Is the filibuster a time-honored tradition or legislative obstructionism? Read what one professor at UCLA has to say about this quirky legislative maneuver and then weigh in with your own thoughts. Is it time for the filibuster to go?
The Senate filibuster: Time for a change
America is supposed to be a democracy which means that the government is supposed to be for the people. It is supposed to be the voice of the people. When people would like to have a bill passed, they would like it to happen as fast as possible. This does take a long time though many steps but the filibuster makes this worse. The senate has unlimited time to debate and talk about a bill. No one person should have this amount of time to talk about something. The house, which is supposed to have the same role as the senate, gets more time with the bill at hand. As we learned in class, if a bill is not voted on and signed by the end of a congress's term, then it must start over in the law making process. The senate can prolong the making of a bill just so it doesn't get passed in that term. People have more than a vote against a bill if they don't want the bill to pass. All that they are supposed to have is a vote. In the past, the senate has not really taken advantage of this. According to the article, The senate uses the filibuster 84 more times than in the past. The government seems like they are becoming more deceiving and corrupt than in the past. the length of a member of the senate's time to speak on the floor should be limited to avoid corruption and allow bills to be passed souly on voting.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Simonds
Period 3
The filibuster a legislative obstruction. As the UCLA professor explained, senators are there to represent the people. These senators cannot absolutely have our best interests at heart if they waste time with a filibuster.Is it time for the filibuster to be removed. These endless requests only weaken minorities because the majority will take their time on meaningless tangents. A bill needs to be voted on through " yea or nay" and move on. A filibuster wastes time that could have been put towards another bill and does not encourage new bills, and therefore, new ideas.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Farelas
Period 5
So here's the bottom line: something needs to be done about the filibuster and fast, because now more people are aware of the procedure and are thirsty for its end. The author is right though, the senators are there to represent each STATE and its PEOPLE, not represent themselves. If a senator doesn't like a proposed bill but the majority of his state does, well tough luck, he needs to do what's best for his people, not for himself. The filibuster overall gives senators a bad name, making them look selfish and childish. Of course, the odds are that the filibuster will never be exterminated. Like many other corupted activities in the U.S. government, the filibuster will not be taken away because it is tradition. It still show be eliminated though, it is crazy. That is all I have to say.
ReplyDeletePyper Brown
P.5
I understand that the filibuster has its place it's placing a sort of "check" on the majority and allows the minority party to take back a fraction of the allotted power. This is sort of the simplistic and ideal view on it, but it doesn't seem to be how things actually are. The filibuster to me just seems like a tedious, unnecessary, and immature way for the minority to get what they want. It just comes off like they're small children, throwing little tantrums and stalling for as long as they possibly can. It's honestly ridiculous. Usually who ever is doing the filibustering is not doing it for the sake of their state and the people they represent, but rather for themselves; based on their own personal beliefs and wants. There should be a better way for the minority to "check" the majority party in order to get their word out there and keep the majority from tyrannizing. I'm sure there's a much better solution, and if there is we need to get that in action as soon as possible, because all filibustering is doing is allowing certain members of the chambers to take control.. not even on behalf of the majority of the people/other members.
ReplyDeleteCandace Benson
Period 5
Although filibustering is a long term tradition, it's a tradition that has to be stopped. The justification of filibustering is to prevent tyranny of the majority, but the majority asking for a bill to be passed is basically what the citizens want. The majority wanting to put forth a bill and waiting to pass it being nulled by just the minority dragging on pointless topics and speeches is just unfair. Both the majority and the minority are in Congress for a reason, to make changes and pass legislature that will aide the nation but the act of filibustering is like a slap to the face because it doesn't get anything done.
ReplyDelete- Jason Kim Period 5
The filibuster is a child's play way of preventing a legally passed and voted on Bill from passing just because a group doesn't like the Bill. If the people want it passed then so be it, don't interfere because this is what makes the economy last longer and cause this recession to last so long. If this is what Congress is playing at then this 'unlimited' time to speak is garbage. This is ridiculous because this completely throws the voting process out the window and might as well just have a tea party with cookies and milk. The voting process is what passes a bill, but if the 'sore loser' group doesn't want it passed they just talk..and talk..and talk until the Congressional term is up then that Bill is either killed, or starting over at square one to go through the exact same fate. The government are acting like children it seems. The government is FOR THE PEOPLE, not FOR WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT FEELS LIKE DOING. Filibusting needs to be abolished, or at least amended, unlimited time is ridiculous, how long does it take 1 person to state their input about a Bill and be done with it? Honestly?
ReplyDeleteJoshua Roney
Period 5
They might as well be having a tea-party at the rate they're going :)
DeleteIf filibusters are this controversial, why are they still allowed?... I can see why they wanted to allow the opposing side to state their opinion, but it is taken too far. Though this does prevent a tyranny of the majority because the minorities have an advantage if they are opposed to the legislation, it is a waste of time and creates unnecessary delays. There is just too much power given to senators and the overall process is counterproductive. Is there any way to set some boundaries to filibusters but still keep it somewhat traditional? This way we can have a happy medium. But for now, what else are we to do?
ReplyDeleteEmeline Lee
Period 5
I think it's important to give everyone an opportunity to speak and share their opinions; and I believe that's the reason why they started the filibuster. But when senators start to take advantage of this act "of courtesy to Senate speakers," that's when the filibuster starts to become a problem. I feel like the filibuster is almost similar to the power of the Speaker of the House in the sense of postponing bills. If the Speaker doesn't like a bill, he/she has the power to put it aside and focus on something else. But if Senators don't like a bill, they could "postpone" it by talking and talking and talking and this just lags it and nothing gets done. This is a problem and the government should get rid of it. Instead of allowing every Senator as much time as they want to speak, we should limit them and also put a due date for the bill. This still allows for everyone to share their opinions, but once the due date of the bill comes, the Senate must come to an agreement and must have a final answer that was decided upon a majority vote of the whole Senate.
ReplyDeleteJonel Celestino
Per. 2
The senate’s system of having no time limit for speaking about a bill can be implemented in a good way for it allows each the senators to have an opportunity to voice their opinion. But like all good things in life, people always find a find to take advantage of the system for their own good at the expense of others. I believe that filibustering is an embarrassment to the American government system. People’s tax money is funding to keep the assembly open and these senators are just reading phone books and other irrelevant things just to waste time. Instead of doing rationally acting, these senators are childishly resorting to time-wasting tactics. This is terrible. Changes must be implemented as soon as possible to stop this nonsensical practice.
ReplyDeleteSuraj Patel
Per. 3
The filibuster, although legitimate in the time it was first established, has been greatly abused, thus the nation's lack of certain legislation has hurt the people. There's a difference between trying to defend your party's policy, and selfishly preventing legislation that disagrees with or hinders your own party, even though the nation might be in need a some sort of legislation. Senate should receive debate limits, therefore abolishing filibusters, in order to assist legislation in this nation.
ReplyDeleteMichael Vandie
Period 3
Although I feel that filibustering was a good idea when people did not take advantage because then people were able to speak their mind on a topic and really get into the problem it now shows today that it is used for more evil then good. I feel since the Senate is chosen by the people, the people should also get to dicate some of the rules that the Congress has. Due to filibusters, laws cannot proceed and some of those laws can be greatly needed, but thanks to certain senators these will never appear. I think that if new rules were added for filibusters then the Senate should keep them but if it is not changed then their is no reason to keep a rule that in reality is hurting more than helping.
ReplyDeleteRaeAnna Ha'ole
Period 2
Ultimately, the concept of the filibuster is interesting because of how senators have taken advantage of this opportunity to prevent the passing of legislature that they personally do not want passed. The filibuster has turned the Senate into chaos where senators can do practically anything to keep a piece of legislature from being passed. I believe it should not matter that the Senate is often seen to have more prestige than the House because each member of either house should get the same amount of limited and controlled speaking time. Filibuster gives senators negative power to halt the passing of legislature which is not realistic after seeing the filibuster in progress numerous times.
ReplyDeleteNatasha Wasim
Period 5
Filibusters are unnecessary and generally unwanted by the lobbing party of the legislation. A bill killed by a filibuster usually causes retaliation and they try to kill the next bill that they completely disagree with. The filibusters act like little kids that do not get what they want. They are also stubborn and do not like it when the opposing party disagrees with their views even a little bit. This is exactly the reasons why bills are killed. How do we expect to get any legislation passed with the filibusters denying every bill we try to pass?
ReplyDeleteRyan Weiner
Period 2
It's funny, when i began this class I was completely cynical of American government and I came in thinking I would learn that in fact we have a functioning government there has to be a reason so many people are supporting it. However I am learning that the government does have broken pieces throughout. This filibuster nonsense so far is the most infuriating an asinine thing I have heard of. These politicians are acting like children actually trying to maintain a speech for weeks on end so they can eventually kill or dismiss a bill that could benefit the American people. Obviously some rules need to be set in the Senate. The House has the right idea with limits of speeches and debates, this allows the representatives to give their word, but not ramble for too long and they end up getting things done, compared to the Senate were parties are holding debates for weeks and accomplishing nothing. The Senate needs to get rid off the filibuster, but there is a problem with that happening. Both parties use and are fond of the filibuster within the Senate. So as Mr.C has said many times," why would they pass something that makes them weaker." So I foresee a long future for the filibuster.
ReplyDelete-Tyler Barragan
p.5
It's funny, cause we both called the filibuster childish, but I didn't realize until after I read yours :)
DeleteSenators are abusing their power of unlimited debate in such a way as to block any bills that a senator opposes even if the bill is widely accepted. I understand that a super majority would normally mean that the ending of a filibuster would need bipartisan support, but this also makes it difficult for a filibuster to be stopped. I do not believe that a senators freedom of speech should be stopped completely, but it should be limited. If the debate had a certain time frame and that set time was divided by the amount of senators that would like to debate that bill everyone would get equal time that they could use to present their case and bills would move through senate faster instead of being stopped by a minority that may not agree with the bill.
ReplyDeleteRyan Lundstrom
Per. 5
Filibusters are an inane act and a blatant abuse of a senator's powers. Should a senator be able to voice his own cogent opinion in its entirety, even if it goes against the majority? Of course. Should a senator be able to speak for a virtually interminable amount of time of topics non-germane to the conversation? Of course not. The filibuster has become as perverse as the redistricting system. The necessity of a supermajority for abrogating a single filibuster is absurd and unnecessary. The requirement should instead be lowered to a majority. If this is done, then those needed to pass a bill (a majority) can end the filibuster and pass it. If the majority party cannot get a majority of the senate to vote to end one, then that would be indicative of the bill needing further discussion. The supermajority requirement must be eliminated. Let's bust agape this aspect of the senate and fill it with something more substantial.
ReplyDeleteJess Renteria
Period 3
Honestly I don really care about the fillibuster. I know some say that it is to much to give a senator umlimited time to speak but I see it as a way for a senator to have a early chance to eliminate a bill that they see may harm the people. I see it as a benificial power and also a tradition.
ReplyDeleteMichael Becerra
P.3
How can you not care about such a selfish act, that hurts the country's people?
DeleteThey are not only turning down bills that may be harmful, but also bills that are beneficial. They are being selfish and considering themselves. If it were a harmful bill, somewhere down the line it won't be passed. Like by the president. But they are immediately letting bills die, based on themselves.
As well, traditions fade. Especially in government. We are so far from what we used to be, that there really shouldn't be anything in government solely based on tradition.
Michelle Alarcon
Per. 3
The filibuster, yet another flaw in our system of government which is abused and a tool of corruption. Any type of rule, should have one purpose: to make things fair. If the rule is unable to do this, then it should be either changed or removed; also to make things fair. Wasting time in the form of a filibuster not only prevents an individual bill from becoming a law, but all other bills that are to be debated after and thus, no matter what ideology you have, you end up still facing consequences for it. One way to be counter a filibuster would be to allow a senator a limited amount of time to speak, only of germane topics to the bill, and after that time, let there be an immediate vote to decide whether or not the floor should go to another speaker. This way, the filibuster can be limited from discussing irrelevant topics as well as from wasting time in their own interest. This would also limit filibusters because if the Senate become tired of wasting time then it can stop it from continuing. Furthermore, if the Senate is forced to keep voting on whether or not to let a person continue speaking then it might as well just vote on the bill at hand, once all germane issues have been discussed of course. So because choking the filibuster may be a little extreme, let's just gag it instead.
ReplyDeleteYoussef Aref
Period 3
I agree, but I feel that congressmen's debate time in general should be limited like in the House rather than barring irrelevant speech. I prefer to "choke" than "gag".
DeleteSigned: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period 3
Tradition is just an excuse to keep filibustering going. It causes more harm than good, meaning the tradition is not one that is worth keeping. It is causing Congress to be at a standstill, meaning our country is not becoming better. Filibustering was meant to allow everyone to share their opinion, but now has became a way for the minority to keep the opposing opinion from being acted upon. i think i time limit should be placed on these speeches.
ReplyDeleteMegan Elder
Period 5
The filibuster is a broken tradition that either needs to be reformed or stopped altogether. All this current system is doing is allowing too much power to the minority party, which in no way is representative of the the population. Although I am all for giving power to the minority party, I am not in favor of giving too much power, like how the filibuster provides.
ReplyDeleteEthan Temkin
P.3
Regardless of tradition, self-interest, political matters, etc. any kind of sabotage, including the filibuster, is immature. It seems far more logical to both place a time refrain that prevents Senators from intentionally prolonging their speeches to hinder other members of the upper house as well as a reform that regulates the topic of which individuals may speak about. It has been mentioned numerous times in class that Senators have the freedom to speak for as long as they like as well as branch off onto irrelevant topics. The purpose of the filibuster has transformed from an advantage of Senators to voice their opinions without interruption into a caniving excuse to impair their competition.
ReplyDeleteLacey Bourassa
Period 2
I believe filibusters are in their simplest form good intentions - to give everybody in the Senate a chance to voice their opinion - but like any other tool, it can also be used for bad. Nowadays, filibusters are used by the minority party to keep bills from being passed in the Senate, which is derogative, not to mention extremely time consuming. I bet my bottom dollar that the longer a Senator speaks, the more off topic they get as well. The corruption of the filibusters should be reformed, not for its original intent, but for what it has become now.
ReplyDelete-Aaron Kim
Filibustering is unjustified and should be put to a halt. I think it will be hard for legislation to pass against filibustering, however, since the very people that pass it are the same people who take advantage of it. Potentially, one could put a time limit on a senator's speaking time, but that could be seen as a restriction of liberties, and could block crucial information delivered in a senator's speech. I think this solution is better than the current state, however, because knowing they have a time limit, they can and will only present the most necessary facts. Flaws would still exist in this solution, but I think the most important action regarding filibustering in the moment is reform, and it is enlightening to know that they are taking some action against it.
ReplyDeleteChris Cole
Period 5
Generally, a majority of the votes is enough to pass legislation in the House and Senate. However, there are a few exceptions where a super majority is needed. These exceptions are clearly listed in the constitution. The filibuster is a Senate procedural rule which imposes a majority of sixty percent even where the legislation has already been passed in the House. Although it could be argued that the filibuster is a part of the tradition of the Senate, it is a tradition that is self-serving for the senators and not very beneficial for the American people. The idea of stalling the passage of legislation by talking the time away is a waste of tax payer’s money and also gives the public a negative opinion of Congress. The reason the Senate continues this tradition is because it benefits the minority party and they want to preserve their right to take advantage of it if ever their party is in the minority. This is a selfish reason for continuing the tradition of filibustering which should be replaced by the simple majority rule.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Wilson
Period 2
I think that filibusters are wrong. They should not wear out the legislation through long talks just to get their way. If a Senator can get his way just by talking for a long period of time, it doesn't seem like his way is the best way. Wearing someone down until they say yes to a proposal could lead to some terrible repercussions later on. The Senate needs some serious reforms to cut out the filibusters.
ReplyDeleteKristen Canones
Per. 5
I admit, filibustering is unreasonable. It wastes valuable time that could be spent deciding on other issues.and the fact that the Republican Party, in the First two years of the Obama Administration, has used the "invisible filibuster" 84 times is plain ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThere should be a limit to this filibuster. For example, no one person gets to speak for more than fifteen minutes and thirty seconds.it is refreshing to know that the media is shining a chastising flashlight onto this mess though. Hopefully, public disapproval will result in reform.
Nabila Hussain
Period 3
Although filibusters are effective in that they a way of preventing tyranny of the majority in the congress and a part of federalism they are more of a waste of time because as they provide information, it is just a way of wasting time. This filibuster should not have the power of controlling what may matter to the citizens of the nation. This tradition should be changed because it lacks a strong purpose and is more wasteful than benificial.
ReplyDeleteTarek Gouda
Pd. 3
The filibuster system was probably a good idea at first, but now it seems that it is being extremely taken advantage of and is in need of reform or just needs to go. Although it started out as a respectful gesture, all it is now is a way to let things not get done in congress. It is something that minority parties take too much advantage of and it isnt fair to people that a bill doesnt pass becuase someone decided to talk for too long. Its one of those things that needs to be reformed so that way our govt can actually get more done.
ReplyDeleteVictor Perez
Period 3
At one point in time the idea of the filibuster was thought to be a great process to allow for everyone to speak on the bills proposed to congress. However, as years went by, legislators found ways to work around the filibuster by using it to postpone the voting of bills. Because it has been a process long ago adopted by congress, I believe it is a time-honored tradition. With that being said, it will be hard to get rid of this process since many legislators are in favor of this because it benefits them when they are the ones who play an important role in voting on bills. Although it is not likely that the filibuster will be eliminated, "it's time for our senators to hear from their constituents".
ReplyDeleteTarissa Mellin
P. 3
"A practice that began as a courtesy to Senate speakers has morphed into a fundamental challenge to the principle of majority voting." This quote stood out to me because it is so true, and so frustrating. Senators are hurting the people: stopping, playing, and eventually killing legislation... just because they dislike the idea. Its not fair for the people. Government needs to be about the people, not individuals in Senate, or whoever they are trying to protect. Their talking really should be regulated. It may say in the Constitution that they can do whatever they want, but times have changed. Humans are changing. They are as cruel, and selfish as ever. Its time to stop it.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Alarcon
Per. 3
The filibuster can be destructive to many bills that have struggled to make their way to either house. The use of the filibuster is yet another way that both houses have found to kill a bill. Sometimes these bills are killed to harm the other party or simply it is killed in order to protect a minority. The filibuster a tradition has to stay in play because not only has it prevented radical changes, but it has also led to the downfall and reconstruction of similar bills to the one that was killed.
ReplyDeleteValente Rodriguez
Per.3
The situation concerning the filibuster is in definite need of resolve. The filibuster, with sincere roots, has been manipulated to accomplish a means of denying bills from being passed on to become laws. It kills bills that may very well be of great use to the citizens of the United States. Steps should be taken by the majority leaders when asked of by the citizens, to reform this ruined system. The voters voices should be heard and the bills that benefit these people should not be talked to death.
ReplyDeleteGabriel Copeland
Period 5
Good Evening,
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to express the outrage and frustration I feel about the filibuster. It is the embodiment of pointless bureaucracy, it's talking for the sake of wasting time. The fact that at one point congressmen needed to sleep and eat in the chamber in order to get a chance to vote is utterly ridiculous. It reminds me of the frustration everyone endures when going to the DMV but worse! Congress is already painstaking slow enough for passing legislature and filibusters are not helping.
What needs to be done is establish rules that limit debate similar to those in the House of Representatives, set equal and reasonable times for each member to speak. Worst comes to worst, at least lower the requirements to end a filibuster to a majority.
However lets be realistic, neither party will be voluntarily choose to give up this power. I have little faith that there will be an end to the filibusters, what a horrible fate for a bill to be talked to death.
Signed: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period.3
Even though filibuster is traditional system now it is the time it should be reformed anytime soon. Senators filibustering delays the time to pass bills which the people want it to happen as soon as possible. I agree with the concepts of the hearing the opinions from minority parties also, but under the agreement of majority people, if the bill that's close to become law gets avoided because of filibuster from minorities, then I had time view this as the stubbornness of the senators. Instead of getting rid of this system, there should be a limited date or time for them to really consider about passing bills, not just repeating their thoughts over and over again to waste time.
ReplyDeleteYoon Rha
Per. 5
Obviously filibusters are a major flaw in our government. It does prevent tyranny of the majority, but thats only one good thing compared to many bad things that come out of filibusters. Tradition is a weak reason to still keep it. People want a fast acting government and the bill-to-law process is already a very lengthy one without filibusters. Filibusters, in my opinion, is a childish way for Senators to keep the majority party from acting on their bills. There needs to be some type of reform in order to fix this.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Alcantara
period 5
A filibuster, despite its flaws, is actually useful in some cases as a checks and balances. But still, reform is needed in order to prevent the talking to death of bills. So an idea that I have is to use the vice-president's position in the Senate to give him the power of accusing a person of filibustering for too long; a time limit that will be determined by the vice-president and Senate in a majority vote on the first day. But as a deterrent to letting the vice-president of accusing everyone, a veto of the accusation of the vice-president's decision can be issued by the Senate with a majority vote. Sadly of course, this idea may not work but reform to our current system of filibustering in the Senate is needed in order to appropriately approve or disapprove of bills.
ReplyDeleteJoshua West
Period II
Filibustering is an idea that has been taken advantage of. Yes in the beginning it was a good idea to give senators an unlimited time on addressing their opinion about a bill but unfortunately senators know abuse this privilege. What I don’t understand is if the government knows for a fact that is going on then why don’t they just strip them from this privilege? It has become traditional but why keep it around if it’s causing more negativity then benefiting the people.
ReplyDeleteNathalie Leudo
Period 3
It is apparent to me that the filibuster is a rule that was originally set with good intentions. Senators have a considerable amount of power in Congress and therefore should be allowed to speak what they feel is necessary about legislation before it passes. However, this benefit given to senators needs to be regulated (perhaps limiting the time they can speak?) because it is an exploit, plain and simple. Senators abuse this courtesy and I personally cannot see how countless stalled bills can benefit the American people in any way.
ReplyDeleteMichael Worland
Period 5
Based on your statement, the filibuster is definitely legislative obstructionism regardless if it is a time-honored tradition or not. I understand that you should not talk while another Senator is expressing their opinion, but when they abuse the system and talk for some 24 hours, it begins to become a little bit shady. I think we should reform the current rules to make it more "user-friendly" by just adding a time restriction. This resolution let's more Senators speak while regulating how much gets done. I think that filibusters are hurting the people rather than helping them. Reform might not be possible soon, but it should be a priority for our future.
ReplyDeleteAlex Padden
Per. 3
If "full and frank debate" is a time-honored tradition in the Senate, then there is nothing wrong with a Senator voicing his/her opinions with relevant information. The definition of frank is being open, honest, and direct in speech or writing, and a filibuster is none of these. All that a filibuster does is stall for time so that nothing useful can get passed; it doesn't play any constructive role. A supermajority should not be required to break a filibuster--Senators should know the difference between honest debate and fallacious nonsense. A filibuster shouldn't be defined as debate in the first place, so we shouldn't have any trouble getting rid of it while still conserving the "time-honored tradition" of open debate in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Wang
Period 3
The filibuster was a courtesy call given to the Senators for them to express their views. What was once courtesy has turned into abuse. Senators take advantage of filibusters to prevent a law that they do not desire knowing that they might lose to a majority. Any senator can use this method to their advantage making it difficult to create bills.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra Sanchez
Period 5
I believe that the filibuster is a tradition, but not a very honored one. As senators began to see ways to manipulate this tradition, filibusters have become an obstical to the leaders of this country. Even though it was intended to make the senate fair in all debates, times change. now the filibuster is used to stall important decisions. I think the senate should put stricter regulations on these debates just as the house of representatives did. the representatives seem the be the only ones actually doing their jobs as lawmakers.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Delgado p.2
This is just a really dumb thing in our system. It was designed for gentlemen to get their point across fairly without there opinion being trampled on. The key work there being GENTLEMEN. I don't know about you guys but modern senators with a "wide stance" cannot be considered gentlemen. There needs to be a a time limit, and since there is less people in the senate maybe 5 minutes per person instead of 2 like the house. And unlike the presidential debate where the moderator is just there to pretend to be in control we really need someone to be in control. Like the British Parliament there needs to be one person who is respected and listened to who can end the debate. There should be 2 podiums with a mike on each, and one senator from each side well go to either and speak. If a senator keeps on speaking passed his time limit the moderator shuts off his mike. Didn't finish speaking? To damn bad get back in line. We have to be firm with these senators because there walking over the people and there coworker. Once they show that they can be GENTLEMEN again, then maybe we can re-institute the unlimited speech perk again. However this cannot be done until these "wide stanced" politicians smarten up.
ReplyDeleteRyan Sidhu
Period 3
I believe that it is definitely time for the filibuster to be abolished. It serves no useful purpose; it prevents constructive bills from being passed in certain situations. Even if it is a tradition, it is a tradition that has become corrupted and used to prevent a bill from being passed. The filibuster is an archaic technique and is in major need of reform in order to allow more productive things to take place in both houses of Congress.
ReplyDeleteWalter Niederer
p. 5
I believe that the filibuster is wrong. It is only continued because it is tradition to have it. There is no problem with the filibuster itself but what makes it have problems is that the senators that abuse its role. To fix this situation, I believe that the senators’ should start respecting the filibuster or if not, the filibuster should be removed completely. Senators act very irresponsible and childish when they abuse this; they speak for hours, not getting any point across. I think that if this problem isn't fixed, then the advantage of having a filibuster should be removed.
ReplyDeleteAlison Castaneda
P.5
Filibuster is just another aspect of our government that has been manipulated and is corrupt, much like the redistricting we talked aboout earlier this week. I completely agree with Danielle Delgado. I also understand that this procedure may be tradition; however, this proccess has been taken advantage of as it is used to stall the passage of a bill. It is corrupt and delays the proccess of lawmaking. I believe this controversial way of government should be dealt with and changed in a way where the passage of laws will not be delayed.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Quijada
P.2
"We, the citizens, are the losers, and we have a right to have our votes count." This quote is what really stood out to me. At first, I didn't really see what was the big deal about filibusters- so people talked for a long time to avoid getting something passed that they don't want. It just seemed like a form of stalling to me. I never thought about that fact that it could be hurting citizens. And now the fact that Senators are stalling on legislation that could help people really frustrates me. I believe it's time that Senators stop thinking about themselves and the people just in their state and start thinking about every American citizen.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Page
Per. 5
Remember when our parents said too much of a good thing is bad for you? Thats even true when it comes to politics in the form of the filibuster. It may be a time honored tradition but it is heavily abused in our Senate today. Even worse is that it requires a super majority(60% of the vote) to stop someone from speaking, which makes no sense. Super majorities are extremely hard to accomplish and all it does is somewhat stop a Senator from speaking if they finally get annoying. In order to keep this tradition, that isn't itself bad, we need to change this rule to where a majority is required to stop a Senator from using the filibuster.
ReplyDeleteAshley Royce
p.3
I really liked your first line. It is completely true!
DeleteThe filibuster is undoubtedly legislative obstructionism. Just as articulated in the article, the original intent was a form of courtesy and I agree with the fact that senators should be able to speak their mind for as long as they need to get their point across. But this privilege is obviously being abused when senators are speaking for hours on end. Time honored tradition? Any staple in society/government should not be held up for the sake of it being a tradition because times change and the government must adjust to that. Is it not possible for the senate to adopt the same time constraints as the house? It appears to be working for them just well. Above all, the filibuster is a selfish practice that must come to an end for what it best for the American people.
ReplyDeleteNoah Cole
Period 2
It is true that the filibuster has been preventing the majority of congress to have overwhelming control. Just because the filibuster is traditional, it doesn't mean we have to follow permanently. However, the filibuster consumes too much time. It is not fair for the senators to delay the bill. I think that is unnecessary so we certainly make some restriction such as limiting the time.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Kim Period 3
Filibusters have been taking a very important role in our government, but some of their acts showed that they have gotten to much control. Like what the author has explained through the article, senate should accept those bills which based on people's voices or those that can bring benefits to the people. These filibusters truly have too much power on the bills, some of the advantages can be kept but limitations are needed also.
ReplyDeleteApple Huo
Per.5
I think that it is time to do away with filibusters. People are abusing this "courtesy", they don't want a bill to pass so they just talk for hours on end. This just wastes time that the Senate could use to do things that help the American people. If you don't like something then just say no, don't bore others to death and waste their time.
ReplyDeleteAmber Barajas
Period 5
I have idea why this can even be legal. why would the senate ask for 2/3 majority to get rid of it, why do they want to protect it? this waste of time of," "invisible filibuster." Senators need not actually stand up and talk to filibuster; they just needed to indicate their intention to do so" seems so childish like what is wrong with these people to waste time? I want to know a situation where filibusters where a positive.
ReplyDeleteAnaiss gutierrez
per2
The filibuster is just a way to make the Bill not be passed. There are already so many ways that the bill can not pass that this seems pointless to me. It is also a way that the minority can make a bill that the majority wants passed harder. If they slow down the process the chances increase that the bill will die. In my opinion filibusters can just cause a deadlocking process..
ReplyDeleteMateu Vilakazi
Period 2
I think the Senate should make rules to prevent this filibuster epidemic because filibusters are just a huge waste of time. 24 hours? Really? Filibusters are just another obstacle that prevent Congress from getting anything done, which is bad enough already because of the complex process. Filibusters are also extremely unfair to those who support a bill and want it passed since it is impossible to prevent them and so difficult to end them. It would be fairer and more time efficient if the Senate would just put a limit on how long a Senator can speak already; it's obvious that a Senator's "right" to speak for an unlimited amount of time has been abused/corrupted and is no longer used with honorable intentions, as the article states. Times change, and so must the rules.
ReplyDeleteCandice Murray
Period 3
Filibuster was once a sign of respect during a time that the senators seemed to help the people instead of themselves. Now the sole purpose of filibuster is to be used as a gateway for senators to get what they want. They speak for hours on end to block bills for the reason that they don't like it or that they fear that it may not aid them. Tradition is good from time to time but it should not be continuous. With length of tradition comes abusive power. Filibuster should be stopped because even with restrictions it still gives senators a chance to do what they want.
ReplyDeleteVictor Vera
DeletePeriod 2
I understand why everyone has said a filibuster is a check on majority. I understand why it can be useful but I believe it is more harmful. I believe it is a way and an excuse for politicians of two different parties to block the other's success. The competitive nature of political parties are in a good place, so opposite point of views of the American people are heard but when one party blocks another and thus hurts the people, I think something must be changed. And that blockade is what a filibuster does. It allows parties to halt the success of another at the cost of the American people. I though it was amazing how often Republicans did this during the Obama administration. What is even more disturbing is that it isn't just Republicans, but also Democrats. This means that both parties are just as horrible as the other. So where does that lead voters? It leads to split ticket and lower voter turnout. More importantly, it leads to distrust in the American System that was put in place by the Founders to protect the people. Politicians who use the filibuster are ignoring the Founder's intentions and the People's wishes and needs. It needs to be changed. Even if it is a check on majorities.
ReplyDeleteGabrielle Rodriguez
p.3
I think the filibusters is a waste of Senate time in which they could be tackling more issues. However, I do agree that it allows for minor parties to have some power. I think there should be a restricted amount of time in which someone can talk about this issue that's not too long, and not too short. That 24 hour filibuster was ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Larrabee
Period 5
For the most part everyone agrees that the filibusters is ridiculous and should be ended. It seems like a good idea for everyone to get an opportunity to voice their opinions however, it has been taken advantage of. Senators are using their unlimited debate to do what is best for themselves and not the people. The filibuster should be regulated so these senators do not have so much power to block bills from getting passed.
ReplyDeleteMia Redmond
Per. 2
Not only is the filibuster a funny name, but it is an abomination to this government and the law making process. What puzzles me as a student and observer of government is how this act of filibusting has managed to survive all these years considering we as a nation have gone through much reform since the birthing of our constitution. I can understand how it can be a common courtesy to allow an individual to voice their opinion with no objections during the course of their speaking, however a senator who talks for more than twenty-four hours because he wants to block a civil rights act seems a bit excessive. It seems to me that by these representatives putting so much effort into blocking a bill, they are truly not doing their job in representing their constituents. If you're going to let these guys talk then let them talk, but at the very least put 10 minutes on the clock and let them get their main point across.
ReplyDelete- Adrian Nieto
Period 5
The filibuster was once a useful part of the Senate, which was both unabused and respected. It has now become a chance for Senators who realize they are in the minority of a vote to turn the tables and stop it from passing. This is both unfair and unnecessary. The filibuster must be changed, and limits must be put upon the allowed debate time of each separate Senator. I think we can all agree that the filibuster is not what it once was, it's simply a ghost of its former self.
ReplyDeleteJustin Avery
Period 5
yeah, the filabusters allow the minor parties to have more power, i think it does more harm than good. it just serves as one party being able to put off a bill as long as they want so that that party could benefit from it. i love what gabby said when she said "And that blockade is what a filibuster does. It allows parties to halt the success of another at the cost of the American people." it's true. the party only does this for itself. there definitely needs to be some kind of restrictions on them
ReplyDeletekymberly conrad
period 3
Filibuster is a tool that can be used for good and halt bills that should or need to be halted. But instead it is used just out of party hatred and it's based off of party not whether or not it's really good or bad. Both parties do filibustering so I am not mad at one party more then the other, although I am surprised about how much the Republicans did filibustering during the Obama administration. I believe it is just a curtsy that has gone corrupt and should be stopped now. It after all hurts the people the most.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rosas Per.3
I'm not so certain it's hatred more than it is self-centered policy. The courtesy has indeed been corrupted, though. It has not given the minority a voice, but a tank. When the minority runs amok and destroys anything it likes with the only thing that beats it being a bigger tank with three anti-tank missiles, there is a problem. We've since passed that point. Now, we need five.
Delete-Signed: A tired man with a forte in pointless absurdity
-Seth Martin
Filibusters are just terrible. The fact that this was created to give everyone their own chance to speak without interruptions has been abused. If the government knows that these people are abusing their privileges, I'm not sure why they haven't been revoked until they are ready to use them correctly. Personally I feel that filibusters are a waste of time when that time could be used to make decisions on other things.
ReplyDeleteVictoria Mariscal
Period 5
Keeping filibusters because of tradition is an obstruct way to represent our "We the people" government. All that a filibuster represents is a time honored stall that prevents anything from getting passed.And because of it has contributed to the president(scapegoat) being blamed for it, since he is the face of the government. In addition, requiring a majority in a majority party influenced government leads to a disguised process of corruption. Halting the order of bills being passed and by stating your opinion just to stall a bill disregards a presidents promise for improvement or change... A filibusters is not a debate, it is a methodical process that shows a presents a huge flaw in our system of government; so it should be fairly easy to take this "time honored tradition" out.
ReplyDeleteejaquino
period 2
Filibuster is something of I think when a fault needed is a great use. The movie Mr Smith goes to Washington I think, is one of the instances that shows you why the filibuster is needed. Yes it is used for purposes that we all shake our head at. But with out it I think the minority party would be helpless in the senate, not completely but make things a lot harder. And any one of the bills they are arguing about could be one that greatly affects us. I think it's just one of those things that you just have to suck up and deal with it
ReplyDeletePaul Garcia
Per 3
Although it's important to give voices to the minority, filibusters allow them to exercise more than their proportionate power. This is why the act of filibustering should be improved or stopped all together. They are a waste of hours of debating and makes lawmaking for the majority tedious because there is almost always some type of opposition. It may be a part of our government's tradition, but it has become abused and outdated.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Moreno
Period 2
Filibusting is just a way for the minority to delay the passing of a bill and in fact they are abusing the system. I think that yes senators should be able to speak out against a bill but only to a certain point because filibusting can delay important bills from being passed. So by limiting the speech of the senators it would give the Senate an opportunity to be able to vote on these bills. Hopefully one day filibusting will come to a stop when the senators really what is best for the people and not for themselves.
ReplyDeleteCarly Rowan
Period 2
Something needs to be done about these filibusters. They are meant to have a good cause but people are just taking advantage of it. I don't even know if they are talking for a long time because they actually have something important they have to say or just to stop a bill from being passed sooner.
ReplyDeleteLesley Ramirez p.3
I do understand that at one point, giving a senator as much time as they wanted to debate was courteous but now senators are abusing their powers. They take up as much time as they want to discuss their dislike for a bill instead of trying to come up with a solution of what to do with the bill. As it is, the law making process takes long enough and so filibusters are just prolonging the process even more. I feel that the majority and minority parties should be given the same amount of time to talk instead of these people wasting everyone else's time with their abused powers.
ReplyDeleteRachel Martinez
Per. 5
Filibusters, however originally intentioned only to prevent TOM by allotting time for senators to speak to give more power to minority parties, are just one more corruption in our government. It has been proven counterproductive by the power hungry minority who, evidently and as expected, used this "courtesy" as their own advantage, but of course only at the expense of others. It is a waste of time and should be amended to abide to the original purpose of keeping the majority in check, where now the minority party is also lacking.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Casupanan
Period 5
The filibuster is one of the most blatant abuses of power that is present in our system of government. To allow politicians to talk without limits has transformed from the simple right to freedom of speech to a ridiculous ploy to put others at a great disadvantage as they turn the odds in their favor. Reform is necessary if this practice is to be kept, and I hope to see that it would include nothing less than a strict time limit on what politicians are to say. Politicians who defend the filibuster with the excuse of "tradition" are quite simply those who participate in such an abuse in power, and are comparable to those who very similarly argue for gerrymandering. If trust in government and its official is to rise, or at least stop decreasing, anytime soon it should start with reform on such practices.
ReplyDeleteTrina Ho
Period 3
The filibuster is definitely a problem that should be addressed. It is true that each member should be aloud to voice their opinion. It is, on the other hand, not appropriate , nor efficient, for that member to speak for an unlimited amount of time as to prolong the process and hopefully hinder the passing of a bill. Though there is tradition behind it, that does not make it understandable to stop the majority (and indirectly, the American people) from doing what they feel is necessary. Tradition aside, this must be changed. I agree with Jess. There must be a change of the amount of people needed to stop a filibuster from a super majority to a true majority.
ReplyDeleteSymonne Singleton
Period 2
The filibuster is an issue that is not very effective in congress. This allows every member a chance to speak and voice opinion's but this may also in a sneaky way stop from continuing voting on passage or veto of a bill. This creates an issue because filibuster can stop the voting on the passage of a bill if they do not want this or a veto for that opposite reason. We should stop allowing this before a voting of a bill and only allow a certain amount of time to express opinions on an issue.
ReplyDeleteLayla Thompson
Period 2
Oh the filibuster. Something that started as a common courtesy transformed into an abusive tactic used to stop bills dead in their tracks. Again, I cannot say I'm too surprised with the turnout of this tradition, but I also cannot say I am glad to see it in place. The Senate has created a system that allows the majority to push bills that they support into place, but also block those that the minority might have a chance to pass. I am glad to see that some members have tried to work back the filibuster by having a super majority vote to end debates; however, this practice had little effect. Again with another reform introducing the invisible filibuster, we still have the same problem. It is time that we stop trying to stick to a tradition that has already been poisoned with corruption and get to fixing the issue. The Senate should have a limit on debates just like the practice in the House. Not only will this cut down on the gridlock, making the government more efficient but it will give say back to the minority and allow plausible legislation to be passed. People who plead that this tradition should be kept in place are only looking to benefit themselves and to keep the power, unrightfully given to the majority, in place.
ReplyDeleteTristan Cady
P.5
Woops! Should the the minority who abuses the power.
DeleteTristan Cady
P.5
I think using the method, filterbuster, is a clever idea to stop Majority rule. But I do believe that its an act of senators of being Inappropriate and childish. The minority party ids just going to have live with the majority winning and passing the bill they like most. I think that's just the way it is, and has always been. For filterbusting to stop; as people wish, they need to put a limit on their speeches. It's something that is fair and everyone will have the opportunity to have the same amount of time to talk about the bill becoming a law.
ReplyDeleteGianna Garcia
Period3
While filibustering does give the minority party an advantage that outs them closer to the majority party in terms of their hand in passing legislation, this method creates a playing field more favorable for the minority party. I don't think there's any means of filibustering for a good cause, as there exists checks and balances in place to prevent harmful bills from reaching this level of consideration in the first place. I believe the "tradition" argument is void here, because we must consider necessity over tradition.If senators were given an allotted time to speak on a bill, this would end filibustering and allow more opinions to be considered.
ReplyDeleteArya C.
P.3
The filibuster does nothing but good. It delays the bill making process and wastes pointless time. There are already means of checks and balances in place that prevent harmful and/unconstitutional bills from passing so that could never be used as an excuse to keep filibusters alive. Senators should have a time limit to express their legal judgment on the bill and they should not be allowed to waste the other senators' time simply to prevent the bill from being passed. Just because the Senate has only 100 members and not 435 does not mean that each of these 100 has unlimited time to speak gibberish about every single bill that is attempted to be passed. In order for bills protecting certain peoples' rights concerning civil rights, etc. to be passed efficiently, there should be a clear limit for each senator and if while speaking, they do not seem to be on topic, then they should be cut off and disallowed to continue speaking. Time is of the essence and senators wanting to babble on shouldn't be allowed to waste it.
ReplyDeleteBrock Nelson
Period Dos
Although the filibuster a time-honored tradition, it also slows down the legislative process by allowing one person to stand in the way of the progress. To me the only people it benefits are the minority party as they can stall a bill from ever getting to the president.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Okolo
Per. 5
I think filibusters are not needed at all anymore. It is just an excuse for people to block a bill from being passed. If they are talking for 24 hours like that is just wrong. They start just saying stuff that has to he wrong because you really cannot talk for 24 hours about one subject. So many things can be done already not to pass a law. Many people do not need to sit there and hope that they can talk long enough so it does not get voted on. It is kind of like cheating in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteLily Berzunza
Per. 2
The filibuster, even though a once useful thing is now just used to stop important bills. all what the Filibusters has done now is that its made Senators who realize they are in the minority of a vote to turn the tables and stop it from passing. This is both unfair and unnecessary. The filibuster must be changed, and limits must be put upon the allowed debate time of each separate Senator. It is not a well thing that the filibuster has come to and therefore must be rethought and changed.
ReplyDeleteFilibusters are a waste of time in legislation. They are also unconstitiutional and i believe it is time to get rid of it once and for all. being logical, there is no need now to talk forever. There are more effective ways of preventing a bill from being passed since we dont have houses whose parties match with eachoter or the president sometimes.
ReplyDeleteMadeline Williams
Per 2
I believe that the original function of the filibuster is now unnecessary for today's modern times. Instead of being effective to stop bad bills from passing, it is now a waste of time. I think that the American government should get rid of it. It's purpose has backfired and there is no good purpose for it nowadays.Andrea Chua period 2
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that having senators speak for an unlimited amount of time is unreasonable. Wouldn't somebody think it strange for someone to be speaking for an absurd amount of time on a bill they do not have an interest for? It's basically screaming "I don't want this bill passed!" Filibusters are a total waste of time and should be taken out of the system. It just gives people another reason to believe that the government is falling prey to corruption.
ReplyDeleteJerom Berdijo
Period 3
It is finally time we abolish the filibuster. It is no longer used properly; the Senate is taking advantage of the system and using the filibuster to stop legislation they don’t agree with. If a majority agrees on legislation, it should be able to be passed. By allowing Senators to debate a bill as long as they want, the Senate is hindered from making any swift decisions. I agree that each Senator should be able to debate it, but the time should be limited like it is in the House.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Preston
Per. 5
As noted in the article, the original intent of the filibuster was to allow all Senators to receive the chance to speak. But now, with such a divided government and bipartisanship in both houses, the limitations of the filibuster need to be rethought. Unlimited speech is a luxury that can't be afforded any longer and needs to either be done away with or made easier to end as the time to get a bill passed into law is merely 2 years. Even if it is a tradition, the rules need to adapt to the change in times. It seems that reform is on the right track, but if it is only left up to the Senate to adjust itself, of course it won't limits its own powers. It is up to the people to demand change and that is the only way the consequences of the filibuster can be minimized.
ReplyDeleteMichael Hidayat
Period 2
The reasoning behind filibusters and how the people take advantage of the system is ridiculous. It's not right for a few people to speak for hours, postponing the bill for maybe a few days, or ending the bill as it is. These senators should be given a time limit, and then the vote should be the real determining factor, not who speaks the longest/shortest. If i time limit would be in place, no member could take advantage of this system, allowing for equal opportunity for all senators to speak for a certain period of time.
ReplyDeleteOmar Kaayal
Period 2
While i do disagree with this attempt at a spiteful method to prevent certain bills from passing, i do not see that it is possible for anyone to successfully end it. Although parties may claim that this hinders their agendas for the government, they will not risk this safety net for protecting their views in case they become the minority in the next Congress. Filibustering is a major issue, but we must accept that it is necessary to our reps in blocking the passing of laws that aren't in agreement between the parties.
ReplyDeleteKathleen Punsalan
Per. 5
The filibuster has been very beneficial to the people who don’t want the bill passed, however it has negatively affected the bills that need to be passed especially at that time. As good as it may seem, it is a hold up to allowing a bill being passed and just makes it a harder and longer process.
ReplyDeletePriya Patel
Period 3
I'm going to have to go with legislative obstructionism. Of all the low down things to be, a filibuster would be the most annoying. Is that how this word is used, as a noun? The whole idea of being able to just procrastinate in its self is a reason to have this issue resolved, but then again chances are if anyone ever attempted to solve the problem, the problem itself would stop them... if that makes sense. The whole filibuster issue is just another horrible example of minority having an advantage over a majority. Somehow, some way, this has to be fixed.
ReplyDeleteJames Robinson
Period 5
I don't believe that filibusters play a huge role in our government, they are honestly not a good way to try and block a bill. Sitting there talking for hours just to prevent a bill from getting passed is very unnecessary. We have grown so much as a nation and although it is tradition weneed to find a way to change it or ccompletely get rid of it. It does more harm than good. -Breanna Marquez p.2
ReplyDeleteI believe that encouraging healthy debate within our legislative bodies only makes our democracy stronger. This, however, is not healthy debate and has been taken too far. Politicians in the Senate are now abusing their right to debate and using this ability to obstruct the voice of the people from being heard. The Filibuster must come to an end so that our politicians can learn to work together to do what is best for the people of our country, instead of wasting time trying to block legislation that they do not favor. Stricter rules for debate should be put in place to place greater restrictions on the Filibuster to discourage it from being used any longer.
ReplyDeleteSarah Gissinger
Period 2
If the filibuster were to miraculously stop, I'm sure we'd see much more legislation coming through Congress, but how can we stop something that neither party truly wants to get rid of? I do agree that the filibuster is unfair, wrong, and just plain childish. For Senators to go to such lengths as to draw out the acceptance of a bill, just cause they don't like it? It's like a three-year-old throwing a tantrum until Mom or Dad gives in.
ReplyDeleteBut these adult-like 'tantrums' aren't going to end, so long as 'parents' continue to allow it to happen. And so long as both sides are able to gain something, filibustering will be continued to be practiced, and legislations will continue to halt in the Senate.
Kathryn Uribe
Period 5
I didn't realize that other people were referring to this as childish until after I'd posted and started reading others. How weird :)
DeleteIt's time for the filibuster to go. Senators talking about how unfair a bill is is okay to an extent. After a certain point it is just ridiculous. They take advantage of the time and should be given a limit on how long they can speak. Instead of trying to come up will solutions they abuse the time instead of focusing on more important matters. This helps the minority party but it keeps bills from reaching the president. This flaw in our government has to go. Celeste Gallardo Per. 3
ReplyDeletei do think the filibusters is a waste of time, because it gets nothing done, but the senate get to speak as long as they want, but i do believe its an abused, for example the invisible filibuster used it 83 times in the first two years of the Obama administration, yea that's alot, plus they can speak as long as they want if they don't want a bill to be pass, and its just a big waste of time, so there should be a change on how long senate can speak
ReplyDeleteLukas, napitupulu
Period:2
The fillibuster stops whatever progress was made for the bill which can discourage the people. If it is a bill backed by the people and it is getting shot down by politicians who oppose the people it creates legitimacy to distrust in government. There should be atime limit that is reasonable so everyone can get their points in and there shouldn't have to be a cloture called to even get a vote in. Every bill should get a vote instead of wasting everybody in the country's time.
ReplyDeleteP.2 Miguel
The filibuster does leave a bad taste in my mouth. The right to speech, one of the fundamental rights that all should have, is gridlocking the majority's opinion (and it is established that it is the majority's opinion in most cases), and is a way for the minority to tyrannize the majority? In what universe does it make sense that not only can the minority stall progress, that the minority can kill a bill, that the minority can completely gridlock and force a draw, and all this from a lack of moderation? When did we abandon reason? We do not allow lawyers to speak forever (though it seems like it, usually) during a court case, we do not let the House Representatives speak forever on a bill, we do not leave our debated unmoderated and without rules. To do so is to invite the undemocratic method of a single minority defeating the majority.
ReplyDeleteTo fix the problem, we would need to insert a time limit. There are 100 senators in the Senate. If everyone has an hour to speak about the subject, 100 hours would be used debating. If everyone were to have 15 minutes, 25 hours would be used debating. Surely there is an allotted amount of time which would both be enough for a succinct argument and not enough to stall. Or, perhaps, a simple moderator is required to prevent somebody from repeating the same argument and to speed up discussion. Or, perhaps, we would simply need to acknowledge that filibusting is bad and maybe it will go away if we think hard enough at it. Somehow, I doubt the last one will happen. I do not know if the first or second solution will be best, that would be for Congress to decide. Unfortunately, the minority party would burn such a bill with sedentary apathy.
Signed: The most active person on this blog at 12:30
-Seth Martin
As an aside, I once heard a wise man on the internet define "tradition" as "the reason we give for doing things we have always done in the past but can no longer think of a reason for doing it." Should we really think of tradition as a reason to keep something? If anything, if the only reason we can think of is "tradition," should we not, then, think that the thing we are doing is old, outdated, archaic, and no applies to modern society. When you think of tradition in this manner, you realize the pointlessness of much of the happenings in the world. When you realize that people do things they have always done because they have always done them because they have always been done, you realize how absurd the world is.
DeleteTherefore, if we apply this new understanding of tradition to unlimited speaking time in a debate about federal law, you realize how absurd half the argument for keeping it is.
-Signed: The same guy
-Seth Martin
The filibuster just makes it that much more difficult to pass a bill. It just creates an inconvenience for the people because the people want their laws passed as soon as possible having to wait on a bill they really want made into a law really sucks and gives us a bad feeling about the government as a whole
ReplyDeleteMelissa Ruben
Per. 5
Filibuster is a tool that many people have used for bad. It is a stalling technique and it is wrong but the gov won't get rid of it just on the fact that it helps the minor party in a way. I would rather have a real filibuster than a invisible one so alteast people put forth a cause instead of just threatening of it
ReplyDeleteShontay
P.2
Filibustering in my opinion is a useless tradition. Well not necessarily useless because if that was the case it wouldnt be around anymore, but i think that it needs to be stopped because that could be the stop of creating a decent piece of lesgislation. Being able to hold up lagislation by ranting or giving useless speeches has no place in this "elite" part of the government. Even the threat of doing this causes bills to be taken back for reform when the minority hasnt actually given reasons for why they dont want the bill to be voted on. Sure they are trying to prevent T.O.M. but its stilll creating T.O.M. only now it is tyranny of the minorities not majorities.
ReplyDeleteTravis Sapp
Period 2