Filibusters, should they be ended?

[jltrent]

What is the Senate filibuster, and what would it take to eliminate it? | Brookings

Molly Reynolds explains the history of the Senate filibuster and the possible, but politically unlikely, ways to reform or eliminate it.

www.brookings.edu

How does the Senate get around the filibuster now?

Senators have two options when they seek to vote on a measure or motion. Most often, the majority leader (or another senator) seeks "unanimous consent," asking if any of the 100 senators objects to ending debate and moving to a vote. If no objection is heard, the Senate proceeds to a vote. If the majority leader can't secure the consent of all 100 senators, the leader (or another senator) typically files a cloture motion, which then requires 60 votes to adopt. If fewer than 60 senators—a supermajority of the chamber—support cloture, that's when we often say that a measure has been filibustered.

 

[simme]

For "reasonable everyday people", it should be easy to get 60% of a group to agree on what is good. But for partisan politicians, maybe that can't happen with an approximately equal split of parties. If the filibuster is eliminated, the majority party will just reverse everything the previous majority party did. That is not good for the country to reverse course every 4 to 8 years on policy - trade agreements, treaties, etc. If they can't come to a 60% agreement on proceeding, it is better to have a policy that results in nothing done. A government with their hands tied is in many cases the best outcome for us as opposed to what they could do. Keep the filibuster is it is. Sad that our best hope is that group accomplish nothing except making themselves wealthy.

 

[Ky hills]

My opinion filibusters should not be ended. I agree with @simme its sad to say but I prefer to have nothing new accomplished as have something passed that is not a good situation. Folks have to always remember that even if something sounds good while their preference of party is in power that is not likely to always be the case.
On that same note I am a fan of a divided government especially in the position we are at this point and time with both parties being so polarized.

 

[Richnm]

No, if Democrats are in charge. Yes, if Republicans are in charge.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I would like to see it that it takes 60 votes to pass any bill through the senate.
That would make a lot of this BS come to a screeching halt.
I never want to see all three branches controlled by one party that's when we get hurt every time.
Our system was designed for gridlock.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

I would rather keep the filibuster, and go back to having Senators elected by the state houses. This is Republic not a popularity contest.

 

[Coosh71]

I am a conservative today and have been since I was old enough to half way understand government. I am not a barn burning "republican" who gives every republican caught in a scandal and automatic pass. And I don't hate every democrat because of his party. I do strongly agree like others in this thread, that we need a divided government. Our country was built on and by the world's best negotiators. They had a mess then and some say it's the same mess we have now. Well I disagree. The mess back then was handled with the country's best interest at heart. If it didn't make sense (wait what)??? Yes they had common sense and if it didn't pass the smell test they didn't do it. They knew they had a good shot at creating a republic that would stand the test of time because of its differences and CHECKS AND BALANCES they would create. Everyone knows that if you create something you cherish it times and times more than the jackass's managing the creation. Now it's just a S-Storm with greed and backdoor handouts. All they care about is media time and reelection. We have lost our way and I'm afraid it will inevitably destroy the dream and goal of the founders. Problem is if this country falls all other democracies will fall. So long story long I definitely agree with any procedure that would make critical ($3tril) bills a bipartisan equal decision. Pro filibuster because it just makes sense.