Comments on: To limit filibusters, invoke NFL challenge rule

By: Mike’s Blog Round Up | Political Analytical – Insight and Analysis on Politics and Reason

Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:48:00 +0000

[…] Occasional Planet: To Limit Filibusters, Invoke NFL Challenge Rule […]

By: Matthew G. Saroff

Matthew G. Saroff — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:37:00 +0000

There is a difference between the NFL and the Senate.

In the NFL, you are appealing a ruling of the Referees, and notwithstanding the chants of the crowd, referees are NOT the opposing team, which they are in the Senate.

Additionally, the filibuster is an individual right, not a collective right of the party, and this allows party leadership to pick and choose when filibusters are done.

If the party leadership does not choose, then all you need is a member of your party determined to act in bad faith *cough* Joe Lieberman *cough* to burn your supply on trivial stuff.

Additionally, the fact that a talking filibuster gums up ALL the business of the senate, including that road project in your home state, it makes it that more costly to execute.

By: Daniel Becker

Daniel Becker — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:40:00 +0000

I agree with Palli. They should have to talk. It would show whether they
really understand the issue or not. This requirement should be coupled with a limit. 10 should be more than enough. Having to talk and a limit would complete the NFL rule. They don’t loose a down, they have to talk on the subject (key is on the subject, no phone book reading). One other thing, no simply reading of the bill either. They have to talk about and upon the the subject.

By: Palli

Palli — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:16:00 +0000

To review and extend:

1.) Limiting the number is crucial. 386 filibusters? And invisible to the citizenry because they were without the “talking at the podium” requirement? Outrageous! (Just as contentious as the total number of Executive Orders under Cheney/Bush administration.)

2.) Insisting on talking- informed educational- filibusters is also crucial. Before C-span racist lawmakers could get by with reading the telephone book because how else do you educate about bigotry on the national stage? Republican filibusters have degenerated for the same reason: how do you explain (admit) to a TV audience you are just being ornery and contentious?

Bernie Sanders provided information during his long stint at the podium a while back. The late night Iraq Watch by House Democrats also served an informational service. Filibusters should advance the deliberative nature of the Senate. And they could do it,too.

A modern filibuster could be a constant stream of information to 1.) educate and engage & motivate the public to notify their Senators as well persuade colleagues with facts, logic and emotion; as well as, 2.) convince colleagues to deliberate, listen to their constituents, make an informed and vote on a bill.

(Could make or break some senatorial reputations too! But don’t let me get into the oratorial skills of some lawmakers.)