Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/27/2006 6:11:54 PM EDT
I am not too educated on this political move.. what is the advantage of it and why do it?

I mean from what I know about it... sounds like a childish baby game.

Please enlighten me.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:14:14 PM EDT
it is a childish baby game played in order to get your way.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:15:31 PM EDT
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:17:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



OK but HOW does it prevent it? I mean if my child has broccolli on his/her plate and wont eat it... my child would stall and stall and stall... everntually they will eat it right?

so dont they EVENTUALLY have to vote?
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:19:28 PM EDT
Not if the rules of the vote require it to be voted/acted upon within X number of days/hours and you can delay the vote/action past that time by running your trap on the floor.

G
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:21:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 6:21:57 PM EDT by Yossarian]
The filibuster is different from what it used to be.

I beleive traditionally, when an opposition party did not want legislation to pass the opposition party would stand at the podium and basically talk until time ran out to vote on a particular bill. If

Here ya go, various qoutes from Wikepdia

"In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech."

"Under Senate rules, the speech need not be relevant to the topic under discussion, and there have been cases in which a senator has undertaken part of a speech by reading from a telephone directory. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation."

Unfortunately, now the following is true.

Current practice
"Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster."

Unfortunately, when the Dems threaten these, the Republicans do no have the sack to make T. Kennedy stand and talk till his head explodes. They just waffle under and let them get away with it.

here is the link [/link]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)[link]



Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:23:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 6:24:20 PM EDT by hanibal]



so dont they EVENTUALLY have to vote?



That's what I was wondering too. Is the point to stall until the other side just gives in?

ETA: Damn you guys are fast.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:24:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 6:24:54 PM EDT by captainpooby]
It's good for cleaning your car and small spills you dont need the vacuum cleaner for..
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:25:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



But it's all for nothing if the other side has the votes to break it, right? That's all the nuke option is. Let Ted fill his Depends, then vote to shut them up and get on with the voting.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:25:46 PM EDT
Imagine if your Church (assuming you go) or Class (if you are in school) couldn't be dismissed UNTIL the Preacher/Teacher said "You can go now", or voluntarily leaves the pulpit/classroom.

Let's say the rules are written in the bylaws of the church/school, and until someone allows you to go (or can call for you to go), you are stuck. The Preacher/Teacher gets pissy and decides to prevent anyone going...that is a fillabuster.

A fillibuster is that--a "Real" fillabuster is when the Senator refuses to yield the floor so someone can call for a motion to vote. Until he yields, the vote cannot happen. Now-a-days, the "Fillabuster" is basically a blocking move to prevent a vote (can be over-ridden by 60 Vote majority). In the old days, a Senator would stand up and read from the phone book to prevent yielding.

AFARR
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:32:19 PM EDT
The original intent of the filibuster was to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

It is also intended to show commitment to a cause by requiring an EFFORT to keep it up.

I do not like the idea of the republican party just dropping the filibuster out of the senate process because I know that what goes around comes around and the democrats will ewventually become the majority and the republicans will have to live with the results of their own rule changes.

This is also why I do not like Bush's assumption of all the powers based on a nebulus state of conflict (not really a war). One the presidency is allowed the powers that he is claiming they will NOT go away and just imagine Hillery Clinton in the office with these powers.

wwglen
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:34:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



But it's all for nothing if the other side has the votes to break it, right? That's all the nuke option is. Let Ted fill his Depends, then vote to shut them up and get on with the voting.



I think it takes a certain amount of votes to break it but it is more than a majority, maybe a super majority. Yeah, I think that is it. Because the Nuclear option is to change that number to requiring only a simple majority (i.e. greater than 50%). Because the Repubs have 55 seats I think, a majority vote could change that rule.

I think that is correct.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:53:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



OK but HOW does it prevent it? I mean if my child has broccolli on his/her plate and wont eat it... my child would stall and stall and stall... everntually they will eat it right?

so dont they EVENTUALLY have to vote?



If you cant have cloture, can't have a vote. Another childish tactic is to deny a quorum. Some fucking Democrats did that to Senator Murkowski in 2004. She had an election coming up, and she stood a good chance of losing. So in some committee on ANWR some Democrats decided to not show up for a committee vote. They couldn't get a quorum, so the issue didn't get voted on. She was rightfully pissed. She also won her election.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:58:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



OK but HOW does it prevent it?



In short: People have to sleep and eat and pee sometime, and can't stay on the floor forever waiting to vote.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:41:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
a real filibuster prevents a vote from happening



OK but HOW does it prevent it? I mean if my child has broccolli on his/her plate and wont eat it... my child would stall and stall and stall... everntually they will eat it right?

so dont they EVENTUALLY have to vote?



As someone else pointed out, it's all about "cloture" which is the act of agreeing to end the debate on an issue. Cloture is a fairly new idea, but the US Senate has traditionally had rules that permitted any one person speak as long as they wanted to. (Certain types of bills-like budget bills-are debated under special rules that prevent filibusters)

Voting for cloture currently requires a "super majority" of 2/3 of the vote. The nuclear option that you hear about would reduce the required votes for cloture to a simple majority. (50%+1)
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:46:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 5:47:37 AM EDT by VTHOKIESHOOTER]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
it is a childish baby game played in order to get your way.

It isn't childish if it prevents some seriously bad legislation from being past (like tax increases of gun control) The problem with filibustering Judges is that it is unconstitutional because it clearly states that Judges are confermed by majority vote by fillibustering they are by default changing the constitution by saying that you need 2/3 majority.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:55:13 AM EDT
Where's the "Gang of 14?"

There are several democrats in that group who have said they will not vote for a filibuster. Was this all a lie?
Top Top