Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The end of filibusters! Oh heavans no!

Something I have whined about quite a bit here and back on MW is the de facto change in senate rules that has occurred by use of the filibuster. In simple terms, many bills should be allowed to pass with a simple majority. However, if the minority party filibusters, the only way to bring a vote is to first rustle up 60 votes to end the filibuster, and then have your vote. Reid claims that Republicans have used the THREAT of filibuster 385 times. That number may be a bit inflated, but clearly, no senate leader has ever faced that many before.

Currently, to filibuster, you don't even have to take to the floor and actually stand there talking to block a vote. All you have to do is say will do so and that's good enough. One proposal under way is to change the rules to force the minority party to actually stand there and read the phone book or do whatever they want to do to continue stalling a vote. To McConnell, this is tantamount to tyranny and silencing the minority. Of course, having his party's voice reduced by three senate seats isn't something he sees as a national message to his party, but I digress.

To be fair, McConnell's claim is that he MUST filibuster so much because Reid won't let certain bills come up from congress for a vote. To this, I have expressed my contempt for Reid, although I do allow that this is a consequence of elections. Boehnor is under no obligation to work with the minority in his house, and judging on how many votes he had to repeal Obama care, I see no martyr status for him, he does exactly what Reid does and that's what you get to do when you are the majority party. The power that Reid and Boehnor are using, however,  is power that comes from being ELECTED to a majority. The power that McConnell is using is a consequence of manipulating a procedural rule that was intended to give a minority a chance to block something extraordinary. Rather then a special circumstance, McConnell has made it's use the everyday norm, and by default, a de facto change to the rules of the senate.

So, what are your feelings on the matter? Should we allow bills to pass on simple majority, as the framers intended, or is it okay to basically change the rules without a constitutional amendment stating that all senate bills must have 60 votes to pass? I say that at the least, it's time to end the ability to filibuster without having to actually perform the filibuster on the floor.

27 comments:

  1. When the Republicans were in the majority, they let the Dems have filibuster power. It was a way to recognize them and include them in the process. It was also recognition that Republicans would one day be on the opposite side of the fence and they would want the same consideration. But the Dems don't want to play FAIR. They want simple majority. Why even have a minority, just send the Republicans home for 4 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, they threatened to take it away completely unless the Democrats stopped filibustering and an agreement was reached. Minority means minority, or in McCain's words, elections have consequences. If filibustering nearly everything is what you call allowing them to have a voice, why not just change the rules to make every bill pass with 60 votes only? This is the question you are ignoring live. If you believe a minority should not be a minority voice unless they are 40 votes or less, why not change the rules to reflect that?

      Delete
    2. "Minority means minority, or in McCain's words, elections have consequences"

      I understand and agree with what you say as the ambiguity in what passes for a 'passing' vote makes for many obstructions in Washington doing its job but the interesting thing is that as with interpretation or use of the constitution, it only applies when factions want it to....

      You don't know how many 'discussions' I have gotten into with a devout liberal where a certain vote goes against their vision as a minority and heard the screams of 'tyranny of the majority'... can't have it both ways in this discussion..

      Delete
    3. TS, to your post here and the one below, it's hard to not sound partisan. 385 filibusters, or something near that, have been brought by McConnell. I would think that even a moderate person could concede that goes well beyond "balancing things out"

      For what it's worth, as angry as I got over Republican tactics and open abuse they dished on Democrats, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for the Dems. They ran shitty candidates and to this day, continue to remain completely helpless to articulate a simple message. The only thing helping the Democrats is Republican implosion. I am left of center for sure, but I don't know that I agree with devout liberals, for whatever that's worth. I can see your point though, people who are attached to either party take it particularly personal when their party is in the minority.

      Delete
  2. Make everyone actually stand up there and recite song lyrics or something. That's in line with the original intent of the filibuster and it seems reasonable. Enough of this calling "FILLIBUSTER!!!" like I used to call "Shotgun!!!" when getting in the car with my girlfriends. Maybe it'll force the people we elected to govern to actually govern ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Funky, you hit on something I was going to come back and explain better. The proposal IS NOT to take away the filibuster, the proposal is to actually MAKE them filibuster. What I think McConnell wants, is to block large blocks of legislation without having to lift a finger to do so. If Republicans went to the floor day after day after day and did nothing but read song lyrics or the phone book, McConnell knows exactly what kind of bad media that would create. What he wants is not participation in legislation, but the right to quietly block anything he doesn't like without taking heat for gridlock.

      Delete
  3. While the filibuster has been used for a long time, the frequency and amplitude of its use looks very much like the rise of the national debt. While I dislike the filibuster as a legislative tool, it, in some ways counteracts the reprehensible actions of committee chairs in holding up or outright refusing to bring legislation to the floor because its not popular with their particular party. A good case in point is Ron Paul's HR 459... Instantly had well over 100 co-sponsors and before it left committee some 274 before it was finally released .... after 1 1/2 years to a floor vote of 327 to 98 requiring only 2 days....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meh, blocking bills goes both ways TS. The Republicans, when in power under Bush, were no less ruthless in silencing the minority. Americans want cooperation. they aren't getting it now

      Delete
    2. I do respect you Max but sometimes your partisan bias is quite strong.... I never tried to pin the blame of filibuster on anyone nor did I say that one side was more culpable than the other in holding up legislation in committee.....Just that one tends to balance out the obstruction of the other...

      Delete
  4. It really doesn't matter. King Obama will promulgate by decree if he can't get 60 votes. The proles will look the other way.

    1773-2009

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seriously, The Dems use the nuclear option whenever they want. There are more serious issues that filibusters though. Like out of control spending and entitlement reform.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As the least qualified to comment here, I should perhaps keep my mouth shut. However, why not look beyond your boundaries and examine the rest of the world to find another country which uses the filibuster?
    Ask yourselves if the devise is useful or is it counterproductive? Does the technique actually enhance good government or does it demean the democratic operation of your legislature? Perhaps if you get to the bottom of these questions the "Hill" may decide to stop acting like children and get on with the task you have determined for them.

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heck why not, as long as we are abandoning the most productive economic system in the world so we can be more like Europe, I say go for it. Cheers.

      Delete
    2. Again Kingston, we are a republic. Our citizens voted for split government for a reason. That reason is the blockage of insane spending.

      Unlike your own system, we are a nation of free men and women. Not children. We protect minorities with our electoral college right through to our filibusters.

      1773-2003 The fiscal cliff is a joke. Life as we know it will not end if spending is controlled, and the debt limit is not increased.

      Delete
  7. If you end the filibuster, perhaps all bills should be 1 topic only, no riders, no attachments, 1 item only. To often we see a bill which is a good piece of legislation only to have riders attached.

    The PPACA was a prime example. After working out a way to pass the bill the education finance bill was attached to the PPACA ensuring passage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody's talking about ending the filibuster.

      The idea is to make those who wish to filibuster actually stand on the floor and filibuster.

      I think it's a good idea.

      Delete
    2. I think 1 bill, 1 law is a better idea, no more riders, no more attachments.

      Delete
    3. In principle Lou, what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure it's practical.

      Delete
    4. Add a rule for filibuster with 1 bill, 1 law. Prevents a lot of trash being added to the long litany of laws and secondarily, it puts our representatives on record for or against a certain law.

      Delete
    5. I get the point, but still don't think it's feasible. I'm not saying I like it the way it is, but the real problem has less to do with the rules and much with the way people abuse them. Technically, we have term limits in that every elected official needs to face challengers. In reality, it is very tough to defeat an incumbent for a variety of reasons. Still, few Republicans these days sleep comfortably if the tea party is sniffing around. To slam so much pork and crap through is an abuse of power. Is putting more rules in place and forcing 600 hundred votes instead of 100 votes the best answer? Maybe.

      To your last sentence, we know where our representatives stand but we kid ourselves that we don't because they voted for a bill that was not 100% ideologically pure. I believe in compromise. If we boil the entire process to being completely one subject one bill, we are only going to drive a bigger wedge between parties and create legislation that is even more partisan then what we have now. Again, I don't like the pork, but without the system as it is, it will be much tougher for moderate legislators to help each other out and find genuine compromise. I dunno, that's what makes sense to me anyway.

      Delete
  8. FLASHBACK: Reid Says Effort to Curtail Filibuster ‘Is About the Arrogance of Power’

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that a plan by Republican Senate leaders to end the use of filibusters against presidential judicial nominations demonstrated "the arrogance of power."

    “Rather than changing the Senate rules, shouldn’t we be concerned about the largest deficits in the history of the world?” Reid asked at a March 15, 2005 event entitled “Rally to Save the Courts.”





    “This is not about judges, it’s about the arrogance of power,” Reid said.

    On Jan. 4, 2005, at the start of the 109th Congress, then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) expressed support for changing Senate rules related to judicial nominations if Senate Democrats continued to filibuster President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

    Frist specifically called for changing the rules to allow a simple majority of 51 senators to end debate on a judicial nominee and bring the nomination to a confirmation vote in the full Senate. Under the existing rule, a two-thirds vote is needed to break a filibuster, including one against a judicial nominee.

    In May 2005, the so-called “Gang of 14” made up of Democratic and Republican senators agreed to break with party leadership. These Democrats said they would no longer filibuster nominees except under "extraordianry circumstances," and the Republicans said they would not support changing the Senate rules.

    Reid, now the Senate Majority Leader, has said he plans to try to change the filibuster rule in the incoming Congress to stop Republicans from using a filibuster to prevent the initial debate of a bill. But Reid says he will not try to change the rule to stop the final passage of a bill with a filibuster.

    "We're going to follow the rules to make a couple of minor changes to make this place more efficient, and that's what the Senate has always been about, is revising itself to become more efficient," Reid said on Monday, Nov. 26.

    --------------------

    Harry Reid is a fuggin' hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, Reid nor anyone else has suggested ending the filibuster.

      Delete
    2. Gotta, thank you for this post, and yes, Reid is a hypocrite. When the people you support stop putting dingbats like Sharron Angle to run against Reid, I might actually vote for one of them. But I digress,

      This is key, "In May 2005, the so-called “Gang of 14” made up of Democratic and Republican senators agreed to break with party leadership. These Democrats said they would no longer filibuster nominees except under "extraordianry circumstances," and the Republicans said they would not support changing the Senate rules."

      In other words, compromise was reached. But again, as Funky keeps saying, no one is suggesting to end the filibuster and that is what is so ludicrous about the angst against what is being proposed. this is a simple question, if the very definition of filibuster is to drag out debate by continuous talking, what is wrong with making someone actually take to the floor and do so? methinks that most of you here on the right see it exactly the way McConnell does, IE that he will eventually need to be more selective in the fights he picks and he will lose his ability to quietly block enormous chunks of legislation.

      Delete
    3. McConnell is an empty shirt Maxie. The house is where the deals will be cut.

      Honestly, both sides have made the senate a joke.

      Delete
    4. They are all empty shirts and only capable of kicking the can down the road.

      Delete
    5. There are numerous statements like the one by the desert hypocrite that were made in the spring of 2005. One of those was from, you guessed it, fearless Dear Leader himself. The same one who decried raising the debt limit in 2006.

      Oh dear, we have hypocrites in DC! Gasp! And some of them are democrats. Who knew!

      Jean

      Delete