Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#51

Post by talmand »

the_watcher wrote: post #49
talmand wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is limited to Senate rules changes then it's irrelevant. The Senate rules are, after all, the rules. For example: Majority wishes to pass a bill that the minority doesn't agree with. Majority wants to change the rules on that vote to get it passed despite minority. Minority says they can't because the Senate rules forbid it. Majority changes rules from forbidding it to allowing it. Granted, that's a simplistic…

The power of precedent and fear of being in the minority is what generally fights against this. Rule changes that drastically favor the majority will hurt them when they end up in the minority.

I totally agree.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#52

Post by dllthomas »

bradleyjg wrote: post #48
adestefan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate was never meant to be a democratically elected body. Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.

And therefore what? The people who drafted the Constitution intended the Senate to be an aristocratic body limited to white, male, landholders. Do you think that's a good idea? How far should we go to further the intentions of the drafters? Should we revive slavery? Here's what one guy who had to miss the Constitutional convention because he was serving his nation abroad had to say: "I set out on this ground, which I…

And therefore if it needs updating it has always needed updating, unless something else changed. I agree with you that this is often overstressed but it is a useful perspective.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#53

Post by dllthomas »

excitom wrote: post #42
the_watcher wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could do that, but there is also no reason that Republicans, should they take power, would just revert back again, and potentially go farther.

Exactly. There was always a "gentlemans' agreement" not to abuse the game, but that decorum has been abandoned.

This is clearly the case. There is dispute over who abandoned what and when.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

adestefan wrote: post #45
bradleyjg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should also be noted, for non-Americans or extremly ill informed Americans, that the Senate is already a body that is non-democratic. Every state votes for two Senators regardless of population. So even under a majority rule, Senators representing 16.9% of the population can block an appointment. Under the de facto 60 vote rule, Senators representing only 11% of the population could do so. To put that 11% in perspe…

The Senate was never meant to be a democratically elected body. Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.

> The Senate was never meant to be a democratically elected body.

This is true only for very bizarre definitions of "never".

> Until the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 Senators where picked by the States.

That's pretty good evidence that from 1913 on, the Senate was meant to be a democratically elected body.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#55

Post by cpleppert »

the_watcher wrote: post #22
Nelkins wrote: post #17

If some senators were against this, why didn't they just use the filibuster to prevent the rules from changing?

I may be wrong, but I believe Senate rules are set by majority vote, and there is a mechanism available to the Majority leader to simply declare only 50 votes are needed to pass. The main reason it isn't used all the time is that the majority party generally worries about repercussions when they are a minority party.

Senate rules since the 1970s (when the filibuster was set at 60) require 66 votes of all senators to effect a rules change.

This utilizes the majorities ability in any parliamentary body to set the precedent or rule on a point of order. hence the 'nuclear' option.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#56

Post by cpleppert »

greenburger wrote: post #30
the_watcher wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also been used (by both sides) to block all kinds of other things, from tax cuts to tax hikes, debt ceiling increases, defense authorizations, New Deal legislation, and judicial appointees. As a Senator, President Obama even voted to filibuster John Roberts appointment, who was fairly universally seen as a highly competent, qualified nominee as Chief Justice. In short, the filibuster has been used for the purpos…

The cloture rules have changed many times over the years. A quick summary can be found on the US Senate webpage. However, Originally the filibuster was not unique to the Senate, House members could also filibuster, and there was no means of voting to end debate. Obviously this had to change if the House was to accomplish anything as it grew. One could well argue that it is time for the rules in the Senate to change a…

The cloture rules have only had significant changes twice in history. Once in the 1910s when they were instituted and later in the 1970s. The fact that the senate requires unanimous consent has nothing to do with any purpose but is basically a quirk of history that the senate never got rid of the unanimous consent requirement. What we call a filibuster today is just a use of withholding unanimous consent to block a motion that would otherwise pass with a majority vote and isn't related to the use of the filibuster in the 19th century.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#57

Post by cpleppert »

srl wrote: post #7
lmkg wrote: post #3

For context: The federal court has been perennially over-booked and under-staffed for a number of years because the confirmations of judges to open vacancies were being used as political bargaining chips. Both parties would try to influence the ideological make-up of the judiciary. Back in the good ol' days when the filibuster was used with some modicum of restraint, this meant that a minority party could prevent ove…

I suspect moderates (and more senior folk) in both parties will tend to threaten a nay-vote on more extreme nominees, both in the interest of having a sane court system (in the case of moderates), and to avoid provoking retaliation from the other side (in the case of people who have been around a long time).

>>I suspect moderates (and more senior folk) in both parties will tend to threaten a nay-vote on more extreme nominees

In cases where very ideological nominees have been presented in recent years there is no evidence that moderates have been prone to block them. So it isn't clear now what a senator could gain could gain by blocking his own parties nominee. It would require enough senators from the majority party to switch and vote against their party and maintain that united opposition against a candidate whose ideology they agree with simply because they may have qualms about how extreme his ideology is.

Re: Landmark Senate Vote Limits Filibusters

#58

Post by cpleppert »

talmand wrote: post #37
nknighthb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the minority is screwing the country, yes, screw the minority. This is the system of governance we have. It functioned virtually without filibustering of nominees for two centuries. If you truly believe the problem here is the majority, you are far, far beyond reason.

Then we move to the next worse example; the majority defines what the minority is or is not doing.

This is how any parliamentary body on the planet works. If you are concerned about this from a constitutional perspective you do exactly what the founders did: separate legislative powers into equal chambers.

If you place constitutional requirements above a majority vote on a parliamentary body then the judiciary has to step in and enforce those requirements violating the separation of powers.

Post reply on HN