The filibuster is wrong. But if we must have it, then it should be the kind we saw in that movie. Make them actually go up there and speak. This tyranny of the minority crap has got to stop.
Isn’t that the same guy who’s getting booted that was in a movie titled “It’s A Wonderful Life” ? Times sure have changed. Do angels now get their wings when a iPhone rings?
I agree with President Biden that the filibuster should be kept, but in the form that existed when he first started out as a senator. Then the filibustering speaker had to remain on the Senate floor and speaking without taking a break for any reason, except to yield for a question.
The whole idea of the sit-down filibuster is like Ford Prefect convincing the bulldozer operator to let him take Arthur Dent to the pub instead of lying in front of the bulldozer to stop it smashing down his house. It’s idiotic. How do we know those senators are really serious about the filibuster if they never have to put any effort into it?
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book. Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.
Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.
For a further history on the Senate filibuster, see:
braindead Premium Member almost 3 years ago
Once again, Stantis expresses the Republican* simplicity — every issue is all or nothing.
Filibuster rules cannot be modified, only eliminated, right Stantis?
hermit48 almost 3 years ago
Ok, lets restore the Senate filibuster rules that were in place when that movie was made.
cdward almost 3 years ago
The filibuster is wrong. But if we must have it, then it should be the kind we saw in that movie. Make them actually go up there and speak. This tyranny of the minority crap has got to stop.
Patjade almost 3 years ago
OK, Scott, let’s have that filibuster where they get up and talk until they can’t anymore then resume the business, instead of this GQP circus.
The Love of Money is . . . almost 3 years ago
Isn’t that the same guy who’s getting booted that was in a movie titled “It’s A Wonderful Life” ? Times sure have changed. Do angels now get their wings when a iPhone rings?
preacherman almost 3 years ago
I agree with President Biden that the filibuster should be kept, but in the form that existed when he first started out as a senator. Then the filibustering speaker had to remain on the Senate floor and speaking without taking a break for any reason, except to yield for a question.
mourdac Premium Member almost 3 years ago
The filibuster rules need to be enforced where a senator actually has to stand and talk while he/she has the floor.
codak almost 3 years ago
we have a malformed senate . . so the filibuster I think only really has legitimacy if the minority of senators represent the majority of the nation
Radish the wordsmith almost 3 years ago
The Manchin legacy.
calliarcale almost 3 years ago
The whole idea of the sit-down filibuster is like Ford Prefect convincing the bulldozer operator to let him take Arthur Dent to the pub instead of lying in front of the bulldozer to stop it smashing down his house. It’s idiotic. How do we know those senators are really serious about the filibuster if they never have to put any effort into it?
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] almost 3 years ago
End the filibuster now. Our Founders did why can’t we?
briangj2 almost 3 years ago
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book. Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.
For a further history on the Senate filibuster, see:
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/
Zebrastripes almost 3 years ago
MuddyUSA Premium Member almost 3 years ago
Well…ah…I ah…James Stewart a staunch American and Republican in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” All before liberals took over Hollywood!