Should the Democrats "go nuclear" and eliminate the filibuster? CAN they?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Are we better of as a country or not for having it?

The modern Democratic Party seems afraid of using it when in the minority.

The modern Republican Party uses it abusively, all the time, when in the minority.

Given this situation, it seems that it's a powerful weapon for the GOP and one Democrats are afraid to use, so it's a huge net minus.

Let's assume that there will be a GOP Senate within the next ten years in answering this.

I think the filibuster should be eliminated even assuming this. If the GOP railroads bad policy then their fingerprints are on it and they get voted out, same for Democrats, but not this situation where you can't get any policy through at all, unless it favors corporate interests.

Unfortunately I assume the rules to "go nuclear" would be the same for the filibuster, couldn't the GOP filibuster the "nuclear" vote? :shrug:

[stray cat]

1. some of the dems may be doing the fillibustering.....

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. Well that's obviously the problem here. If none of the Senate Dems filibustered, it wouldn't matter

if the GOP 39 all filibustered all the time.

The point is, with "Blue Dogs" being a significant component of the party, the working majority for passing legislation is much slimmer than the overall party numbers would indicate, if indeed it's a working majority at all. The House bill numbers show that clearly.

[ixion]

2. same answer every time someone brings this up: NO

it was wrong of the GOP to suggest eliminating it, and it's wrong of the Dems just the same.

If anything, I think legislation should be passed eliminating the possibility of the so-called 'nuclear' (a.k.a. cheating) option.

[Silent3]

4. If there are going to be filibusters, make them be real filibusters.

Make the bastards who want to filibuster health care stay up all night telling fishing stories and reading the phone book. Make them drag cots into the Senate chambers and sleep there. Don't just give them a virtual filibuster based on nothing but a vote count, make them work for it.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. Well I suppose the same party leadership that would never force a real filibuster would never

go nuclear anyway, so it's a moot point (sigh).

[elocs]

5. From what I have seen here it seems DUers believe the filibust is still

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and you can't tell them different.

The problem with going nuclear is that in the end you do not come out unscathed either and wish you hadn't gone nuclear. This is a prime candidate for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[tritsofme]

6. Pro-choice Democrats will likely filibuster the Stupak amendment

in the Senate. Stating that it has no value to Democrats just isn't true.

Eliminating the filibuster completely would be a very radical move, and would definitely come back to haunt us in the future.

[Thothmes]

8. If the Republicans were to do this, the outrage

on this forum would be monumental.

[Demoiselle]

9. The GOP couldn't filibuster the "nuclear option."

It is a procedural vote, and requires a simple majority, or so I've been given to understand.
I don't agree with my fellow DUers who say the Dems should avoid the nuclear option. The idea that every good idea this country ever has has to get 60 votes in the Senate is a terrible distortion of our fundamental agreement, as a nation, to allow the majority to rule. And it's a virtually foolproof way to prevent any kind of substantive change. I'm all for letting the majority rule.In this case, I wouldn't mind seeing the Repukes forced to filibuster. They aren't going to come off like Jimmy Stewart, they'll look like fools, right there, all day and night long, on national television. (Bring lots of popcorn.) If the Dems can find a way to pass a decent health care bill by reconciliation, they can also finesse the filibuster threat.
But this argument that "we mustn't do it to them because then they'll do it to us" is an admission that we don't dare try to do anything. I think the quickest way the Dems can lose their power in the polls is to continue to avoid confrontation. We need to stand up for the people, for heaven's sake. I think the vast majority of the people will understand and appreciate it. Sorry for the rant, I get a little carried away on this subject.

[BeFree]

10. Sorry?

Don't be. It was a good read.

The time is past for allowing a small minority of dubiously elected scumbags
run our democracy. We need to put them in their place once and for all.

They have driven this country over the cliff and ya know what you do with a bad driver? Take the keys away and put them on the street.

I'd like to see my democrats, just once before I die, kick some dirtbag republican ass.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Yeah, part of my question is realpolitik (is it a net plus or minus) but part of it is principle:

Is it important for democratic principles of government in our country to allow a 41 member minority to prevent legislation from coming to a vote?