I'll admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as much as most(?) of the guys who post stuff here about politics, so this is more of a question I'm actually looking for an answer to more than me trying to make a point.  With the news about this recent filibuster, it leads to my question - Why is a filibuster ok? On the surface, it appears childish - a particular person thinks a vote will go against his views, so he's trying to stop the vote. Isn't this counterproductive, and the exact opposite of what Congress is actually supposed to do with their time? I'm confused why America accepts this as an OK practice.

I'll await your attacks on me.

SENATE WAS DESIGNED TO SLOW DOWN, QUICK SPUR-OF-THE MOMENT REACTIONS OF THE HOUSE TO ISSUES, CRISES, ETC

I haven't looked up any recent info on this or on possible changes recently, but here is basic info off the top of my head:

It is only okay to do in the senate as the house doesn't have bylaws supporting it. In the senate you can speak as long as you want until you agree to yield the floor. Normally business goes about as usual, but if you want, you can refuse to yield the floor as long as you keep talking. You don't even have to talk about the subject at hand and could literally talk about anything, though most of the time it does go fairly on topic especially with a modern filibuster because they are all aware its on TV and being reviewed in social media.

Filibusters do not achieve a great goal other than drawing attention to themselves, the people involved, and the issues at hand UNLESS there is a lame duck senate close to the end of its term. If, say, there are two days left to the end of a term and a senator wants to prevent the current congress from voting on a particular issue (perhaps because he believes the new senate would vote differently and in his favor), he could filibuster for the entire time period until the new senators were set to be sworn in, thereby preventing a vote from the existing senators and putting the issue into the hands of the new group. This is basically the only strategic move to a filibuster that has a real chance of working.

Again, this info may be a bit dated, and someone else might have better info because I haven't gone over this since grad school.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/7/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):
I'll admit that I'm not as knowledgeable as much as most(?) of the guys who post stuff here about politics, so this is more of a question I'm actually looking for an answer to more than me trying to make a point.  With the news about this recent filibuster, it leads to my question - Why is a filibuster ok? On the surface, it appears childish - a particular person thinks a vote will go against his views, so he's trying to stop the vote. Isn't this counterproductive, and the exact opposite of what Congress is actually supposed to do with their time? I'm confused why America accepts this as an OK practice.

I'll await your attacks on me.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster. Requiring a super-majority in senate is stupid, regardless of the party in power or if I agree with the topic (I did agree with a lot of what Paul said yesterday regarding drones).

Posted by antoncresten on 3/7/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
SENATE WAS DESIGNED TO SLOW DOWN, QUICK SPUR-OF-THE MOMENT REACTIONS OF THE HOUSE TO ISSUES, CRISES, ETC

If that's how it was designed, great.  But when it's time to vote, and we don't have anything else to say, then do your jobs and vote.  Am I wrong?

The Dems had a chance to change the fillibuster rules and declined.

For the most part it is harmless. Just a way to make sure that a thin majority isnt getting too powerful by pushing through bills that are completly one sided over and over.

Like unmaned drones there is a potential for abuse.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/7/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
The Dems had a chance to change the fillibuster rules and declined.

For the most part it is harmless. Just a way to make sure that a thin majority isnt getting too powerful by pushing through bills that are completly one sided over and over.

Like unmaned drones there is a potential for abuse.

Potential for abuse? You mean like the minority constantly holding up votes to a point where even minor confirmations are a huge waste of time?

The filibuster is stupid and should be changed. The dems were dumb for not taking care of it.

I'd be curious to see what swamp would feel with a republican majority in the Senate.

And what BL said.  Shouldn't be wasting time.  

Paul wanted an answer to a question prior to the vote.  One was not provided.

That said, biggest waste of time since the Congressional hearings on steroids. 

Yesterday was an embarrassment to America.

I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile.  That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed.  Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago.  I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.

Rand's filibuster did what he wanted it to do - it got people talking about the issue of drones and seeking answers to questions about them. It was political grandstanding and it worked, or else we wouldn't even be discussing it here and now.

Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile.  That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed.  Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago.  I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.

That's fair, actually.  You believe in a particular issue so much, and this is a way to gain attention for it.  

The issue on what he was talking about isn't my point, though.  The filibuster itself is a waste of time.  If the filibuster was illegal, I'm confident Rand would have found another way to draw attention to the issue.

I agree burnsy Rand would have drawn attention to the issue no matter what.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/7/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile.  That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed.  Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago.  I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.

That's fair, actually.  You believe in a particular issue so much, and this is a way to gain attention for it.  

The issue on what he was talking about isn't my point, though.  The filibuster itself is a waste of time.  If the filibuster was illegal, I'm confident Rand would have found another way to draw attention to the issue.

Fair, maybe.

But, in today's media-driven world, getting attention to a cause isn't difficult.    I'm sure there was another way.   But it was effective.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/7/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/7/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile.  That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed.  Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago.  I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.

That's fair, actually.  You believe in a particular issue so much, and this is a way to gain attention for it.  

The issue on what he was talking about isn't my point, though.  The filibuster itself is a waste of time.  If the filibuster was illegal, I'm confident Rand would have found another way to draw attention to the issue.

Fair, maybe.

But, in today's media-driven world, getting attention to a cause isn't difficult.    I'm sure there was another way.   But it was effective.

I hear what you're saying, but I think today's media-driven world makes us numb to a lot of what we hear/read/see.  We're getting different information on different topics via a crapload of different television stations, radio stations, news websites, Twitter, Facebook, etc.  And just about none of it is without an agenda.  A couple of times I've dismissed a story initially, then later pulled an "Oh, **** - that was true."  He ground government to a halt (symbolically), and that made a ton of different people with different agendas want to know why.  He could have held a press conference, but that's not making the top half of any non-Libertarian news website.  I doubt it would have appeared anywhere on my local 6:00 television news.  Short of standing at the gates of the white house naked with an RPG, it would have been difficult to get the spotlight where he got it by way of the fillibuster.

That said, I think the fillibuster rule itself is ridiculous.