are reversed."
I think it ties in with what i said about it all being a matter of perspective. Of course the Democrats despise it in this situation, now that they possess the majority power, but I'm sure that when the tables change once again, and they are in need, they will hypocritically turn back to the filibuster.
I find that Chris's statement about 1 senator stopping the other 99 to be a little bit of an exaggeration, because holds can be overridden with cloture as well. Let us not forget that the only reason that the filibuster is in the forefront of our minds is because of the Health Care debate going on. Agree with the legislation or not, this is a landmark bill that would change the landscape of our country and this is the type of legislation that the filibuster was made for. For the record I would also like to state that we are a republic, not a democracy, it's just a pet peeve. I disagree with the overuse of the filibuster over the past couple of decades for stupid mundane things, but overall it is a good thing to keep. I would also like to just state that I disagree with Lucas that government is the problem. Let us not forget that Adam Smith had some issues with banking and wanted some regulations, and he wrote the book on capitalism.
ReplyDeletei feel as though the filibuster is a good "idea" because it gives the minority party a way to slow a bills process and possibly add their ideas onto a bill to make the bill something they might agree on. The thing that is bad about the filibuster is that politicians use it in dumb ways. They usually use it to kill a bill just for the sake of killing a bill because the bill doesnt come from their party. All i am saying is that if we are going to keep the filibuster we should change it so that actual debate that seems to be leading somewhere is used, not reading from a phonebook which is completely a slap in the face to the other party. The filibuster seems too have split government into two teams not working for the same goal anymore. From the graphs on how many filibusters have been voted on to be stopped we can see that the filibuster is being used way too much. Our government shouldn't be about which party gets legislation passed, it should be about what kind of legislation gets passed and does it help our country. overall i feel as if the filibuster needs to be altered a little as i said before.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with kachapa. I think that the debate regarding the filibuster is not nearly as important as working to at least minimize the " polarization of politics". I think to an extent, division is necessary in order for Congress to be effective. However, I believe an extremely partisan Congress defeats its overall purpose, which is to compromise and find a middle ground regarding both parties' beliefs. As kachapa said, I don't believe completely "changing a long standing tradition" is necessary in order to improve the legislation process. The fillibuster has its flaws, but all in all, I think it does more good than bad. I think some of the issue is the defensive mindset most members of Congress seem to possess but unfortunately, a person's mindset is difficult to change.
ReplyDeleteI support the filibusterer for a few reasons. the first is that it helps limit the glut of legislation produced. Secondly, imagine this scenario with no filibusterer: When the Republicans had control of Congress they passed bills A, B, and C without any Democratic votes. now the Dems. have control of Congress and quickly repeal A, B, and C then pass D, E, and F. Then the Republicans get back in office, repeal the Democratic bills, reenact their own etc. Now if these were big bills like the Patriot Act, Universal Health Care, major tax reforms etc.. this rapid switching would be bad for the economy, nat'l security, etc... It would also be very expensive. So, basically the Senate should maintain the filibusterer and continue to be the buffer against the common passions the the founders intended it to be.
ReplyDeleteWhen first reading about the filibuster, it seemed to make sense and been fair. After thinking about it, however, I realized that it is NOT fair, and is somewhat unjust. The fact that senators can lengthen the time a bill is debated, just to kill it, is not fair. If the majority all votes to lengthen the debate, the minority cannot get its way in the 60/100 vote. I think it is fair that 60 out of 100 vote is needed, but the idea behind it still does not seem reasonable. What is extremely strange, is that “rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster,” meaning that filibustering can be filibustered. (??) What I still cannot grasp is the fact that a senator can simply decide to extend the debate on the bill, just to get his/her way. I think that cloture is a good way to balance the filibuster. I know I wouldn’t want to listen to a bunch a senators for hours on end, no matter how good his/her point is, and I bet a bunch of people agree with me.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Wikipedia graph, a trend I notice is that ever since 1970, cloture votes have greatly increased, and since 2006 the number of cloture votes has grown even more drastically. What is also interesting is that the Cloture Motions Filed, Votes on Cloture, and Cloture Invoked, all related to each other.
I am in favor of the Filibuster it is a famous and out of the ordinary part of Congress. Although at times it could seem irrational or a waste of time when a Senator is holding the floor for nearly 23 hours such as Senator Wayne Morse. These senators have strong and passionate opinions and will obviously do anything to prevent voting, and I believe that is something worthy of admiration. Although a determined minority can effectively stick together to keep the filibuster going, it does overall enhance the opportunity for real debate. I agree with Lucas when he says the filibuster is beneficial because it "slows the process of making a bill a law, which already allows too many government intrusions to become law". We have to many laws forced upon us already. Go filibustering!
ReplyDeleteI like the filibuster. I think that it gives senators that are opposed to the bill in question time to really explain themselves, compared to the House of Representatives, where each side gets equal time, and only a very small window to explain themselves. This gives the senators time to fully explain themselves, and not have to rush, which is a good thing, especially if it is concerning something could become a law, whether it is a good or bad one. The filibuster also could be very interesting, because senators can talk about anything, not only the bill. They could spend hours talking about the weather if they wanted too, or they could talk about the bill in question, depending on a) how much they have to say, and b) how much time they want to waste. The filibuster may not be in the Constitution, but I think it is an important part of the Senate and the process of voting on a bill.
ReplyDeleteI almost completely agree with bmadjlessi. I think that he is correct in saying that the filibuster helps the minority party slow the bill in question and give their opinion without a time frame. I also agree with him when he says that the filibuster should be changed so that the politicians cannot abuse its power. I think that it should be adjusted so that the senators have to at least be discussing the bill, or some aspect of it, and they can't just be saying pointless things that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill in question.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think that the filibuster is the cause of our government splitting into two teams that don't work together. I think that was caused by the forming of politcal parties, and that while the party in power in Senate might not like the filibuster, it is not the cause of the parties not working as one
The idea of the Filibuster perplexes me in its childishness. The idea of speaking endlessly about anything a Senator can dream up, in order to delay or kill a bill, seems... silly. It feels like a selfish way to get what you want instead of directly dealing with the problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, I can see how it is very tempting and even useful. If I was a Senator and some bill that I find to be highly unsettling was about to come to a vote, I may very well resort to singing Britney Spear's oeuvre, if I think said unsavory bill may pass.
But I still come back to the issue of using absurd means to get what you want. It seems odd that such a strange way of debating exists in our government. Of course, 60 senators can shut down my one woman show mid-point and get to the vote with a cloture. As seen in the nice little graph, cloture voting has spiked since the introduction of a 3/5ths vote to cloture. The previous 2/3rds vote made it a little tricky to end raging filibusters, but the new and improved 3/5ths (or roughly sixty votes) made it easier to cloture. Handy.
Anywho, I still am not totally sure about how I feel about this issue or even what I'm saying. I will have to reflect and read my other peers' thoughts and opinions on this matter.
I like pursue's point about how the filibuster prevents the costly passing and repealing of laws when the majority party changes. Without a way for the minority party to stop or slow the passing of SOME bills the majority party tries to pass, the majority would have a nearly free reign. Yes, the filibuster is time consuming and yes, it is overused, but without it our government would change radically and later revert back, only to change yet again in a quick and disorienting way that depends on who is in charge. Could the government find a better way to prevent this chaos, instead of relying on an abused system? I like the filibuster and would prefer it to be restored to its former prestige, but that is unlikely because of the current "polarization of politics", and as such a replacement is in order to maintain balance between the parties.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn general I think the filibuster is a good thing. IF there was no filibuster the majority party would always be able to pass anything they like while the minority just sat there unable to do anything about it. At least with the filibuster, they are able to make some kind of stand.
ReplyDeleteAnd like Annie said,"cloture is a good way to balance the filibuster." In my opinion I honestly don't think 60/100 votes is that bad to end debate. I think it's better that 60 people would vote to pass legislation than having at least 51.As said by Ruth Marcus,"It enhances the opportunity for real debate. On the major legislation for which its use was meant, the filibuster tends, overall, to create a better end product, one more likely to gain wide acceptance among voters." Especially when more than 51 people in the Senate are voting for it.
There are some unfavorable qualities though, being able to talk about whatever a senator pleases until a cloture vote is reached is ridiculous. The Senate is there for a reason not to listen to someone just "bs" for hours on end.
Like the second article states, "this(the filibuster) is infuriating if you are trying to pass crucial legislation or confirm a worthy nominee. It is wonderful if you are trying to block something bad from happening -- especially if you don't have the comfortable backstop of a presidential veto." It's a topic of hypocrisy. Democrats hate it now because they're in the majority but if they were in the minority party they wouldn't think the same way. Instead of fighting about getting rid of it and furthering the bipartisanship in the senate, they should be working to find a resolution that benefits both parties no matter who is in the majority or minority.
I liked David's comment on how the filibuster is used more fo real harrassment rather than real opposition becuase that is slowly what it has become. I cant agree with the idea of the filibuster being debated on for it to continue, that would just be a greater waste of time. The Senate should deal with the issue in a Democratic way. There ought to be a majoritarian rule so no one person cant prevent 100 people form moving forward to other important issues. I'm not trying to sound tyrannical in any way but if a filibuster is used to simply stall and not actually discuss the bill that is at issue than it will just appear to be timeconsuming.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to handle the problem of the filibuster is to make rules to adjust it so that the people have more time to discuss the issue at hand and for it to not be a tool to waste time but to further solve the problem at hand.
I believe a filibuster has is positives and negatives. If you are in the minority, it is essential for stopping bills from being passed.If you are in the majority and trying to get stuff done, a filibuster looks pretty negative. I think the idea of being able to stall legislation from being passed is essential, but the methods of how it is done is wrong. We shouldn't be wasting our time reading through phonebills, instead, if someone chooses to filibuster, a bill should be put aside and congress should continue. ScottPhil56 said it best in his last post.
ReplyDelete"The best way to handle the problem of the filibuster is to make rules to adjust it so that the people have more time to discuss the issue at hand and for it to not be a tool to waste time but to further solve the problem at hand."
I couldn't have said it better myself. The time spent "filling time" should be better spent to solve the problem that we are trying to aviod.
After reading the articles I think the filibuster is pointless. Yes it gives the minority the chance to talk and show that they have some power in the legislation. But truthfully the last couple of Congress have had enough people on the majority to just vote on a cloture. So by having the right to do a filibuster is just making the Congress look like a big joke and really has showed no success.
ReplyDeleteI think the Filibuster is good in theory in the fact that it gives power to the minority, however i believe it gives them to much power that they dont deserve unless they win an election and become the majority. I believe after reading the articles that there should be no Filibuster because it slows down legislation, if the Filibuster is not taken out of legislation i believe it should be easier to stop someone from filibustering a vote
ReplyDeleteI also have mixed feelings about the filibuster, but I am tending to lean more towards it being ineffective. To me it seems like when a sports team purposefully delays a game or just passes the ball back and forth at the end so their opponent can't score. If they really were the best, they should have already had a good lead or could win fairly and wouldn't need to resort to cheap tactics to win. The same goes with the Senate. If the legislation they want to pass really is as important or beneficial as they claim it is, they shouldn't need to put their opponenet at a disadvantage to win. If they are going to go to such ridiculous lengths like reading recipes out of cookbooks and talking for hours on end, they obviously know that their opponent is stronger than them and will probably crush their legislation. If this is the case, it should indeed be crushed because not enough people agree with it. It shouldn't be turned into law if one side has to stoop to such a foolish level in order to pass it. In this sense I think the filibuster is a waste of time and makes Congress look rather moronic. However, I do agree that it gives the minority party more power which can be beneficial as well.
ReplyDeleteI tend to lean more on the side of keeping the filibuster going, and that it is mostly a good process. There are definitely negative sides to the filibuster including the fact that it may be overused by the minority party just because they can. I think that the idea of the filibuster is a good one, but it does seem like it is abused, and made pointless. This process works when the certain members who firmly disagree on the bill, try to present their idea or compromise to the bill, to the majority, in the mindset that they may not win, but certainly deserve to be heard. It is all about compromise. The filibuster, when used well, gives the minority a chance to present what they think needs to be changed, and can lead to a stronger, more efficient bill. Of course, only when the intentions are good, and both the majority and minority are open to compromise. This is definitely not a perfect system, but I think it can be helpful to get all viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteI am divided on whether or not the filibuster is a practical institution that should be used in congress. I believe that the filibuster is a useful tool for the minority in congress. It allows the opposing party to fully explain why they believe that a certain piece of legislation should be halted. This gives the minority party a voice, when they otherwise may not have one.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the filibuster has its positives, there are also some faults that go with it. The filibuster may allow for a minority to voice its opinion, but it can also cause pointless remarks or topics to be brought up, just to fill time. These sensless comments completely slow down the law making process, and cause important legislation to not be passed.
I agree with Bailey when she says that the party in the majority is of course not going to be too happy with the filibuster, because it enables the minority to maybe change the bill presented. The majority party is never going to like this process because they aren't getting what they want when they want. This I think is a good thing, because then, bills thoroughly debated by both parties can come to a stronger conclusion approved by both. And of course majority and minority are going to switch back and forth throughout the years, allowing Democrats and Republicans to have the 'chair'. I also agree with Bailey when she says that "Instead of fighting about getting rid of it...they should be working to find a resolution..", because too much time is spent bickering about whether or not the act of the filibuster is a good thing. They should be trying to figure out a way to resolve the different issues they have with the filibuster, that both parties can agree on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Natalie, and her analogy of the filibuster to a sports game. It makes perfect sense that if the Senate does not want a specific bill passed, then they should reach a majority in favor of opposing the vote, ending debate in a fair manner. If enough people oppose the vote, then, as Natalie said, “it (the bill) shouldn't be turned into law if one side has to stoop to such a foolish level in order to pass it.” I also agree with Chris that “there should be no Filibuster because it slows down legislation.” This makes perfect sense because the Senate is so busy; they should not spend excess amounts of time debating bills just for the sake of debating. This time should be spent doing something that will benefit the life of Americans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both peterzeller and Scottphil56 when they say that rules should be put in place so that people do not waste time (by reading through phonebooks for example), and more discussion can take place. This would cut out meaningless remarks, and allow for more purposeful discussion and debate to take place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lucas and Lainey when they say "the filibuster is beneficial because it slows the process of making a bill a law, which already allows too many government intrusions to become law." I think the Congress does pass to many laws and regulations, and government as a whole is extending its power too much. I think the filibuster allows for more discretion to be used when creating and passing new legislation.
ReplyDeleteI do kind of agree with Della Turner. Although i said that the fillbuster is a waste of time, i still feel that when necassary one can have a very strong argument on a certain topic. It does have its flaws, like taking up too much time, and it wont always change peoples minds, but if someone disagrees on a bill they can use the fillbuster to get there point across and be heard
ReplyDeletei agree completely with peter and philip in that the filibuster is essential but we should not be wasting our time in our government. If the filibuster is going to be used it should be used in a problem solving way, not in a distorting,harassment kind of way. The governments job is to create a better country for us and their are a clash of ideal in government but that does not mean that they should be allowed to possibly hurt americans but passing or not passing bills. overall the filibuster needs to be used in a useful and time managed way.
ReplyDeleteI think if the filibuster were used properly it could be beneficial, I just don't agree with the extent to which Congress tends to abuse it. There is nothing wrong with slowing the process of making a bill a law as Lucas and Lainey mentioned, but only to a certain point. When it is abused, it becomes a waste of Congress's time as well as that of the people which Congress is meant to be working for.
ReplyDeleteThe filibuster has it’s place in our political system. We need blocks, and the filibuster effectively acts as a wedge for what could otherwise be a bulldozing majority. Legislation is meant to pass bills which are essential to effective governing, and this can be overlooked in the whirlwind of a simple majority’s push to move forward their agenda. With that said, we must consider the state of our political system when precious time on the Senate floor is often used as little more than a political check. All political maneuvering is done in private committees or the party caucus. Why is it that we insist on allowing one of the few opportunities for a bipartisan discussion to be used as little more than a political stalemate?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with kayg12 when they say filibustering and it's "senseless comments completely slow down the law making process, and cause important legislation to not be passed". Filibustering is an indispensable part of congress that does keep legislation from being passed, but most often this is for the better of the American people. Many parties filibuster to keep bad laws from passing such as Senator Huey P. who effectively used the filibuster against bills that favored the rich over the poor.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the filibuster is a good thing. It is a vital part of our political system. In a way it is almost comforting to know that the senate is held up all night actually discussing the issue. Bills should be thouroughly read and the senate should be fully familiar with the bill. I agree that the filibuster could be interpreted as a waste of time, however I feel that it is necessary in order to make the right decision on passing a bill or law. I also agree with Bijan when he says the filibuster should be used in a problem solving way, not in a distorting,harassment kind of way. The filibuster should be a positive way to get things done in our government. It should not be the issue.
ReplyDeleteoh ooops!!=P
ReplyDeleteum I didn't know where to post my response but i put them some where in this blogger thingy.
I think I put them in my profile or something.
I DID DO THEM THOUGH(just to let u know so i won't get pts off) =D
okay my 2 responses are in my profile under "AP GOVT SILVY'S BLOG"
ReplyDeletesry =)
nxt time i'll know where to go.
i agree with ktshep. i have the same exact opinion as her, the filibuster is inconvient but it is needed for the minorities to make a statement.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the wikipedia article, I saw under "Current US Practice" that budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which don't allow filibusters, but why is that fair? If the filibuster is intact for the senators to share their ideas than why should budget issues be taken out of consideration? I personally don't find that fair and it changes my positive view of the filibuster.
ReplyDeleteI just read a few other posts and a few stuck out to me. I agree with Chris, Natalie, and Annie completely. I think the filibuster could be a very useful tool to the senate if they use it the correct way. I think the senate should debate to make sure not any bill is passed but if they are going to waste their time debating just to debate then the filibuster is worthless and a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI agree with bmadjlessi, "i feel as though the filibuster is a good "idea" because it gives the minority party a way to slow a bills process and possibly add their ideas onto a bill to make the bill something they might agree on. The thing that is bad about the filibuster is that politicians use it in dumb ways. They usually use it to kill a bill just for the sake of killing a bill because the bill doesnt come from their party.", basically shares my same view on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the filibuster is everything that is wrong with present day Washington. Instead of debating the issues at hand, the practice of simply wasting time (i.e. taxpayer's money) in order to halt a bill rather than working together to create a document both parties (how lame is it that we must use terms like "parties") can sign onto feels cheap and ineffectual, as if Congress were exploiting a loophole. Yes, the minority party should be protected, but I feel that the filibuster, despite it’s historical significance and the existence of films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, is not the right way to go about it. Democracy is already such a slow process; there’s no need to make it take any longer. I guess my biggest problem with the filibuster is that I view the thought process behind it to be totally bogus, dude. In modern politics, where partisanship runs so rampant, and extremist, racist, hate-mongering movements like the Tea Party Movement are quickly becoming the mainstream, it just feels so counterproductive to utilize Senate techniques like the filibuster. It encourages the different parties to ignore each other’s opinions and just talk and talk and talk about nothing. With hotly debated topics like Health Care currently languishing in the Hell that is Congress, of course the usage of the filibuster is skyrocketing. Nobody wants to listen to each other anymore! We should all just like, you know, get along, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask everyone not in favor of the filibuster why Washington needs to move faster?
ReplyDeleteAbout 300 bills become law every year and even if only 1/3 are new laws, that is still 100 new laws and regulations that we have to comply with.
Progress doesn't start in Washington, it starts with the new business in town, or the tech start up that invented the latest and greatest computer, or the university that is training tomorrow's scientists and engineers. It starts with the people, not their government. And if their government is protecting their life, liberty, and property, then all the other things that their government plans on doing can take 100 years.
In response to Chris Masky's comment, nobody should be bound by the opinions of another man. The opinions of other political and economic philosophers can be guides but eventually every man must make his own opinions.
In response to Mr. Hemp's comment: I just think Washington should be more efficient. I have this image in my mind of the U.S. Government as a massive, hulking behemoth that lumbers around doing nothing in particular. Yes, Democracy is inherently slow (which I guess Mr. Hemp is not a fan of, at least in his first comment), but I think anything we can do to expedite the process is a good thing. Reading recipes is not one of those things.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mr. Hemp's anti-government stance: Hey, I think the government should "butt out" just as much as the next guy, but it's not like the gov't is simply "the man" trying to rule our lives. If that new tech start up is outsourcing all of its labor to some unfortunate country for slave labor, then I think some entity needs to step in and create some regulations. If that university is only accepting the white upper-middle class, then some entity needs to make sure that those that are less socio-economically fortunate have a fair chance. I guess what I’m trying to say is, if Congress takes 100s of years to do anything, then our opinions will not be heard, and things will stay cruddy. (Assuming that our Congressmen and Congresswomen actually listen to us. Politics are so calculated and shifty; it seems like the general mindset of our Senators is “do nothing until it’s reelection time”)
IMPORTANT: This youtube video has a really succinct argument against the filibuster (even better than the article Silvy posted, in my opinion), and I highly suggest everyone checks it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I really don’t have a clear-cut opinion on whether the filibuster has a positive or negative effect on the law making process. It’s easy to say it gives the minority party some say in a topic which could easily be dominated by the majority, but isn’t that the upper hand in becoming that majority? I don’t know, it’s hard for me to explain but maybe that’s the ultimate reward in becoming the majority party, you have complete control and that honor is given to the most successful party. Obviously the leading party officials were elected for a reason; maybe they should be given ultimate decision-making power and not allow the minority to keep them from voting.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand it is important to have multiple perspectives weighing in on a possible law. The democratic and republican parties are both responsible for representing different citizen’s political beliefs. Although there is a majority party shouldn’t the people be represented equally? Americans don’t exactly have a huge influence on officials after they are elected so the filibuster allows for “at least in one chamber, the minority gets its chance to try to change the end product.” Both sides are conceivable but I don’t think the minority party has the right to uphold legislation.
I think the filibuster is also another way of wasting time that can be spent more wisely. There are a lot of issues in our country that these people can be spending there time on and waiting for a bill should not be an issue
ReplyDeleteI think that the filibuster is in general a good idea. I think that it gives the minority party a chance to have a say in some things with slowing down the time that it takes a bill to become a law and even though it can be frustrating to some I think it is beneficial to our government. I think that congress definitely has some work to do with making sure they are actually debating on something substantial and not just debating strictly for the point of debating.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda that a filibuster can be very successful when the power is not abused but then again I go back to the purpose of a majority and minority party. If the minority can virtually stop congress from making any progress wouldn’t you consider them the more powerful party? This probably doesn’t make sense but what’s the point of a majority and a minority if nothing is being moved through congress and the minority has the final say. I believe that majority rules and should have the ultimate authority.
ReplyDeletei agree with jonathan in the fact that everything should be more efficient and that wasting time is not right. I think the senate can think of a simple solution to there time wasting problem.
ReplyDelete* Oops in my first comment I meant to right partisanship not bipartisanship.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bijan when he said,"if the filibuster is going to be used it should be used in a problem solving way, not in a distorting,harassment kind of way" The filibuster's a good idea when not abused and used for he right reasons, preventing the majority from having all the control. But when Senators use it for their own personal agenda, not for the greater good of the country, that's when it gets out of hand and completely ridiculous.
In response to Bridgett's comment on waving the filibuster for budget issues, I think that it makes good sense to remove a blocking protocol. It is a major issue and real politics should be used to deal with it and come to a solution. Removing the filibuster is a way to ensure conversation on budget, not to avoid it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t see the point in the filibuster. As I understand it, this is a senate creation to make a last minute stall on any given bill; lasting how ever long the senator who has the floor would like and saying whatever he or she pleases. I see it as a petty way of “distinguished adults” to act childish and immature. It is also, as Beutler points out, “The filibuster isn't written into the U.S. Constitution. It's an outgrowth of a Senate tradition…” Not to mention the filibuster adds to the problems of partisanship, it makes the party lines more clear and drastic. I think that this just creates more problems for the senate than it solves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bridgett's comment also about the wikipedia article and how the filibuster doesn't cover budget issues. It only makes sense if your going to have rules like he filibuster there shouldn't be limitations over certain topics. I already don't agree with the purpose of a filibuster and by reading more into it, I disapprove more. The filibuster is valuable waste of time and makes the Senate look a joke that isn't taking our country seriously. I think there is a better way to get the minoritys voice heard other than talking for hours on end, is so babyish and ineffective. I think the time Senate spends on talking for hours trying to hold a vote, could be time spent on trying to find an alternative way.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI certainly see the validity in having the filibuster. Apparently everyone agrees it slows down the whole legislative process but it is necessary for the minority to have some say in what is being passed into law. But i do believe that the need for 60 votes is a little high and should be lowered to around 55. That way the majority can still get most of its things done and fulfill the obligation of the majority which is to get things done.
ReplyDeleteI think the filibuster is a good thing, mainly in the way it was used at the beginning. Because senators would talk for long periods of time of a subject they knew a lot of and had a deep interest. And now senators use filibuster to take up time just so bills don't get passed and don't even talk about what they are supposed to talk about. so i say that filibuster is good if senators use it appropriately if they only use it to waste time they should not have the right to use it.
ReplyDeleteand i think the number of clotures has gone up for the reason that senators use filibuster to talk about things that don't make sense with the subject that is current at the present time in the debates so they just get rid them by using cloture.
I love the filibuster. I mean honestly, it's probably one of the greatest parts of political debate. People who aren't in favor of it love to argue that it get's annoying, and it puts legislative process in "slo-mo." What's wrong with that? Without the filibuster the majority party doesn't even have to debate. So the filibuster is great, because the minority can at least win a few legislative arm-wrestles.
ReplyDeleteafter reading some comments i agree with Lucas in the way that i guess using filibustering is good to take some time so not many bills get passed because if around 300 are made every year that is a lot of laws, but i would say it would be good for parties to stop filibustering bills just because they don't belong to their party.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny that this topic was mentioned because the Filibuster played an important role in an episode of "King of the Hill", where the board of Arlen, Texas decided to vote against the Hill's proposal for saving water in a Stage 3 water conservation crisis. The Board votes nay, but which ever member leaves before the meeting is adjourned, cancels their vote. The protagonist reads jokes from a joke book until several members finally leave the site and the vote goes in his favor.
ReplyDeleteI personally think the filibuster is a neat thing. It may seem stupid when you're on the majority side. However, it adds an interesting element to the legislature. At first the filibuster seems like it could be abused by the minority party, but this is to keep the majority party from running all over the minority. If filibustering was ruled illegal, then members of congress will still always wish they had the ability to filibuster at some point. Overall, I think the ability to slow down legislature is an excellent tactic in government. It's just part of the game.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jonathan's post. The filibuster is a waste of people's tax money and time. All of his points make sense, and I especially agree with his last sentences, "Nobody wants to listen to each other anymore! We should all just like, you know, get along, or whatever." I think this is completely true, if people just listened to what others had to say maybe things would actually get done?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lucas, I fully agree. Really, what is the point of speeding up the process in which our government makes new laws and regulations? Lucas is right, there is already enough new laws coming through each year anyways, so what's the press on passing new ones all the time? Like he said, "Although democracy sounds great on paper, in practice it is mob rule that leads to anarchy, which in turn leads to tyranny." So even though the filibuster might sound undemocratic, this is precisely why the filibuster is so great, it keeps one political party to completely control the government, a government that handles a body of people who have mixed opinions anyway.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you're a Democrat, and to mix things up let's say the majority party in the Senate was Republican, and that magically some how Obama was Republican too... okay big stretch, but imagine that every decision made was purely from a Republican point of view.... Would any Democrats like that idea? No, and it goes both ways. And I'm speaking about the public, about a citizen standpoint. If you're apart of the party that isn't in power, and things like the filibuster didn't exist, you probably would not be very satisfied with the U.S. Government.
Although, at the same time, a filibuster is a two-edged sword. This particular move can either A.) give a senator the time and votes he/she needs in order to pass a bill they are putting a lot on the line for, or B.) can make the bill can move at a snails pace and prevent other bills from making critical dates to be approved/denied.
ReplyDeletei'm pretty neutral about this whole filibuster concept. it seems pretty subjective to me, depending on whether or not you're on the majority or minority side. it does seem a little ridiculous, but i find it pretty cool that the senator speaking at least has the option to delay the bill as long as he pleases. i don't know how i would feel if i was actually sitting in the room listening to them babble on for hours on end about it, and it would sort of bug me that the senator could be doing a lot more for his cause, but i find the concept sort of fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be boring and agree with the majority of my classmates in saying that I have mixed feelings about the filibuster. I feel the minority party needs some fighting power in case the majority party feels the need to pass some bogus legislation. However, I feel that the minority's defensive power in congress should be confined to intelligent debate and should not be open to pointless, verbal meandering.
ReplyDeleteI do realize how the filibuster can slow the political process to a crawl and make things incredibly frustrating for the majority party. If the legislators have been elected into the majority, they should have the ability to get something done and not worry about someone from the opposition getting in their way by reading dr. suess poems or something.
I see how the filibuster can be an asset but it is too often exploited. However, I do think it would be interesting to see what filibustering senators/congressman come with to say. It can be an incredibly creative outlet. Perhaps one could sing show tunes, read excerpts from James Joyce's Ulysses, talk about psychological stigmas that influence their world/political views...the possibilities are endless!
I like David's alternative to the cloture. Filibustering legislators should be monitored to make sure that they are engaging in some type of relevant debate. It shouldn't be the supreme court's responsibility, they have other stuff to worry about. Separation of powers bro!
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with lucas and danny. While it may be tempting to want to speed the legislative process up it would be foolhardy to rush the system. Like andre i also think that there should be actual debate and not just strict partisan bickering.
ReplyDeletei think that having the filibuster has its ups and downs. i like the fact that any member of the senate can stand and speak for however long they want to talk without someone interrupting them until they are finished with what they have to say. but on the other hand, sometimes people might take advantage of that power and start speaking about subjects that aren't relevant to what they should be arguing about. the fact that once the senate gets tired of listening to whoever is talking and using a cloture to make the person stop speaking, i think is pretty funny that they even have to have a rule for that and that the senator speaking could takes hours to argue his point. in my opinion, i think that the filibuster should be abolished because once a person has said what they need to say, there really isn't much to the point to keep on talking for hours just repeating themselves over and over again.
ReplyDeleteI think that filibuster is a sneaky form the majority party ignoring the bills or important topics brought about by the minority party. I completely agree with the quote in the first article, as stated by the senate. "I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here..." Even though it is not stated to be unconstitutional in the Constitution, I believe it is borderline unfair to the opposing party. By bending the rules this allows the majority members to force an end to the opposing debate. It subtly dismisses the minority debates and leaves them unheard.
ReplyDeletei certainly agree with what paul has said about the filibuster and and the clotures. there is a reason why they spend so much time arguing their point, the senators what the other party to see their point on why this is a good bill or not. but the clotures are used when that person starts to talk about other things that aren't meant for the purpose of the argument. so they other members decided to quiet the senator talking down in order to proceed and that there is no point of actually listening to them anymore; they have said what they needed to say to prove their point and period.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, looking from the majority party point of view, this is a discrete form of not responding to bills or debates that they do not support. It is a completely legal, yet unfair, way to make them look neutral by not supporting or opposing the matter. As of right now the Democratic party have a 60 member majority, which would "end all filibusters". Being a Democrat, this allows the chance of our party's opinions and bills to be heard and acted upon. Hopefully filibuster gets recognized as unconstitutional, therefore allowing all matters to be heard and voted on.
ReplyDeletereaching back to the point Danny and Lucas were making, i also believe that there are enough laws in place that we don't need to be passing more than 100 laws a year. I think a lot of politicians try to create new laws in order to gain favor in their state or district. So in a sense, we are not making laws for the sake of laws anymore.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think that the filibuster is a good thing. Despite slowing down the law making process I believe that the filibuster is necessary for the minority party to have any power at all. This has probably already been stated by many, if not all, my fellow classmates but without the filibuster the majority would be able to pass whatever laws they want without contention. that is obviously a bad thing. What is the point of having the minority present if they can't have any say at all. The filibuster at least presents the minority with time to argue the law trying to be passed.
ReplyDeleteand just an aside but without the filibuster we would probably have a lot more laws and i don't know about anyone else but more laws would kinda suck. I think we have enough of them and the new laws being made are just being made for the sake of making them.
I would have to agree with everything that person with all of the triangles in their username said. Only after I watched the video they posted, did I really really REALLY begin to understood the power of the filibuster. Bravo. ▲
ReplyDeleteQuite seriously, though, I do agree with Jonathan. He makes an excellent point about the filibuster being "bogus" through that video. The filibuster makes a mockery of the Congress, much as rick rolling does to unwitting internet users. Filibusters take Congress members ever needed attention away from the matters at hand (such as government homework) and diverts their focus to something ridiculous and insulting. The filibuster retards the legislative process, in a manner that is not helpful to any party.
I also like that Andre has admitted to being boring. You get a triangle for that too. ▲
After reading a few of the comments. I most agree with everyone who basically said the same thing i did. That the filibuster helps the minority and keeps the majority in check. It's necessary to balance the power in Congress. I guess because i have to agree with someone specific, i agree with mostly Lucas. It might seem like speeding the law making process is a good thing but rushing it would be bad in the end. I agree with Andre as well, and i guess Craig, who also agreed with andre. I think that there should be actual legitimate debate instead of stupid squabbling that wastes time.
ReplyDeleteI am split with the filibuster. it may not seem fair but every party gets their chance at it in some time or another. To me the senate is all about the majority so i like the fact the filibuster does keep it as a "majority rules" but also gives room for majority rights.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to comment that Anthony's agrument is probably the most clearly stated defence of the fillabuster i have read. While without the fillabuster I am sure the minority would be able to argue the law, it prevents a railroading of measures unopular with large parts of the country.
ReplyDeleteI think Filibusters have earned their right in congress, its amusing that politicians in the past had even thought about creating something like this. But obviously, we’ve got to give it some redeeming value for having stuck around for so long. When we hear cases about senators reciting from phonebooks or some other strange time consuming process, the initial reaction might be one of humor along with questioning the real necessity,yet I feel that despite how outrageous or funny it may be, the more a senator is willing to stand up there and talk about random subject matter for insanely long periods of time proves, on some level, the importance of what they stand for. So if they want to read poems to try to make a point, it may not seem to be the most efficient way to spend time, but its how our government has chosen to balance things out, and to potentially create laws that please more people. Personally, I have no problem sacrificing time for a better end product.
ReplyDeleteI think Maddie made a good point when she said that really, a persons feelings on a filibuster comes down to what side youre on majority or minority...like in the articles, Democrats and Republicans are always going to be in a constsnt battle about what should get passed and how they can stop or slow down the process. A filibuster is thrown in there to add a little balance to the playing field.
ReplyDelete