The Pros And Cons Of Filibusters

Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia said they would join Republicans in support of the appellate court judge. "After doing my due diligence by meeting with Judge Gorsuch and reviewing his record and testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I've decided to vote in favor of his confirmation," Heitkamp said in a statement. Manchin said in his statement that "I will vote to confirm him to be the ninth justice on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court jurists should have an extensive career in law, a record of upholding the Constitution in their rulings, an established judicial philosophy, and an appropriate temperament. Throughout Judge Gorsuch's career, he has come to his legal rulings objectively, through the letter of the law rather than through his own opinion.” Under current Senate rules, Gorsuch would need to be confirmed with 60 votes, but the threat of filibuster during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing has led for Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham, to call on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the "nuclear option" that would allow Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority

“The filibuster has been used 1,300 times since 1917” and in the last “12 years [from 2010 to 1998]... the filibuster was used nearly 600 times!” This causes a massive slowdown in Congress making bills inefficient to pass. Each of these stands takes hours and hours so for using it that much is a waste of time. “There is no certain number of days that a bill has to become law, but it must be voted on in the same congressional session, or same year, that it is introduced. If it is not voted on during the session, it can be reintroduced the following year, when it must start its journey over again” and the “most popular stage for a bill to die [is] Committee of the chamber bill is introduced in”. These all point to the fact that people are abusing the right of using a filibuster to make rules they don’t like by delaying them. This realization is the start of the nuclear option, a bill that could make filibusters eliminated or almost completely limited from

There is an open seat in the supreme court. Since the death of justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, President Barack Obama has attempted to appoint judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy. However, the currently Republican U.S. Senate has refused to act on the nomination. This is not the first time the Senate has disagreed with the president's choice of nominee. The Senate confirms just around eighty percent of the president's nominations. There is a strong rationale behind this two-tiered appointment system. Seats in the Supreme Court are extremely important positions to hold; the Supreme Court has the role of interpreting the text of the Constitution and using that interpretation

The United States Constitution was drafted up to help America grow as a country and be a country where everyone wanted to live. It was written as a guidline to follow to ensure its citizens rights and liberties, and their pursuit to happiness. There is a lot of controversy over the US constitution on whether or not some of the things in there are good or bad or what not. I think that the United States Constitution was very well written and it follows a very principalistic guidline and it has its own moral and principals. Just like the unalienable rights that everyone talks about. These rights are meant to stand for its people. They cannot be taken away from the government, they cant be tampered with by the government or anything like

A “Young Guard” of politicians were emerged in Congress. More interested in purifying the Uion rather than patching it up

Shields of the filibuster alert against changing the framework, saying that the delay is a critical security of minority-gathering rights. They say the filibuster backtracks to the authors' desire to make a national government with deliberately built balanced governance and that increasing the procedure debilitates the very condition of American majority rules system. A few Republicans call the thought of demolishing the delay a Democratic power grab.

On the other hand, there are a lot of cons to filibusters too. It is true that having the power to filibuster helps ensure the voices of the minority but it can also mean that having the power to filibuster ensures the tyranny of the minority. Because the size of the senate is not based on the size of the population of each state, every state gets two senators. It is now possible according to Jean Edward Smith, “for the senators representing the 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states — a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population — to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans. (Smith, 2009). This is completely the opposite of what the framers wanted, they wanted the government to represent the people not a small portion of the people. This is very dangerous because now if ever the more populous states wants to pass a bill on an issue regarding their states population, the more sparse states

The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) eliminated filbusters for most executive branch nominations, a maneuver known as the “nuclear option,” which drew widespread criticism from Republicans.

This increasing use and value of the political weapon that is the veto, has allowed the president to become more involved in legislative matters, and has changed the presidential-congressional dynamic so that Congress is no longer the dominant force in government–as it was until the end of the nineteenth century. Tied to the ushering in of a new century was the presidential figure of Theodore Roosevelt, who began expanding the role of the presidency. The executive veto is one of the few powers of the presidency that is embedded in the constitution. One of america’s constitutional design is that it guarantees the president a place at the legislative bargaining table even when a majority of those around it are hostile to his aims. Using the

The blocking of legislation is nothing new to the Republican party. According to the article Why Washington’s Tied Up in Knots, Republicans have been blocking legislation since the late nineteen sixties, where they blocked a little less than ten percent of major legislation using the filibuster tactic. The filibuster was a rare thing to behold, on average only occurring once every ten years, until during Bill Clinton's term in which nearly fifty eight filibusters had been enacted by the Republican party. The number of filibusters has nearly doubled in just the past year alone, with a whopping one thirty eight filibusters (United States Senate), all instigated by the Republican party to block as many of President Barack Obama's initiatives as possible, including the delay and possible destruction of the all important health care bill.

The second issue is regarding the Senate’s power to get international treaties ratified or otherwise. As a dualist state, the treaties that are signed by the President can only become part of American law if the Senate by two-thirds majority agree to support it. In Congressional history, ratification has been used as a tool to ensure that the President does not get America into agreements that

In this instance, the measure or any other subject that is under the filibustering will not obtain chamber endorsement except if its opponents concede and permit the Senate to cast their vote on it. Even if the cloture is passed, conversely, a filibuster can considerably influence how, when, and whether the Senate accomplishes its legislative and executive operations. Due to this logic, filibusters and the panorama of filibusters controls more of the way in which the Senate performs its

Have you once heard that one candidate entered the race ,the election, without showing the people what he will do for them ? Of course not . Did you see one president of the United States refused congress decisions and veto them without taking the public opinion ? how can people oppose the president ? and how they change their minds about his work and performance ? all of this indicates that their is a magical tool used by the candidate to convince and persuade the people to support him and give him their votes and by the same tool the president express to the people his vision to alter or refuse the congress decisions and by the same logic people follow president actions to determine the way he/she is working to evaluate

The recent use of the filibuster compares to how it was used in the past in a different way, back then a person could talk for hours but in today's age senators take turns on the floor. In the future a filibuster could be used in order to protect the minority because there has been times the democrats use the filibuster to block legislation backed by the minority party. Although the use of the filibuster could promote public ridicule.