Republicans are apparently planning to nuke the filibuster in order to repeal Obamacare:
Health care presents a different story. Conservatives continue to rage against Obamacare, and their capacity to oppose it, unlike their capacity to prevent same-sex marriage, has not fully expired. The strategy of attempting to destroy Obamacare through far-fetched lawsuits has run its course, but Republicans can still have normal political methods at their disposal should they regain power. They have come to focus their energies on the remaining path to obtain this goal, which runs through the final destruction of the Senate filibuster.
If Republicans win the presidential election, their party will control the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. What would stop large chunks of their agenda cold is the Senate filibuster. When the Democratic Party won the trifecta in 2009, they allowed the Senate minority to use the filibuster to impose a 60-vote requirement on all major legislation. The filibuster did not stop Democrats from enacting an aggressive agenda during the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, since they were at or near the 60 vote threshold throughout the term, but it did slow their legislative roll.
The filibuster severely hampered Republican ambitions. The party is five seats short of a filibuster-proof super-majority right now, and next year’s Senate elections — held on disproportionately blue-leaning turf — will probably shrink their majority even more. If they want to fulfill their goals, they will have to eliminate the filibuster. That is probably what they’ll do.
Conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt is preparing for this possibility by putting candidates on the record regarding their willingness to end the filibuster. Jeb Bush — in keeping with his plan to run his primary campaign like it’s a general election — at first deflected the question, insisting his focus was on developing the long-awaited Republican health-care-reform plan. But when pressed by Hewitt, he conceded, “I would certainly consider that.” Scott Walker — in keeping with his plan to run a primary campaign as though he were sitting atop a throne of his enemies’ skulls — eagerly volunteered, “Yes. Absolutely.” As the Republican primary goes on, conservative activists are likely to extract promises along these lines from all the major candidates.
But don’t worry- I’m sure they will have a replacement in the works. What the hell is wrong with the Chamber of Commerce that they keep funding these lunatics?
Percysowner
I’m actually surprised they waited this long. I knew that the Republicans would blow up the filibuster eventually, when it suited their convenience. I’m not sure it’s a horrible thing, mind you. Especially since they have used it to be so obstructionist. I hope they live to regret this.
Bill
Some pretty big assumptions in there about – you know – winning the presidency and retaining the senate.
Sherparick
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and at least 1/2 of U.S. CEOs are effectively lunatics. Scott Walker is the President of the Wet Dreams.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Like a Presidential candidate’s opinions count for dick-all in changing Senate procedure.
Davis X. Machina
The footsoldiers of the revolution routinely vote against their economic self interest — religion and race speak louder than pocketbooks
Chamber-of-commerce types aren’t strict homines oeconomici, either — class solidarity is more important than the bottom line — all those CEO’s and COO’s travel in the same circles, send their kids to the same colleges, summer in te same places, and can’t be seen to be selling out their class
bobbo
Firebaggers will celebrate the heightening of the contradictions. Also too Ralph Nader
Chris
The Chamber of Commerce isn’t “funding” the lunatics. The Chamber of Commerce IS the lunatics.
Cacti
So be it.
The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure, not an Article I enumerated power of the Senate.
nihil obstet
Requiring a supermajority for legislation in a democracy is corrupt. The Senate should have adopted reasonable rules about debate a long time ago. When they decided that debate was just a waste of time, the fig leaf of any justification whatsoever dropped. Democrats should have gotten rid of the filibuster immediately in 2010.
someguy
Oh, so now we’re against nuking the filibuster? Cool. Thanks for the tip.
We’ve always been at war with Anti-Fillibusteriana…
Downpuppy
Of course President Walker would kill Obamacare. Also Medicare, the Minimum Wage, any remaining right to collectively bargain, Workmens comp, consumer protections and basically everything related to work, health or safety passed since 1890.
The rest of them would too. Doesn’t anyone in the Village care about this stuff? he asked pointlessly.
Chris
@Davis X. Machina:
Yeah, this. I don’t know why the rich and powerful behaving irrationally would be so surprising; history is full of ruling elites that were so inept and blind that they ultimately found their way to the guillotine or the firing squad.
One of the differences between conservatives and liberals is that we generally don’t believe that the rich got where they are by being smarter than the rest of us, just luckier and/or better born. Well… there you go.
Sherparick
And not just Obamacare. They and the Koch brothers have a little list: Social Security, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts, e.g. about every law passed since 1861.
germy shoemangler
@Sherparick: And they’re not too happy about the post office.
ShadeTail
Getting rid of the Senate filibuster? Puh-leeeeeeeeeze don’t throw me into that briar patch. Because, after all, it’s not like the wheel ever turns.
AnonPhenom
That is one sloppy article.
Between Franken’s delayed start, Kennedy’s illness and Brown winning his Senate seat, it was a few months less that 2 years that they had a 60 seat majority. About 20 months less.
Oh, and the three guys holding “kill the bill” …. not likely to be Obamacare “supporters”.
Alex S.
This bluff should be called… the procedural filibuster should go. If they want to take away the health care of then maybe 10 million people…
rikyrah
I wouldn’t put it past them….ever.
SFAW
@AnonPhenom:
Oh, come on. The writer said “at or near,” so that’s the exact same thing as reeble-deeble-argle-bargle.
Next we’ll be hearing about how many of Obama’s judicial nominees were confirmed by the Republicans, more than were confirmed during W’s third term plus HW’s second term combined.
A dain-bramaged eft writes better than some of these morans.
jl
Seems to me the GOP is far along in process of going totally insane, to the point of doing foolish things.
So, they continue to try to destroy ACA by any means necessary. How now? By highest risk strategy they can think of, both high risk to themselves and others. No filibuster, but with Obama veto, and no veto proof majority, all they can do is squeeze the budget funding side of ACA, and push them through with the new GOP filibuster rules (aka NEW owned 100 percent by GOP Senate rules).
So, high profile Obama vetoes of GOP passed legislation destroying ACA and he denounces GOP defunding. Senate Democrats denounce GOP defunding every time they get on TV and howl on the Senate floor as GOP pushes what they want with their NEW GOP rules on partisan votes.
Support for ACA growing, and evidence that plurality of those still opposed sure do like the benefits and wonder what would replace ACA that would keep them as well off.
Will GOP produce a real replacement plan if they go ahead with this.
Seems like GOP is planning for a train wreck, hoping it will benefit them politically. They sure about that? They feeling lucky, punk?
Keith P.
By all means, get as many GOP leaders as possible on record as being in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. Please proceed.
fuckwit
@AnonPhenom: THIS! The Democrats had a Senate supermajority for like a couple months, tops, and they had one shot at passing anything big during that window and they (wisely) picked Obamacare. Lest anyone forget: that’s the reason why the bill was so sloppily drafted and had so many errors like the one that prompted last week’s SCOTUS case: the bad drafting was done in reconciliation because there was no time to kick it back to the full Senate for a vote before the shit hit the fan, so Pelosi had to pull some procedural magic to keep it from ever going back there to die. Kennedy died before the he could vote on the final bill. The Rethugs dragged out the Franken recount as long as possible to keep him from being seated.
No matter what D’s do, the R policy is: “heads I win, tails you lose”.
The only solution to this is a complete sweeping Democratic wave election of the House and Senate and statehouses and governors, and a supermajority that stays in place for a generation. One that is filibuster-proof, gerrymandering-proof, and voter-suppression-proof. That’s really the only hope for actually fixing the problems. In other words, it’ll take a movement to fix this.
That may seem unrealistically optomistic, but California eventually got there; my most heartfelt wish is that the rest of the country follows.
fuckwit
@Chris: Ultimately I think that might be the most concise description of the conservative mindset: attribution bias. They were born on third base and thought they hit a triple. (Or, in the case of their poorer followers, were born on first base and thought they hit a single).
LWA
Between this, and the get-the-gummint-out-of-marriage and the Tx. AG standing at the courthouse door to block gay folks from getting married, they seem like dead enders, unable to see beyond this move to the next.
Aside from inspiring the writers at RedState and callers to AM radio, how do they see this playing out?
Maybe passion is their only card left- they can’t widen their base, so they can only deepen it, and make up in fury what they lack in numbers.
Maybe they watched 300 for more than just the sight of sweaty muscled men.
trollhattan
People still talk to Hugh Hewitt? This Hugh Hewitt?
trollhattan
@fuckwit:
Poor Republicans are still in the batter’s box, without a bat and first base is also missing because rich Republicans stole them. The pitcher, a rich guy in blackface, is throwing fastballs high and inside. Just as Lee Atwater envisioned.
RaflW
And yet none of the Broderists will dare call out the GOP on this. Or they will somehow make up a fully fabricated reason why Dems are ruining bipartisanship.
Anonymous At Work
I don’t see any sources or citations or evidence in Chait’s article at all. Supposition at this point, is all. I think the math of next two Senate elections favor Democrats enough that the GOP won’t go for it
catclub
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Vice President LBJ found out that he had zero influence in the senate he had run previously.
catclub
@fuckwit:
Al Franken was seated July 7, 2009. He made the count 60. (includes Lieberman and Sanders, also Landrieu, Webb, Blanche Lincoln, Baucus, and other liberal stalwarts)
Ted Kennedy died Aug 25, 2009.
That was how long they had 60 votes. How much of that was summer recess?
jl
@Anonymous At Work: Thanks. I skimmed article and didn’t pay attention to how well sourced.
I hope the piece is BS, since even if this approach seems a very high risk very probable loser for GOP, I hope they do not do it.
The strategy of ‘let’s make a train wreck and hope we benefit’ strategy is bad, especially given how many innocent people will get hurt in the train wreck.
Valdivia
Not that this matters or anything but isn’t the filibuster a Senate issue, and up to the Senate to destroy or not and not really up the President?
@Grumpy Code Monkey: or what you already said.
Germy Shoemangler
@catclub:
I learn something new here every day … I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve been told “The democrats had TWO YEARS! TWO YEARS!”
And I’d be at a loss for a reply. I need a balloon-juice app on my phone; something to provide instant logical info for those who are misinformed at the top of their voices.
Downpuppy
@catclub: I think they were back to 60 from the appointment of Paul Kirk until the election of Brown, about another 4 months, but there may have been something else that happened.
Roger Moore
@LWA:
That seems unlikely.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Proving once and for all that they have no business being in or running any branch of government. What an utter catastrophe that decision was. What opportunities were lost for generations in the name of a “civility” which only the Democratic party adheres to?
Yeah, they’re better than Republicans, although the GOPers seem to be the only ones who understand that politics must be played to win. But damn, I read shit like this and my blood pressure spikes so hard I think I’m going to stroke out. There are not words for what a bad decision that was.
catclub
@Downpuppy: Yes, you are right.
Kirk was there Sep 24 to Feb 4, 2010.
CaffinatedOne
@Percysowner: Bellowing about killing the ACA is useful to get the “rubes” worked up, but it’s not really that big of an issue for their owners and the optics would be, um, bad for republicans if they actually managed to do it.
More importantly, the filibuster is much more useful to republicans than a tactical win in killing the ACA. They’re generally more interested in making government not work, or at least prevent Democrats from effectively ruling than actually passing legislation.
Finally, if they kill the filibuster and, say, we get a new Democratic president and Senate (which isn’t unlikely), I guess that we’d have a pretty free hand to appoint Supreme Court justices should the need arise. I can’t imagine the thought of that being on the forefront of their minds on the subject.
gene108
@catclub:
People forget that part of the 60 vote number came from Arlen Specter switching parties in the Spring of 2009.
That’s how tenuous the Democratic super-majority was.
Edit: I think one of the great unknowables regarding Obamacare is what it would have looked like, if the principle would-be architect of it in the Senate, Ted Kennedy, had not gotten brain cancer. He was out of it for most of the drafting of the bill, which got put on Baucus, who was not ready for it.
Barry
@Chris: “Yeah, this. I don’t know why the rich and powerful behaving irrationally would be so surprising; history is full of ruling elites that were so inept and blind that they ultimately found their way to the guillotine or the firing squad.”
We’ve already seen that in the end these guys are just higher-functioning thieves and psychopaths.
Barry
@Alex S.: “If they want to take away the health care of then maybe 10 million people…”
‘They’d never push the button’.
We’re dealing with people who’ve gotten a massive amount by sinking lower, and lower, and being more evil and destructive.
And the establishment is really geared towards them. Note the press coverage of Obama vs. Bush. Note how the motherf*cking Tea Party swine could suddenly be shocked! shocked! at government precisely when they lost an election.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Valdivia:
I swear, 80% of these knuckleheads were passing notes or huffing glue during their high school civics classes (they can’t all have been home-schooled). This is basic shit.
Sure, any Presidential candidate would be happy if their party won the majority in the Senate and nuked the filibuster. I’m sure Bernie (yeah, I’m going there) would love to have a Dem majority in the Senate that could finally get some work done. But that’s the extent of any Presidential candidate’s influence on the debate.
Me, I’d rather the Senate not do away with the filibuster completely, but change the rules so that it can’t completely jam up the works. Go back to having to hold the floor. Make the opposing party work for it.
Hal
How many people will have health insurance by Jan-feb 2017? That’s a lot of to ruin. But oh well. As long as the tyranny of not being debt ridden by medical bills is eliminating.
TriassicSands
I think the answer to that is pretty simple — the Chamber of Commerce is made up of people who are just as stupid and crazy as the lunatics they fund. So, why wouldn’t they fund them?
Linnaeus
Possibly the only useful thing the Republicans plan to do.
TriassicSands
@gene108:
I’m not sure I’d say Baucus wasn’t ready for it; it’s just that he was a conservative Democrat from Montana who was likely to favor a bill that helped the for-profit insurance companies. There were only about 5-7 Democratic senators who were more conservative than Baucus (and those were quite conservative), so it seems unrealistic to expect that he would fashion a progressive health care bill. As Peter Dreier (a political science professor) wrote in the Huffington Post:
Matt McIrvin
They should do it now. Go ahead, get rid of the filibuster.
It shouldn’t exist. If you have a majority in the House and Senate and the Presidency, you should be able to pass laws. The remedy if you cause a disaster is for you to get voted out.
They, and failing that we, should make it absolutely, positively clear that if they win big in 2016, everyone now currently getting insurance thanks to Obamacare will lose their insurance. This is what politics is for, driving policy by voting.
joel hanes
@Germy Shoemangler:
The democrats had TWO YEARS!
but were handicapped by Joe [spit] Lieberman (I, himself)
and Ben [special] Nelson (D, ghost-of-Reagan).
Lurking Canadian
I have a procedural question. We know the Republicans don’t care about playing fair, or turnabout being fair play or any of that.
Is it possible for them to shut off the filibuster while they are in power, then turn it back on I’d they get voted out? Like, tomorrow, they pass a rule that there’s no more cloture votes. Then in late November 2016, after the Ds have won enough seats to be the next majority, but before the incoming senators are seated, pass a rule re instituting cloture?
jl
@Lurking Canadian: My understanding is that majority party elected to power in each Chamber makes rules at beginning of each 2 year Congress, and by majority vote. No way to bind future Congresses with current rules.
Anyone know better, please correct me.
Omnes Omnibus
@jl: It’s been awhile since I took those classes, but that comports with my memory.
dww44
@Davis X. Machina: Exactly right. Was expecting one of your tongue-in-cheek ripostes and instead got this on the money analysis. In my part of the country, they also send their kids to the same private schools, from kindergarten on. Doesn’t make for much open mindedness among the Chamber types in these parts.
Joe Shabadoo
Considering a law has to pass through the senate, the house and the president the filibuster is just needless obstruction.
If there are majority votes in two legislative branches and the president backs it it deserves to be passed even if I don’t like it.