The New Filibuster
Kevin Drum raises an important point, namely that “The filibuster was never intended to become a routine requirement that all legislation needs 60% of the vote in the Senate to pass.”
Indeed, the filibuster was never intended at all. A few years into the existence of the U.S. Senate, they undertook a review of their rules. A determination was made that the motion to end debate was unnecessary, so it was removed from the rulebook. The Senators who made that decision suffered from a lack of imagination, because they didn’t see that having stripped it from the rulebook they’d created a situation in which a minority could block action on legislation. You can tell they didn’t intend to do that because there was no filibustering for a while. But under this second rule-set, in principle a minority of one could block legislation.
Again, it obviously wasn’t the intention to implement a unanimity rule for the Senate. Eventually, that was changed to allow a 67 vote supermajority and then later a 60 vote supermajority to end a filibuster. But still, even when that last reform was implemented in the mid-1970s the idea wasn’t to create a routine requirement that legislation receive 60 votes.
But as we can see in the chart on the right, there’s been over time a steady increase in filibustering. Democrats were feeling chastened after the 2002 and 2004 elections, so filibustering dipped somewhat in those congresses while still staying high above the levels that has persisted in the 1980s. The result now is that you’ve started hearing talk about how you “need 60 votes” to pass something in the Senate, rather than saying that you need 50 votes and also that a minority might engage in the extraordinary measure of filibustering.
None of this has ever been a good idea. But when it was genuinely reserved as an extraordinary measure, it was a bad idea whose badness could be overlooked. But as it’s become a routine matter, it’s become a bigger and bigger problem. It needs to be reformed. If need be, perhaps the Senate could agree to some kind of phase out. Pass a measure in the 111th congress saying that there will be no filibustering starting with the 113th congress. That would avoid the sense that the reform was a mere power grab.
65 Responses to “The New Filibuster”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 15th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Sounds like a good idea to me.
But I’d like to hear some analysis about the root cause of the rise in filibuster frequency. I’ve heard that it’s because people aren’t actually forced to talk all night now — but that sounds like a symptom rather than a cause.
Is it a consequence of the rising polarization of Congress more broadly — decline of the old clubby aspects of the Senate?
February 15th, 2009 at 8:53 am
A dream deferred.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Still needs pointing out that the vast majority of these “filibusters” aren’t actually filibusters. An easy-win would be just to require actual filibustering for there to be a filibuster.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
re: “real” filibustering.
If you have 36 Senators, each needs to speak for one hour every day and a half. Hardly a burden. Plus, you get the mike and control what get says — 24 hours propaganda via C-Span.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Yes, I was somewhat disappointed that the Republicans didn’t go for the nuclear option in March 2005 and get rid of the filibuster, it would have been a good thing to do for the country in the long-run. So, how do we get there? I just cannot see the Democrats even trying, much less pulling it off, now.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I doubt I’d weep bitter tears to see the filibuster ended–the record will probably show it’s been used for ill at least as often as good. But I agree with #3, as I always have done–and I’ll go farther:
We don’t HAVE filibusters anymore, and that’s at least a big chunk of the problem. One party _threatens_ to filibuster, cloture fails, and the Senate moves on, wringing it’s hands about the wickedness of the world.
A filibuster is sandwiches and cots, all-night sessions, and the minority party reading old copies of the Congressional Record back into the Congressional Record–all while C-SPAN is running it gavel to gavel.
Point is, there used to be a price. You could stop a bill, but you had to be willing to stop the whole business of government.
(Show of hands: who remembers the Great Gingrich Shutdown–Park Rangers kicking people out of the Grand Canyon, family vacations to Washington ruined? Yeah, that worked out real well for those jerks, didn’t it?)
Reform would be great, but in the meantime, MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Why bother? The Republicans will play any change in the rule as a power grab. They play up Democratic breathing as a power grab. And, even if it’s seen as a power grab, so what? The Democrats were elected to take power and get things done! The Congress in 2006-08 had the lowest approval ratings of any Congress in memory precisely because the Democrats didn’t grab the power the people gave them.
The Senate is Constitutionally empowered to change its rules by majority vote, and that’s precisely what it should do. Any failure to drop the filibuster or any other rule that prevents implementation of needed responses to major crises is a deliberate sacrifice of the good of the country in the name of comity with crazy people.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Outstanding post, Matt. This is really your niche in the blogosphere — bringing academic research and history to bear on contemporary issues.
The Democrats should definitely call the Republicans on their bluff from a few years back and eliminate the anti-democratic filibuster — hoist on their own petard.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I think this filibuster question is just a bit meta. I mean realistically the filibuster only actually matters in the event that one party controls all 3 legislative points, outside of that it most likely wouldn’t matter if you had the filibuster or not. I think the last Congress kind of blurred that line, but that’s because the Senate GOP were morons. Any other minority with a very unpopular sitting President would have just let the unpopular President veto popular legislation they didn’t like. For some reason the GOP decided they needed to run interference for the lame duck Bush, but that’s not going to happen very often.
I think there’s a good argument for lowering the bar on cloture, but it’s not clear to me why exactly, in a county of 300 million people with a fairly quirky system of elections, a relatively small House majority, a President elected on the thinnest of margins, and a 50-50 House with the VP breaking ties ought to be able to literally dominate the process with next to no minority input.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am
To add to Tom’s comment about “real filibustering”, the dynamics of the filibuster changed completely when the change was made from a portion of those voting to a portion of the full membership. Under the old rule most of the burden was on the group filibustering because they had to keep enough members on the floor to prevent a closure vote at all times. If they didn’t, then at any break the majority could bring all their members in suddenly and get closure. (If there were only 10 minority members on the floor, the majority would only need 20 to get closure.) The majority only had to keep enough members to sustain a quorum. Under the current rules, the minority only needs one person on the floor. The number of votes the majority needs to achieve closure isn’t affected and the burden is always on the majority to get those votes. I suspect that the slow rise in the use of the filibuster is due to two factors. First, it took a while for everyone to realize just how much the dynamics had changed after the rule changed. Second, the principle use of the old filibuster was to block civil rights legislation, Once the civil rights revolution was basically decided, this left the filibuster with an aura of bad faith which took a while to dissipate. Now, it has become just another parliamentary maneuver.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I’ve defended the existence of the filibuster before, and don’t really have much to add, except that making Senators filibuster does sound like a better approach.
To address tom in ma’s point, I’d say if Republicans want propaganda, they could do a lot better than C-Span. Seems a small price.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I’m not entirely sure I support getting rid of a supermajority ‘requirement’ in all cases. One benefit of such a ‘requirement’ is that it makes major switches in government policy every four years much more difficult. Because the parties are more ideologically coherent now than they were just a decade ago, it will probably be fairly common in the future for two consecutive presidents (of different parties) to enter office with majorities in both houses of congress. Do we really want things like DADT, DOMA, FOCA, etc. to be changed back-and-forth every four or eight years? Right now, good changes are harder to make, but if made are also harder to undo.
My preference would be for a reduced supermajority requirement (let’s say 55% instead of 60%) for cloture that could only be applied to resolutions which the next congress could try to repeal. If it would be a done deal with no repeal possible (like, say, the stimulus package–or, to throw the right a bone, short-term tax cuts), then no filibuster would be allowed. If it would be reversible (like, say, outlawing jelly beans), then the (reduced) filibuster could be used.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am
How do the rules work in regard to a failed cloture vote? I don’t get this. Does the leader then have to set consideration aside? Which seems pretty silly. What I am getting at is after a failed cloture vote why doesn’t the filibuster just keep on going? What is the mechanism that just ends the whole thing? Is it totally voluntary on the part of Reid, in this case?
If so that just adds to the shadow play aspect of the process. My complaint has always been that the leadership should just pick a bill, and then several, and let the filibuster go on and on. With the chorus always singing up or down vote. I can see if the cloture vote is a one shot deal that would complicate matters. For among other reasons necessitating a pre vote count and trusting the other side to tell the truth.
If a failed cloture vote by rule forces tabling the bill then change that rule. If not then stop the faking and make them walk the fillibuster walk.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Screw it, the Democrats SHOULD grab power. The Republicans were going to use it to get JUDGES confirmed, we can use it to pass something actually important.
But meanwhile, yes, filibustering must MEAN something, make them do it. It would have completely avoided all this nasty nonsense compromising because we know already few Republicans really wanted it to die.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I’m still not seeing anyone explain *why* the rules got changed so that the minority wasn’t required to “walk the walk” — which is in the case of filibustering pretty much the same thing as “talking the talk,” I guess.
Here’s another hypothesis: is it partly a phenomenon that rises when the Senate is very tightly divided, like in the last Congress?
With 59 dems, it seems to me that the utility of the filibuster is going to drop precipitously, because it just won’t work that often.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Oh let’s be honest. The Filibuster is just another tool of wealth and privilege to maintain itself.
As far as ‘good’, well, the most famous and persistent use of the Filibuster was to defend the time honoured tradition of lynching in the south.
In its current form, its simply the vehicle by which minority Republicans dominate and exploit democrats.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Many commenters have made the salient point that the inreasing use of the filibuster coincided with the rule not requiring an actual filibuster. But what’s missing in these comments is the other side: namely, that the Senate allows unlimited debate on any matter. In many ways, unlimited debate separates the Senate from the House, in most respects favorably. Unfortunatly,as reflected in these comments, eliminating the requirement of an actual filibuster has also eroded support for unlimited debate.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Really good post, Matt, I’ve elaborated a bit here, mostly on the question of whether or not it’s special pleading for Dems who approved of the filibuster against Bush to now want to abolish it. I don’t think it is for the reason you suggest: it’s being used now in a qualitatively different way.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Give our media 4 years to frighten voters about the filibuster clawback and we’ll wind up with Republicans in filibuster-free control in 2012.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Tom, you’re right, but some of these people are going to have their schedules disrupted by having to give an hour and a half speech at 3AM every day for a few days. These aren’t young, healthy men. A few days of that, and it could well have an effect.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Nobody is going to vote against Democrats in 2010 because of a “power grab”. If the power grab is possible and necessary to avoid a second depression, nobody outside DC will care.
The real issue is that you need to get moderate Dems on board. Lowering the barrier down to 50 would make them less powerful. It seems plausible that lowering it to 55 would actually make them more powerful–with the stimulus the spotlight was on Specter and Collins, but just by making a small reduction to the cloture requirement we can shift that spotlight to left, away from GOP moderates and towards Dem wankers. Which would mean it’s in the interests of Dem wankers to make said reduction.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Regardless of whether anything is actually done about the ability to filibuster, what’s been driving me crazy is how nobody’s been pointing out that that’s what’s been going on. As you say, people are now routinely saying that 60 votes are needed to pass anything.
Why haven’t the Democrats at least gone on the offensive repeating the ol’ Republican soundbite of “why are they refusing to at least let this legislation have an up or down vote?”
It’ll only be thought of as an extreme measure again if the Democrats summon up some outrage and starting pointing out how extreme it is. They better start now or it’s not going to be fun when they try to do health care or get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.
February 15th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Consider this hypothetical for a second:
What happens in the event that Democrats suffer deep losses in the House in 2010, but manage to retain control? More to the point, what happens if Democrats suffer resounding losses in the 2010 Senate races, but retain control of the Senate as a result of the fact that only 1/3 of the seats are contested at a time, and that a disproportionate number of competitive races are for seats with Republican incumbents? Also let’s assume that Obama’s favorability ratings have plummeted.
It’s one thing to extol the idea that “elections have consequences,” but at the same time that largely ignores altogether the fact that we have an extremely quirky system of electing our government that in many ways is systematically opposed to reflecting changes in public opinion. And I’m not really willing to say that Democrats should be able to ram legislation through the process for 2 years in the situation ouutline above, anymore than I think the GOP should have been able to ram whatever they wanted through in the aftermath of the 2000 elections (which I think is about the best case study for the filibuster you could posibly imagine).
All of which is to say that it may be the case that the filibuster, by itself, is bad, but in the larger context of our political system there are quite a few things you’d want to change before you got rid of the chief agent of minority power in the legislative process altogether.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I think a real, live filibuster would be great. They should fill the water pitchers, close the rest rooms for maintenance and see which Republicans feel strongly enough to wear Depends.
MAKE them hold the floor as long as they can.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
The problem with forcing a “real” filibuster is that the side doing the filibustering has an enormous advantage. The bill’s supporters have to maintain a 51-vote quorum on the floor, which means that their members can barely ever leave the floor. The bill’s opponents only need one person there at a time, which means each filibustering Senator needs to be there for only 35 minutes a day (or 1 hour, 10 minutes if you want a backup in case of emergency).
February 15th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Actually it’s exactly the opposite, if you also change the rules back to “voting” members, as someone earlier explained.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The avoidance of “real” filibusters is a bipartisan problem. Back on 2003 or thereabouts the Republicans flirted with forcing the Democrats into a real filibuster over judicial nominees (I think there was one late-night session or something), and Harry Reid accused the Republicans of forcing a waste of the people’s time, after which (in a rare victory for Hapless Harry) the GOP backed down. If the Democrats tried the same thing today, Mitch McConnell would probably say the same thing and win a similar victory.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Wait – Tom Daschle was still the Democratic leader in 2003, so that detail must be wrong. (Doubtless Reid was still involved in the complaining in his capacity as whip.)
February 15th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I don’t know whether a rule change really matters. We have a particularly venal, embittered, fading, very deeply entitled-feeling, conservative movement on the verge of nihilism. This agglomeration of old pseudoaristocracies (corporatist heirs to the colonial overlords and Confederate planterocracy), Nietzschean masters and slaves under a facade of Christianity, and miserable hypocrite Ubermenschen termed the GOP simply can not go quietly. They were going to do their best to impose a tyranny of the minority by disruption and obstruction and sabotage, no matter the rules. It may be best to give them one legal venue as outlet so they don’t resort to a plethora of all kinds of diffuse and extralegal manouvers, e.g. the Coleman effort, as much.
In the November election the country gave the GOP and its elements one last legal route to affect federal policy, one last benefit of the doubt and opportunity to prove themselves useful. It’s a fairly cruel and retaliatory electorate that, rather than putting that dying nasty critter out of its misery, keeps it alive to suck every last bit of utility out of it. 2010 and 2012 the country votes whether to take it off life support.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Having a geezer moment here. I’m old enough to remember the “real” filibusters and being taken to Capitol Hill late at night to see one. Dad had to deliver something to someone and brought me along. There were cots in the hallway with men in suits catching naps while the debates were going on in the chamber.
Making people actually filibuster something was a huge effin’ deal and was substantially disruptive.
I wonder if C-Span has something to do with the lack of forcing people to talk. My recollection from history books is that Senators would just start reading random things to fill the time. That would be hard to keep up during the C-Span era, when everyone could turn on their TV and see Senators sounding like idiots. So it would definitely be a good thing to bring back.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“Back on 2003 or thereabouts the Republicans flirted with forcing the Democrats into a real filibuster over judicial nominees (I think there was one late-night session or something), and Harry Reid accused the Republicans of forcing a waste of the people’s time, after which (in a rare victory for Hapless Harry) the GOP backed down.”
But that’s ridiculous. It’s the filibusterers who are wasting everyone’s time. That’s the whole point of filibustering, and anyone mounting a filibuster should be made to own it. Which again, brings us to the utility of the real filibuster:
On one side of the chamber you have a crowd of fusty old senators endlessly reciting cookie recipes and box scores and epic poetry, and on the other side you have a bunch of senators waiting patiently and quietly for the opportunity to vote.
Who’s wasting time in that tableau? I don’t even think Harry fucking Reid could blow that play.
In any case, I would argue that a period of real filibusters–if nothing else–would lay the necessary foundation for eliminating the filibuster in the public mind. Right now, the vote on cloture is indistinguishable in the public eye from the vote on passage; it needs to be made clear we’re trying to streamline senate process in the face of an unreasonable level of obstructionism (and that’s exactly what a couple long nights for the R’s would prove).
February 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Southpaw: I know what happened doesn’t make any sense and your scenario does make sense, but I don’t think my memory is wrong. Of course, things never truly got out of hand, and if the filibuster had lasted days or weeks maybe the attempt to frame it as majority obstructionism would have been exposed as ridiculous.
It seems as if most Senators of both parties view the filibuster as an entitlement, and for that reason I don’t think it’s going away any time soon, unless we enter an era where Democratic (or, less likely at the present time, Republican) dominance is so great the majority party has little fear of imminent minority status – and if that happened, their majorities would probably be clearing 60 anyway.
MRacine: Good point. Have there been any real filibusters in the C-SPAN age?
February 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t doubt your memory, James. As I recall, 2003 was a very strange time when the normal rules about almost everything in politics were held in abeyance. For the sake of everyone’s blood pressure, I won’t rehash it, but there was lots of ridiulousness in 2003.
Moreover, somewhere deep in their hearts, the Republicans have understood since probably Goldwater that they are a regional party that occasionally gains majorities by exploiting passing reactionary sentiment. As such, the filibuster is their friend. That’s why they only ever tried to get rid of it for the limited purpose of judicial nominations. And it’s probably why they decided not to press the issue with Daschle in 2003.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Except in the case of the stimulus bill, you really did need 60 votes, because it was a budget bill which increased the deficit, and there is a law that says those specific votes require 60 to pass.
Of course, if we got rid of the filibuster, we could change this law with just 50 votes.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
They’re all just Senate rules, Chad. And they can all be changed the same way they were established, with 50 votes.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Make that 51 votes, sorry. (Or 50 votes plus the VP if you want to count him differently.)
February 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
LOL Love the Flame Warriors reference!
February 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Republicans view Republican filibusters as an entitlement, c.f. Gang of Nine fiasco.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I am all in favor of requiring a two-thirds majority of those actually present (not chosen and sworn) to end relevant debate. Tradition or not, the practice or threat of holding the floor in a filibuster to block legislation ought to end.
Giving small states equal voice in the senate to large populous states makes the functioning of the senate undemocratic enough. It is one thing for the senate to act as a “cooling saucer” for the passions of the house; it is quite another for it to empower the minority to the point that a handful of people have veto power over almost any legislation.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It’s a strange state of the world when a 51% majority sees it fit to confiscate everything owned by the 49% minority. I wonder what Jews that survived WWII Germany would say having had their own rights, property, and finally their lives stripped by the mandate of the “majority.”
The Filibuster is one of the few things holding the country together right now.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
To this day I don’t understand the Republican philosophy that filibustering judges is a big no-no but filibustering legislation is ok. The Senate is already anti-democratic as it is with two from each state. Adding a 60 vote supermajority means that Senators from the 40 smallest states (representing a a small fraction of the population) can kill anything they want. Legislation ought to at least somewhat represent the views of the majority.
Judges, on the other hand, serve lifetime appointments and should be less ideological and more consensus driven. One would think that a supermajority for them would be a no-brainer. If anything eliminate the filibuster (50 votes for cloture on the third try so everybody still gets to speak) and add a supermajority requirement for judges.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The Republicans will play any change in the rule as a power grab
This can’t be emphasized too much. They’re trying to pursue the idea that the Sec. of Commerce works for the president as a power grab. A idea of such keening, idiotic lunacy that there’s no word for it.
There’s a tradition in the Congress where members aren’t supposed to directly criticize another member. I couldn’t endure the constraint.
February 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I still support the filibuster, because I believe it prevented untold further damage when the Republicans were in the majority; however, I believe it needs to be made harder to use. I suggest forcing them to actually speak.
Heck, I’d even make it a 2/3rds requirement– but make them DO it.
Of course, it would be nice to get rid of the undemocratic nature of the Senate in the first place.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Excuse me is this some epiphany or have people been holding their collective breath for eight years and are now ready to give their true feelings voice since…. well you know.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
You will regret this at some point down the line.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Senators from the 40 smallest states (representing a a small fraction of the population) can kill anything they want.
Actually from the 20 smallest states but good point nevertheless. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_States_by_population wikipedia] the smallest 20 states make up roughly 10% of the population.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
In your thirs sentence, “they” has no antecedent. You make better points if you use proper English.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Real filibustering on C-SPAN won’t necessarily redound to the advantage of the obstructionists. If they have a weak case, as they certainly did with the recovery bill, it will become more obvious the more they talk about it. Pretty soon, they’ll be reduced to reading the D.C. phone book into the record.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
When Democrats need the filibuster and a liberal proposes ending the practice, or when Republicans are in the minority and the Rush Limbaughs of the world demand an end to the filibuster, THEN I’ll believe there’s a problem. It’s like reading Bill Kristol on what’s wrong with liberals, or Paul Krugman on why Republicans are losers. My question: Who is naive or stupid enough to be convinced by this kind of “argument”. Really. Do “progessives” not understand the concept of “bias”, or is that something that can only apply to the other guys?
February 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
As usual, a dumb idea from Mr. Yglesias.
To delay the taking effect of a such a rule would be pointless because no Congress may bind its successor.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I have a solution to this abuse of the filibuster, and I call it “The 3 Strikes Doctrine.”
Conceptually it is simple: The minority is permitted up to 2 “tabled” measures at any time, presumably due to sincerely and deeply felt disagreement making compromise impossible. Once a third measure is filibustered (bills that have achieved 51+ votes for cloture) then the doctrine slams into effect.
According to the doctrine, all other work of the Senate stops, and the general session goes into 24/7 operation debating these three bills exclusively. This means that no committee or sub-committee meetings may occur. No scheduled events of any kind are permitted, including press interviews or press conferences. Nothing. Any attempt by any Senator to break-out of this constriction shall be objected to by the majority leader, backed by his majority party members. Any parlimentary trick necessary will be employed to make life-as-we-know-it for all Senators simply stop, except for debating these three bills.
The point is to draw as much media attention as possible to the fact that the obstructionist party has temporarily “destroyed” the Senate as an institution. Political supporters in the media should be encouraged to compare this situation to a “Hostage crisis” or a “Terrorist attack” blamed upon the minority. This complete shutdown will continue until one of the three “tabled” measures is allowed to “end debate” by passing the cloture vote. Only then will the Senate resume orderly conduct.
The majority party must respect the fact that a minority that is willing to filibuster routinely has already thwarted the will of the people, and that utterly halting the entire Senate is little different.
Note that this is NOT A RULE CHANGE. It is a doctrine, meaning that the majority party can choose to follow it without taking any vote at all, although it would require great DISCIPLINE to insure that at least 51 Senators of the majority party have the courage to stay the course and not “cave in” to pressure to let the minority off the hook and resume operations.
The 3 Strikes Doctrine has the big advantage of being easy to communicate to the press, and easy to rhetorically paint the minority with, which is the whole point. You cannot wait until a dozen bills have been tabled, and then suddenly spring this on them. The Majority party must make a huge deal in the press about this doctrine being the formal policy of the party, and how the minority will be responsible for invoking it.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Matt,
You start with a set of assumptions which will never allow you to understand the Senate. Too bad really, but these assumptions damage your arguments.
1. Democracy of 50% rule (majority rule).
If 51 Senators could pass legislation, a coalition of small states could determine what laws are passed. This would be the tyranny of the minority. Any minority of Senators blocking legislation is much more acceptable than a majority of senators representing a minority of citizens passing legislation. In other words, it is less likely that a minority will stick together if sticking together means not getting anything done.
2. Senate didn’t intend filibuster.
This is nonsense. The senate is a consensus body. One senator can block anything, even if the filibuster was removed this rule would still exist. The senate generally works via unanimous consent. If you removed the filibuster, the republicans could still require votes on everything. Imagine how slow everything would go if republicans really wanted to obstruct. Hint: listen to the senate president for the words “without objection”. If anyone objects, you have to call the roll and then vote.
3. Every vote stands on its own.
The assumption is that senators don’t have a need to work with each other over a long period of time. But votes on legislation is not like electing someone to office.
4. There is no value in forcing the majority to explain their legislation in floor debate.
One of the big problem with the last few weeks was the absence of democrats explaining the stimulus bill. Instead we had lots of republicans spouting off nonsense. The filibuster allows the minority to at least have a discussion. A cloture vote does more than “end debate” it set a fixed amount of debate time for each side. If you remove the filibuster, the majority could allow no debate.
So Matt: please organize your opposition more carefully, maybe start by assuming that there must be a reason that we have a filibuster after 230+ years. What are those reasons? But don’t pretend you are trying to defend democracy from the ignorant senators who can’t figure out what is best for them and the senate and the nation. It is a weak argument as it stands.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I think there are agreement that the majority can bring something up for a vote and NOT allow the minority to offer ammendments or complain about the bill. and so then 60 votes would be required to pass.
Often the majority with a soft base would not want its members voting yes on the oppositions amendments. even if they would vote yes on the whole bill.
anyhoo that is what i remember.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I should store this article away. If the Republicans get a majority again, I am guessing Matt will erase this post.
Filibuster Flip-Flops
Immediately after her election to the Senate in 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was proud “to be on the side of the democratic process working” by calling for an end to the anti-majoritarian Electoral College. Today she staunchly supports the Democrats’ effort to prevent “the democratic process” from working in the Senate.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Matthew, I and many others want to know how and why it happened that filibusters are no longer required–only the threat of filibuster.
I’ve searched the web a bunch of times and have never found an answer. (Harry Reid’s lack of cojones doesn’t explain it, I don’t think…?)
Nate Silver did an explanatory post a while back that…didn’t explain it.
Please. What’s the gig here?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 14th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Sehr wertvolle Informationen! Empfehlen!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
April 9th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Thanks for the review! viagra