dagblog - Comments for "A Constitutional Amendment I'd Like To See"

Prior to the abuse of the

oleeb — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 06:51:10 +0000

In reply to A Constitutional Amendment I'd Like To See

Prior to the abuse of the filibuster in recent years by Republicans as part of their "rule or ruin" strategy the filibuster was very rarely used. The Republicans have degraded our political system far more than most people realize. When the Republican Party turned to pure evil and chose "the southern strategy" as the means they could use to finally become competitive again after those long, long years between 1932 and 1968 it opened the floodgates for right wing, authoritarian extremism to eventually dmonate and control the party. That is precisely what has finally occured. The right wing extreme of the Republican Party is now calling the shots and that perspective is amoral, exploitive and manipulative in the extreme, is utterly without any conscience, and will do and/or say anything required to obtain and hold power. If we had a Republican Party that was at least sane, the filibuster wouldn't be the issue it is, but they are not sane. They are wildly irresponsible, reckless and untrustworthy. Instead of worrying so much about the filibuster Democrats should do two things which are concentrate on knocking as many Republican members of Congress out of office as possible and two would be to have a strategy to completely decapitate and destroy the current radical right wing leadership.

I think Oxy is right. Senate

acanuck — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:21:30 +0000

In reply to I don't really know the

I think Oxy is right. Senate rules say any rule changes can be filibustered, but the Supreme Court has said a majority vote is sufficient, so it's basically up to the Senate to decide its own course of action. I believe the way it would work is that the speaker would rule in order a motion to drop (or modify) the three-fifths rule. Any senator could then challenge that ruling (citing the pre-existing rules) but the vote to uphold or override the speaker would be a simple majority vote. That's the "nuclear option" Frist was threatening.

You might think the party with a majority (but short of a supermajority) would be keen to drop the filibuster. But the whole appeal of the three-fifths rule is that it enhances the clout of the individual senator. Most, I'd suggest, are more concerned about advancing their own power and influence than enacting a partisan agenda.

Get stuff done? Like cut

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:16:10 +0000

In reply to One consideration I find

Get stuff done? Like cut taxes for the rich and eradicate HUD, the EPA, Social Security, Roe v. Wade?

Sadly, the U.S. has become a conservative nation in the 21st century. Liberals benefit by the filibuster because it helps them keep conservatives from dismantling what liberals built in the 20th century.

But the downside is that the government is no longer able to deal with new and pressing problems.

The Senate introduced the

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:08:43 +0000

In reply to So when did this abuse begin

The Senate introduced the rule change in the early 1970s to keep filibusters from interfering with other business. Prior to that, the whole Senate came to a standstill while the filibusterer held the floor. So there were good reasons to make the change, but it had a detrimental effect of making it easier to filibuster.

Here's a graph of the growth of cloture motions over the past few decades. Keep in mind that there may be more than one failed cloture motion to end a filibuster, so it's not a one-to-one correspondence.

One consideration I find

Obey — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:42:22 +0000

In reply to A Constitutional Amendment I'd Like To See

One consideration I find important is that it is not an all-or-nothing debate. The Filibuster has been strengthened and weakened over the years - weakened by taking the supermajority requirement down from 65 to 60 (when was that? forty years ago?) and more recently strengthened by the Dems when they restricted the use of Reconciliation.

So if the question is put in terms of strengthen-vs-weaken, then any party that actually wants to get stuff done (i.e. progressives) should be aiming to weaken it so it is easier to pass bills, and any party that want to keep things the way they are (i.e. conservatives) should be aiming to strengthen it so that it is harder to pass bills.

Funnily enough, more recently it's the supposedly conservative party - the GOP - that has pushed hardest to weaken it (on judicial nominations in '05), and it's the progressive party - the Dems - that has done most to strengthen it (limiting Reconciliation to deficit reduction in '09). So that just makes no sense. Either that, OR the GOP's threat, as always, was hollow, and the Dems, as usual, are stone cold idiots.

Yeah, I'm going with the latter.

"Between 1995 — when Harkin

we are stardust — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:39:57 +0000

In reply to So when did this abuse begin

"Between 1995 — when Harkin first introduced this proposal — and 2008, filibusters increased at a rate of 75 percent per session. In the 110th Congress, there were 139 motions to end filibusters. Just last week, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) placed a hold on more than 70 executive nominees in an attempt to draw attention to local projects, which had the potential to freeze the Senate.

"The filibuster was once an extraordinary tool used in the rarest of instances," Harkin said at the press conference, before mentioning Jimmy Stewart's character in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

"Today, it is the special interests that are using the filibuster to kill legislation that would benefit the little guy."

But Harkin's effort is a long shot. The resolution to alter rules would require 67 votes for passage, something Reid acknowledges will be nearly impossible to reach."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32853.html

So when did this abuse begin

kyle flynn — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:24:46 +0000

In reply to The filibuster worked when

So when did this abuse begin in earnest? In other words when did it become as simple as declaring "filibuster" to filibuster? I can't find a clear answer. It seems to me the Majority Leader could require an actual filibuster if he/she had the will. Paging a parlimenarian for clarity.

The filibuster worked when

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:12:00 +0000

In reply to I think I said that too

The filibuster worked when senators didn't abuse it. I don't think that it ever really fostered the Mr. Smith type of disquisition that Saunders is trying to evoke, but at least when you had to stand there and talk, filibusters were harder to do, so they happened less frequently.

But part of the problem is political. The filibuster used to be regarded by most senators as an extreme tactic, so in the days before reliable party unity, it wasn't that hard to break them. Senators would often vote to break filibusters even if they disagreed with the bill or nomination under consideration. But these days, filibusters are default tools of the minority party, and so every senate vote must be able to get 60 votes in order to pass. Since the parties are so unified, almost nothing controversial passes.

We can cheer it on when we believe that the cause is just, but since both sides always believe that their own cause is just, the Senate has been virtually stalemated for four years.

I figured as much. And in

kyle flynn — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:52:01 +0000

In reply to I think I said that too

I figured as much. And in real time Sanders' actions in some ways illustrate the discussion we're having.

I think I said that too

Michael Maiello — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:40:21 +0000

In reply to Do you object to all and any

I think I said that too strongly. What I'm against are these idiotic cloture shenanigans. The minority does need to be able to make some trouble so it's not always steamrolled. But I'd respect it more if it were done in the manner that Sanders is pursuing now. He actually has things to say, he's actually trying to spark debate, he's actually trying to persuade. The whole Senate concept of "endless debate" should at least include debate. The Sanders speech is a debate tactic. Just not voting for cloture and then wandering around on the Senate floor? Bogus.