Filibuster Reform

[CobGobbler]

Now before you all go knee-jerk and crazy on me, I'm not talking about the current bills being filibustered.

I dont know who it was that I read, but I agree with the notion that if a Senator, whether Democrat or Republican, wants to filibuster a bill, then they should have to do it like it Strom Thurmond did. They should be forced to stand up there for hours and read the bible, moby dick, war and peace, whatever. I agree that there has to be some influence given to the minority party, but that party (or whoever in that party wants it) should have to put forth some effort to block a bill. All a Senator has to do now is say they want to and it all gets shut down.

So I say keep it at 60 votes to beat a filibuster, but I think the rules should be reverted back to what they once were. I think doing this would actually help the minority party in the public realm--if someone was so convinced the bill was wrong that they were willing to go out and read something for twenty hours, maybe the public opinion would be swayed.

Thoughts?

[Will Robinson]

I agree and there are lots of other rules they have decided are more like guidelines that should be enforced. Congress is the biggest bunch of self serving elitists in the world!

[Tunnelcat]

I agree too. If a Congressman wants to stand up against a bill, they should literally stand there on their own 2 feet speaking with fervent passion like he or she means it. Time to make it happen, again Congress. The standoffs powered by convenience and megalomania need to stop.

As for little Harry Reid, he was just talking out both sides of his mouth just to garner more support from his base when he argued and pontificated previously for months that the 60 vote majority to override a filibuster should be drastically changed. It was all a bluff, we got bupkiss out of all the arguing, grandstanding and bellowing, and the libs were just plain used. Time exchange Harry for someone with a backbone?

[Top Gun]

I was astounded when I first learned that they didn't still have to get up and actually "filibuster." The current system is terrible.

[CobGobbler]

My point exactly TG--the Senators can literally tweet that they want to filibuster and some massive bill can be blocked. I just don't understand how these are the people that we elect to represent both our interests and our identity to the world. I sincerely doubt Chuck Schumer or Rand Paul has my best interests in mind when they decide to do what they do.

[Will Robinson]

Here is another change I'd make, no more 'riders'.
If a Bill is being readied for vote on Obama Care, for example, you can't add a piece of legislation on oil exploration to it so that a vote for one thin becomes a vote for another un related thing.

[CUDA]

outlaw earmarks. and lobbyists, when you have members of Congress being lobbied by their own relatives there's a problem

Since 2007, 56 relatives of lawmakers have been paid to influence Congress.

[callmeslick]

Here is another change I'd make, no more 'riders'.
If a Bill is being readied for vote on Obama Care, for example, you can't add a piece of legislation on oil exploration to it so that a vote for one thin becomes a vote for another un related thing.

I'd agree, but I can't see that ever happening.....it's almost central to getting legislation done. I do agree with you that it is a horrible way to get things done, as the result is a lot of ill-thought ideas getting voted into law by near-coercion.

[Will Robinson]

Another. Make it so every Bill that has enough sponsors to be put up for a vote must be voted up or down within 21 days. And every piece of legislation that comes up for a vote must be reviewed by every member and they must write a synopsis of the Bill's content and publish that along with their current position on it, for or against.
A Bill that 'needs to go to committee can only go there AFTER a vote has been cast by the legislature. Everyone gets on record how they stand on an issue during its every iteration. And no one can hide behind the excuse/lie that they are in favor of an issue but it is currently 'in committee' where all too often a Bill is sent to stay so that members of Congress can avoid the issue altogether.

For the numerous minor Bills that they vote on, like naming a bridge after someone etc, the Bills title shall serve as the synopsis.
And if any member of Congress ever publicly states that a Bill 'must be voted on before anyone can see what is in it' they are to be hung by the neck until quite dead in the Washington Mall and the body removed only after birds have plucked the eyes from their skull.