Every Democrat in the Senate except for Chris Dodd (who’s retiring) has signed a letter to Harry Reid urging him to consider changes to the filibuster rules. There’s also a move to elect committee chairs by secret vote instead of affirmation unless there’s an objection.
Reader Interactions
55Comments
Comments are closed.
kindness
So I hear President Obama is going to Hawaii for some time with family….
But Hawaii is so foreign! Where is Cokie Roberts when you need her?
Sasha
Personally, I’d rather keep the filibuster rules as-is for now. With the House in GOP hands, no point dealing with it now, and it gives more ammo for charges of Repub obstructionism in 2012.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Here’s what I predict: The Democrats will change the filibuster so that you have to show up on the floor and talk to make it happen, and they’ll leave it at something greater than 50. This will lead to a couple of productive years where the Senate produces more bills than the House.
Then the Republicans will eventually take over, though probably 2014, and then they’ll just abolish the whole thing.
Redshift
Awesome! I’m stunned that Mark Warner is actually leading on this (originating this particular letter with Carl Levin.) I was sure I was going to have to camp out in district offices from now until January 5 to get him (and Webb) to support something as bold as this.
Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)
digya see all those fags and dykes chanting “YES WE CAN” at the signing ceremony?
what a bunch of obots.
General Stuck
Filibuster reform at this stage, with a wingnut run House is kind of late to make much near term difference. Except maybe help the next wingnut president repeal the New Deal, or privatize it when they take over at some point. It won’t happen, because if dems do it, the wingnuts will object to everything, including the color of the drapes, and still bring the senate to a halt. Which doesn’t matter, because the House wingnuts may well burn it all down anyways. The only way it could possible work, is to have it post dated to take effect in 5 or 6 years when no one knows who will be running the senate, provided there still is one. Not to mention, a country.
Uloborus
Let’s say they pull this off…
…Nancy Smash left us HUNDREDS of bills that the Senate hasn’t touched. Good legislation. We still own the Senate AND the presidency. Screw the House. Exactly how much hay could we make just passing all those sweet Nancy leftovers? Can that be done? What good stuff is in that pot?
TooManyJens
@Sasha: I dissent. (Just kidding, Tom Levenson.)
I disagree. I’d rather take care of it now while we have the momentum to do so.
wengler
I guess this is called the “Mr. Smith” option. Seeing geriatric GOP members exhaust themselves defending the lucre of their bankster sponsors might be incredibly entertaining.
This might not be as good as it looks for passing legislation, but it probably will clear out a lot of the backlog of appointment confirmations. I suppose we will have to wait for Republicans to take power to get rid of the whole thing.
trollhattan
@Sasha:
It’s a risky move with the increasing liklihood of the Reps taking the Senate in ’12. But it’s worth asking whether the Dems would ever circle their wagons and replicate what the Reps have been doing in lockstep the last four years. I’m leaning towards no, on that.
Scott de B.
Nothing. All those House bills become dead once the new Congress is sworn in.
freelancer
@Uloborus:
If I recall correctly, those bills will expire and needed to be passed the House (check) and the Senate (nope) in the same Congress. With a new Congress, new legislation must be brought up and voted on. This is just what I’ve been told, I could be way off.
catclub
@Uloborus:
Confirming judges makes it worth doing.
I still do not believe, and would be glad to see,
Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb
and Claire McCaskill, stay together and vote for something that the DFH’s think is a good idea.
Lieberman is already no way, as far as I can tell.
Also, the filibuster favors those who oppose popular legislation.
No filibuster is really needed to oppose SS privatization.
The filibuster favors the status quo, and is yet another unnecessary hurdle ( the senate itself is an even bigger one) placed in the way of change.
Omnes Omnibus
@Uloborus:Unfortunately, all those bill passed by the House but not the Senate expire at the end of this Congress.
Redshift
OT: I keep getting the ad for D’Souza’s book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” in the sidebar. And my first thought is: No need for a whole book to explain that — it’s assholes like you, Dinesh!
jimBOB
@Uloborus:
All that stuff dies at the end of the session. The new improved Senate™ of 2011 won’t be able to pass things to the President unless they’ve already made it through Boehnerville.
I think once the filibuster goes, it won’t be reinstated. Even if the GOP wins the Senate outright in 2012 (FSM help us), they won’t want it back, as it would just empower the Dems to do what the GOP did this last session. And if they don’t win the Senate back in 2012, they won’t be in a position to reinstate it.
Uloborus
Everybody:
I haz a sad. My pony is not in the mail after all.
As for the filibuster, I read the proposal and I like it. It doesn’t REMOVE the filibuster. It just makes you actually filibuster instead of being able to wave a wand and demand 60 votes.
I didn’t see if it said anything about confirmations. Those would be nice – that’s been some of the GOP’s prime asshole moves. Obama’s working with a skeleton staff thanks to their shenanigans, and those people are important.
Lolis
@Sasha:
Plus we need to plan for the worst and assume Obama may lose in 2012 and Repubs may control the House and the Senate. They could repeal health care reform. We need to say no to filibuster reform. Hell no, actually.
Btw, I don’t think Obama will lose but Dems too often avoid planning for the worst case scenarios.
Sasha
@Redshift:
[snerk] Good one.
Uloborus
@Lolis:
The problem is, if you leave us a loophole where we can stop the Republicans from gaining any ground we leave them a loophole where they can stop us from gaining any ground – and the government grinds to a halt.
I personally think some kind of filibuster should be left in, as this proposal proposes, but can we afford to let things go on the way they have? The current rules were based on the idea that everybody in the Senate are friends and will be polite and work together in good faith.
Maude
@Redshift:
Roots!
Gee, what does he mean by that?
...now I try to be amused
I read the linked article. Filibuster reform != abolishing the filibuster. It only means the minority will have to be present for the duration.
Also, abolishing secret holds is a great idea. Together they make the obstructing minority stand up and be counted.
Face
What bills, written by the new TeaTard House, are the Senate now jonesin’ to pass? Methinks this filly reform is 2 years too late.
Zifnab
@Lolis:
If the Republicans retake the Presidency AND both Houses of Congress, we are well and truly dicked. The filibuster didn’t save us between ’02 and ’05. And Democrats have been historically much more willing to bargain – hell, they’re the ones who push legislation half the time in the first place. We passed the Clear Skies and Healthy Forests and No Child Left Behind under Bush, and those were (originally) crafted and delivered by Democrats.
In the long term, abolishing the filibuster will benefit progressives. In the short term, the Republicans haven’t much given a shit for rule of law.
The Moar You Know
The creator of the Gatling gun thought that his invention would make war obsolete.
Hiram Maxim thought his invention would make human conflict unimaginable.
There were plenty of people who thought that the atom bomb would enforce peace upon mankind forevermore.
And there are those who think that “filibuster reform” will stop GOP obstructionism in its tracks.
jimBOB
It only means the minority will have to be present for the duration.
This is functionally the same as abolishing the filibuster, at least in its modern incarnation. Bringing back the older notion of the filibuster means the minority can only require a supermajority by working at it, and they won’t be able to routinely pull it off on every bill. Further, if they do try it, the optics of filibustering something popular are terrible.
There’s a reason filibusters became far more common in recent years – they were easy and cost-free to pull off. Take that away and you will see many fewer filibusters.
If the Dems want to do this, they’d better be prepared for massive obstruction by way of denial of unanimous consent. They’ll need to fix that too, or the filibuster part won’t mean much. I should think that they realize this.
Mary G
@…now I try to be amused: I agree, I think the secret holds are as bad as the filibuster. If they block something, it should be required to be publicized as to who is doing it and they should have to explain why.
Nellcote
Sen. Harry Reid gives Lt. Dan Choi his ring back.
http://twitpic.com/3igbom
Apathy
I think the filibuster long term just allows us to actually have a government again. It is one thing to temper and slow things down but the filibuster as currently used has become a brick wall.
jimBOB
The filibuster didn’t save us between ‘02 and ‘05.
Exactly right. The filibuster is a natural GOP tool, not a natural Dem one. Getting rid of it is a big long-term win for progressives, no matter what happens with control of the Senate near term.
PeakVT
I still think the filibuster and associated rules should be abolished completely. The idea of unlimited debate is great if most Senators are willing to act like statesmen. But they aren’t, and with the Republicans voting in lockstep most of the time, it’s hard to contend that there’s much serious debate taking place on the floor.
TooManyJens
@Nellcote: Thanks for posting that. It made me tear up.
Uloborus
@The Moar You Know:
I’m sorry, but the only possible way that what you just said applies to this situation is if you’re claiming that we might as well not do anything because we can never predict the outcomes.
This isn’t a panacaea, and it’s not being pushed by people who think it is. We have a problem – the Republicans misused Senate procedures these last two years to obstruct legislation in a way they were never intended to be able to, in defiance of the *actual* mandate of the people’s will. Changes to those rules to make them less exploitable are being recommended. That is how problem solving works. Yes, things may happen we haven’t anticipated, but as you may notice in the thread there’s some discussion of what possible side effects might be, and there’s a Hell of a lot more going on in the capitol.
General Stuck
I’m sorry, but yes it did. On a number of big issues. Without the certain use of the filibuster by dems, SS would likely be partially privatized by now, with the rest to be privatized later. The Bush tax cuts would have been made permanent with no opportunity to let the expire. There would be drilling in Anwr, and a whole host of other horrors to deal with, besides the ones that got thru. Always with a little help from a handful of sorry democrats. Recent history only tells one side of that story.
Observer
@General Stuck:
That’s not true. The tax cuts passed via reconciliation and the reason for the 10 years expiry was “stupid budget tricks”.
You don’t know that and that’s just hypothesizing.
What we do know is that in every other Western Democrocacy they don’t have anything close to the current Senate filibuster. We know what Republicans stand for.
Do Democrats stand for anything?
numbskull
@General Stuck: But on balance, I think filibuster reform would be a good thing, and certainly getting rid of anonymous holds would be a very good thing.
It seems to me that reformed filibuster could still be used, and used correctly, to prevent those exact types of over-reach that you point out — SS privatization, ANWR drilling, permanent tax cuts, etc.
Agree? If not, what am I missing?
General Stuck
@Observer:
Why do you think they used reconciliation in the first place for those tax cuts? Rather than regular order. It was because dem threatened/and or conducted filibusters that forced the wingnuts to do it with reconciliation and deal with the Byrd Rule, that sunsetted them in ten years. And then the cuts only passed by 51 or 52 votes with one or three dems joining the wingers.
You’ve got to be kidding, though it would not be certain because there might have been enough sane wingers in the senate at that time to block. But they sure as shit would have tried, and made it close. And now we have near pure grade wingnuts taking office and in the senate. Do you really think they would hesitate to dismantle and privatize the New Dear in toto, the New Deal these people hate with the passion of a thousand suns, not to mention repeal every federal environmental law ever passed, and let the states go back to regulating. That must be some good shit you are smoking.
Maude
@PeakVT:
If there is a strong move to pass a law that would truly cause harm to a lot of people and the Repubs had the majority, the fil is the way the Dems could slow it down.
A reform is okay, but I don’t want to see a Senate majority run away with the country.
Karmakin
@numbskull: Agreed, and as a side effect the actual physical filibuster would result in more public awareness of the actual issues. If you believe that you’re on the right side of things, it’s a good thing.
That said, I fully expect that if the R’s regain control they’ll dump the whole thing. But still, the ideas themselves are very solid and are probably better for a progressive future than just dumping the whole thing.
lol
@General Stuck:
Social Security privatization couldn’t even get a majority.
In some ways, I think it would’ve been better if the tax cuts would have been permanent because it would’ve meant that we could’ve raised upper-income taxes without the middle-class ones being held hostage.
Sure, some other things might have passed but the vast majority of the worst pieces of the Bush administration passed because Democrats actually supported that crap. (see: Patriot Act, Iraq War, NCLB, etc)
And it would’ve been a small price to pay for being able to pass better bills with “only” majority support.
Democrats need to stop being scared of what might happen and focus on what they can make happen.
Malron
Now this is my progressive hill to die on.
General Stuck
@numbskull:
I just don’t see any reform of the fili that merely delays the minorities long standing ability to block legislation using the filibuster. The country has been through this all before, and the filibuster, or cloture rule was enacted to solve an unhappy minority slowing senate business down to a halt, when they didn’t have the opportunity to block completely a bill they hated deeply. The founders created the senate to function under what is called “unanimous consent”, which in essence means nothing happens unless everyone agrees, at least relating to procedure. So you get rid of the cloture rule, and the minority still has the power to shut down senate business. It is a body built on creating comity and slowing down the majoritarian passions of the House, to make change slow, but make for a stable country. The problem isn’t the filibuster, or cloture rule, it is much deeper ideological, and social, and even racial now with a black dem president. The wingnuts are grossly abusing this minority right in a very bad faith way, and the press is not calling them on it, and the voters are not punishing them for their misdeeds. That is the problem, and I swear, I don’t know how it will be solved.
Observer
@General Stuck:
You are correct on this. My mistake.
Look they’re always going to try. So what? Isn’t this a democracy?
At some point “Democrats”, including you, have to tell people what it is that you are willing to take a stand on.
We know Dems don’t stand for much. I don’t think I’ve heard an elected Democrat mention the word “principle” in the same sentence as “won’t compromise” in at least a generation.
So perhaps standing for “democracy” and ending the current filibuster rules would be a small start.
General Stuck
@Observer:
Here is likely how it would play out. Harry Reid would propose a change to rule 22 of The Standing Rules of the Senate via simple majority vote, that are standing for a reason, from one congress to the next. Justified by the court litigated idea that because there are only 33 senators up for election at a time, technically, the Senate is never out of session completely, since there is always a quorum of 67 senators still in office during transitions between elections and congresses.
Or, it has long been the operating rule, that these standing rules not be up for a simple majority vote every congress. Meaning Rule 22 would either need unanimous consent of the minority, or a super majority vote, of say 67 votes. Since the wingers would agree to neither, and dems won’t have those kind of vote totals, it will have to be done over the objection of the parliamentarian as a breach of recognized Senate Rules, which the constitution gives the senate plenary power to make it’s own rules, including the one to change the rules. So the president of the senate, which is currently VP Biden, would then have to over rule the umpire, in effect, or parliamentarian, and declare rule 22 unconstitutional. All by his lonesome.
Dems could do it, but the wingers would rightfully call foul of breaking the rules to change a rule. And how do you think Ma and Pa Kettle out in the hinterlands would view such a move. It is what repubs were going to do for judges, but that is way different than enacting legislation. And to do it now, with a GOP House would serve no purpose, because that will be the goopers filibuster. The House of Reps./
Just Some Fuckhead
Filibuster reform was enacted successfully in 1975 to circumvent an effective obstruction campaign by Republicans to the Ford administration’s agenda.
The filibuster will continue to be reformed to thwart the extra-constitutional efforts of a Republican minority that does not believe in democracy insofar as it runs contrary to their extreme agenda. Yes, it may help them pass otherwise reprehensible legislation when they are in the majority BUT THIS IS DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
At some point, we have to be willing to allow people to experience the full trauma of their political allegiances, ourselves even, so that we can solve systemic issues when we are in the majority.
Observer
@General Stuck:
Feh. That’s all inside baseball stuff no one cares about.
But if that’s how it goes down then the Dem should say something like “In a democracy, majority rules. The Republicans don’t like democracy because they know that they can get 40 senators representing only 22% of the populcation to be able to have an effective veto and obstruct the will of the people”.
The “standing up for democracy” thing is more than a one time shot. I’m just saying it would be a start.
And I repeat: we know the Dems don’t stand for anything. It’s been a long time. At some point, the people take notice. Quite a few already have and it doesn’t bode well.
burnspbesq
@Uloborus:
“I haz a sad. My pony is not in the mail after all.”
Ponies are on back order. Can I interest you in a slightly used unicorn?
General Stuck
@Observer:
LOL, catchy. And when the wingnuts take back over you all will be worshiping at the alter of thank gawd for the filibuster cloture rule. Or, that dumbass Obama and Reid. Looky what they did getting rid of the filibuster and now we iz doomed.
edit – and without some real minority rights in a democracy, all you have is a bigger mob than the other mobs.
Observer
No I won’t and neither should you.
In the long run, any idea without any adherents will die.
I’m not afraid of democracy and it’s a stretch to characterize it as mob rule when you’re talking about 300M people.
If the Dems don’t care about Social Security and want to let it die, then it’s going to die, minority protection rules or not. Just remember which party cut SS worker contributions funding by 1/3 even while claiming that to have saved the programme a scant 5 years earlier.
These people are not your grandfather’s Democratics.
(and we’ll have to take this up in some other thread at some other time. I’m out of commission for the next few days. I will read your final comment at some point though).
General Stuck
@Observer:
I was sugar coating it. More like never ending internecine warfare. I’m not against that, just wish I was twenty years younger.
NobodySpecial
Look, Stuck is a self described troll, so it’s no surprise that he’s running with an unpopular opinion to yank chains.
PeakVT
@Maude: Sure, that could be true in the near future. But in the last 60 years the filibuster has been used primarily to block good legislation. That’s because it tips the Senate in favor of conservatives by making it much harder to do something (pass legislation) than to do nothing. I see no reason for the left to make passing legislation harder than it already is by keeping the filibuster.
Another thing: if the filibuster is such a great idea, why is nobody pushing to get the House to adopt it?
Tractarian
This is amazing. Now is the time when Senate Democrats choose to push for filibuster reform? When a Republican House is about to get sworn in?
Do they realize that you can eliminate the filibuster entirely, by fiat, and it still wouldn’t help matters because the GOP-run House will block anything passed by the Senate?
Also too, Dems have a lot of vulnerable Senate seats to defend in 2012. It’s likely that, no matter how Obama does in 2012, the GOP will re-take the Senate.
And once they get 51 votes in the Senate, 218 in the House, and the White House, you can say goodbye to your precious Social Security.
AAA Bonds
Owns.
bob h
Why not amend the rules so that blockage of judicial and executive branch appointments requires a real, on the floor filibuster? No legislation is going to be moving for two years because of the troglodyte House.