is the senate filibuster rule a good thing

[DonQuixote]

i am undecided but lean towards it being a bad thiing when it is used for purely political reasons

[Annie]

It is for whichever party is not in power. They know there will 'come that time,' which is why it will not be changed.

[Mott the Hoople]

Originally Posted by DonQuixote

i am undecided but lean towards it being a bad thiing when it is used for purely political reasons

It has always been used for purely political reasons.

The real question you should be asking is "Should we even have a Senate?"

The Senate is the most undemocratic institution in our nation. How often do we see badly needed legislation and reform in this nation held up or killed by a minority of Senators often representing no more than 15 or 20% of the population and ussually doing so for the vested interest of a small collection of special interest?

Look at the example of civil rights after WWII. It became obvious that Jim Crow in the South was unsustainable after we asked African American to fight and die in WWII but yet it took a full 20 years to enact civil rights legislation due to a handful of senators.

The Senate was originally created by our founding fathers because they feared the mob of the uneducated masses and that those owning property had a vested interest in the proper function of Government. That was true in 1783 but in 2010 the vast majority of our citizens are educated with the majority having some college education. The conditions that existed in the nations founding that necessitated a Senate no longer exist and that body has, in fact, become a body of Oligarchs who rarely represent the nations best interests.

Maybe it's time to realize that the Senate is a historical artifact and a vestigial organ on the body of Government that needs to be amputated and given a proper burial.

[Mott the Hoople]

Originally Posted by Annie

It is for whichever party is not in power. They know there will 'come that time,' which is why it will not be changed.

That's not true. Our Senate has not always had the filibuster available as a tool. Look at the history of the filibuster in the Republics of the past and it's had a history of doing a great deal of damage. Look at the History of the Filibuser in the Ancient Roman Republic and how Cato virtually brought down the entire Roman government via his use of the filibuster and how it ulimately resulted in the Civil War that ended the Roman Republic. The Filibuster is a dangerous and undemocratic tool which has not always had a place in our Senate and the rules could change again to eliminate it. A change probably for the better.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

That's not true. Our Senate has not always had the filibuster available as a tool. Look at the history of the filibuster in the Republics of the past and it's had a history of doing a great deal of damage. Look at the History of the Filibuser in the Ancient Roman Republic and how Cato virtually brought down the entire Roman government via his use of the filibuster and how it ulimately resulted in the Civil War that ended the Roman Republic. The Filibuster is a dangerous and undemocratic tool which has not always had a place in our Senate and the rules could change again to eliminate it. A change probably for the better.

I never said they'd 'always had it.' It was put in for political reasons and will in all likelihood remain for the same. In actuality it's just another layer of checks on power, something most of the framers would have agreed with. They wanted change to be difficult, putting their faith, again for the most part, in the will of the people for forcing things to change.

[Mott the Hoople]

Originally Posted by Annie

I never said they'd 'always had it.' It was put in for political reasons and will in all likelihood remain for the same. In actuality it's just another layer of checks on power, something most of the framers would have agreed with. They wanted change to be difficult, putting their faith, again for the most part, in the will of the people for forcing things to change.

That may be true but why did they want to do that? Keep in mind, the filibuster is no where mentioned in the US Constitution and was not used by the Senate until 1837. It was used mostly then to end debate on anti-slavery legislation, preventing reform, which ultimately lead to our own civil war. The Senate does have the constitutional right to make their own rules for conducting business and in theory it takes 67 votes to change those rules but by the letter of the law, it only requires a simple majority.

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

That may be true but why did they want to do that? Keep in mind, the filibuster is no where mentioned in the US Constitution and was not used by the Senate until 1837. It was used mostly then to end debate on anti-slavery legislation, preventing reform, which ultimately lead to our own civil war. The Senate does have the constitutional right to make their own rules for conducting business and in theory it takes 67 votes to change those rules but by the letter of the law, it only requires a simple majority.

For the reason you earlier said, 'protection against mob rule.' Whether we are considering implementing social security in 30's, changing it in the 00's, or dealing now with the topic of AGW, the people need time to process. They may not always choose correctly, but most of the time they get it more right than do the faction influenced politicians, whatever their party.

[Threedee]

In the years prior to being inaugurated as (a shitty) president, Woodrow Wilson was noted for writing numerous articles on the filibuster. He was considered a renouned scholar on such constitutional matters, and he consistently wrote in defense of it.

Then he became (a shitty) president... Needless to say, he became very agitated with the Senate in all matters relating to the filibuster.