Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-07-2016, 12:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-05-2016, 11:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We need to limit the number of filibusters (five per Congress?), making their use gambles. I want those who use them to obstruct legislation as a specific tool for objectionable legislation and not as a tool for obstructing everything.

That's a good idea for a rule.

What concerns me is that if Trump is elected, or some other dufus Republican, and the Republicans retain the Senate, then the "nuclear option" is likely. Republicans may be fanatical enough to vote to overturn the filibuster if they get a majority, giving the president the power to pass whatever legislation (s)he wants.

In the old days, if one wanted to filibuster, one had to get the floor and not yield it.  This meant one guy continuing to speak for as long as he has the stamina.  The majority party just has to wait for him to collapse.  One could delay a vote, but trying to block large numbers of bills was tedious at best.  Today the rules of order are such that one can filibuster painlessly.

It is my opinion that a minority should not be able to block the majority from voting on a bill.  Perhaps if a minority tries to block votes in a committee required to move a bill to the floor beyond a certain length of time, the bill automatically goes to the floor.  Perhaps once a bill gets to the floor, if no all for an up / down vote has occurred within a given amount of time, it is automatically called to a vote.  Basically, minorities should not be able to block legislation.

Some sort of filibuster might be left in place, but I believe it should have firm limits.  One might want to allow some degree of obstructionism, but not the possibility of total road blocks.

But neither party seems eager to modify the rules of order in such a way to stop road blocks.  Both parties are afraid of what the other would do if they got the presidency and both houses of Congress.