[identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com
Is it really necessary to have each Republican Senator make a formal news announcement that they won't support Hagel for Secretary of Defense? How about just appointing one to carry their message: "we respect his service to our country, but he's a sumbitch for accepting a job from that Commie President and we want to rip him a new one."
The Borg Collective and the Midwich Cuckoos were much more efficient at the hive mentality than the GOP; at least they were capable of appointing one spokesperson. It saves a lot of time.

midwich
[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
We talked about the filibuster a couple weeks ago, and one small thread in particular got me a little more than the others. There was an accusation that Reid was buckling on "the mere threat" of filibusters, and one question that I had remained somewhat unanswered: "how many filibusters have the Republicans actually followed through on at this point? Isn't Reid just preemptively calling for cloture here?"

I had some suspicions, and it sounds like my suspicions may have been somewhat warranted:

So Republicans are to blame for all those cloture petitions to end filibusters, right? Wrong. The fact that the majority has filed so many cloture petitions is as much a symptom of its own efforts to block the Senate from working its will as anything the minority has done. Consider this example.

On March 19, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation (S. 2204) to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers. The normal process would have been for this legislation to be referred to committee for action.

Majority Leader Harry Reid bypassed the committee process, however, and using something called Rule 14 had the bill placed directly on the Senate calendar. Two days later, he started the process to call up the bill by moving to "proceed to it" and immediately filed a cloture petition to end debate on that motion.

The following Monday, the Senate then voted 92-4 to curtail debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The next day, as soon as the bill was before the Senate, Mr. Reid offered five consecutive amendments and one motion in order to effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions.

He then filed a cloture motion to close out debate on the bill. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture on a party-line vote and moved on to other business, leaving the Menendez bill adrift.

Now go back to the Politico story and ask yourself how exactly Republicans filibustered this bill?


Now, I'm more than willing to hear how this is wrong, how these writers have the procedures all wrong, but assuming they're right, what does this tell us about the system itself? Is it the filibusters that are the problem, or is it the exploitation of Senate Rule 14 that's actually the problem here?
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


It was a routine Senate vote. The Republican House had passed (330 - 93) a funding bill for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, one of the most mundane and routine things the government can do; and when Harry Reid wanted a fast vote to get to other important issues, Senate Republicans tried to delay the vote by putting several amendments up for a vote (a time delaying tactic since typically such amendments would never pass in the first place). Reid couldn't get the bill voted on without having a vote to end debate (i.e. "cloture"), which he couldn't do because it required 60 votes. He was clearly frustrated over how bogged down every vote has now become, and in an rather unusual move, he took to the Senate floor and apologized directly to Senators Udall and Merkley for not heeding their advice, and not supporting a rules change at restricting the use of the filibuster and cloture votes. Five days later after debates and speeches on the amendments (none were passed) the Senate passed the bill.



Poll after poll consistently shown American's displeasure at the gridlocked nature of the Senate (and these polls consistently put the blame at the GOP). Several political commentators have commented on how this grid lock is pretty new and historically significant. Ezra Klein recently pointed out that when in 1964 after the Democrats beat Barry Goldwater by huge margins both at the Presidential and Congressional levels, Lyndon Johnson was laying out strategy for passage of the Medicare Bill, an aide pointed out in an internal office memo, that as a result of the Democrat victory, it would pass by 55 to 45.



And of course, the overuse of the filibuster and cloture motion have been noted many times in the last few years. See this chart as an illustration of that point:



But some think Congress can't reform itself, and are instead seeking to have the Filibuster itself declared unconstitutional, and have filed with a brief with the Washington D.C., District Court which will no doubt end up before the Supreme Court.

Lest you think this is some political stunt by amateurs, reconsider that opinion. In an article for the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation (btw the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession), Emmet Bondurant lays out a very compelling scholarly and well researched paper showing the Founders had no intention of a minority blocking legislation via the filibuster (and notes that a lot of the modern use started with Southern Senators to prevent integration of the U.S. military and Civil rights laws (most notable was South Carolina' Strom Thurmond).

As Erza Klein notes summaries from Mr. Bondurant's paper:



In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a super-majority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

At the time of the country’s founding, seven of the 13 states, representing 27 percent of the population, could command a majority in the Senate. Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing 11 percent of the population, can muster the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. “The supermajority vote requirement,” Bondurant argues, thus “upsets the Great Compromise’s carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.”


I'm not sure if this legal challenge will work or not. There are some calls for Harry Reid to not wait until next January to push for the changes, and instead use the nuclear option to pass important judicial appointments (83 nominations that have not been voted on, and a record also), and I hope he will do it. It's long overdue. Paul Krugman has drawn attention to how poorly our Senate works, with an ominous reminder from Poland's history:



… with the rise of power held by Polish magnates, the unanimity principle was reinforced with the institution of the nobility’s right of liberum veto (Latin for “I freely forbid”). If the envoys were unable to reach a unanimous decision within six weeks (the time limit of a single session), deliberations were declared null and void. From the mid-17th century onward, any objection to a Sejm resolution — by either an envoy or a senator — automatically caused the rejection of other, previously approved resolutions. This was because all resolutions passed by a given session of the Sejm formed a whole resolution, and, as such, was published as the annual constitution of the Sejm, e.g., Anno Domini 1667. In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse.





Sources and Resources:
------------

[1.] Politico: "Frustrated Harry Reid: Reform the filibuster" by Manu Raju, 10 May 2012.

[2.] For Ezra Klein's historical background on the filibuster, you can watch this video here.

[3.] Washington Post: "Is the filibuster unconstitutional?" by Ezra Klein, 15 May 2012.

[4.] "The Senate becomes a Polish Joke," by Paul Krugman, 5 February 2010.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com

Senate Republicans filibuster the Zadroga bill, but pass tax cuts for the wealthy, which is great news for firefighters who make over $200,000 a year.

Jon Stewart blasted two Republican senators for holding up passage of the Zadroga Bill, which is meant to help first responders with medical coverage for illnesses related to the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attacks. The bill is funded by apparently closing a business tax-loophole, but some Republicans still have some funding issues on the measure and are blocking a straight up-and-down vote. Stewart was unrelenting in his criticisms of the press, and in particularly with Fox News's ignoring the issue, which is ironic, since Fox News bases so much of its content on 9/11 "outrage." Speaking of irony: the one network that has sympathetic and extensive coverage for the 9/11 rescuers is Al Jazeera. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs substantiated Stewart's claims in a press conference today, noting that he has not been asked about the bill by any media outlets.


The video clip is viewable here. Later in the show, there was also an extensive interview with some of the 9/11 rescuers, and you see their reaction to Senator John Kyl (Arizona - R) whining because he thinks it's unfair to have to work the week between Christmas and New Years, to which the firemen and police officers noted that they gladly serve and do their duty through the holidays, why can't Congress? In a later interview, Mike Huckabee (former Republican governor of Arkansas and a Fox News personality) also blasted the two Republican senators blocking the bill, noting that a personal friend of his is dying from a 9/11 related illness, and has no medical coverage. Governor Huckabee also suggested that Senator Kyl should work through the week, since Congress already has taken too much time off the job.
[identity profile] xforge.livejournal.com
Can someone fill me in if my assumption is incorrect - the Democrats never did use and/or were never able to use their "60-vote majority" in the Senate to override any filibustering, right? And I don't mean override filibustering so much as override a member of the minority vaguely mumbling "filibuster" in his half-asleep state as he turns to the sports page to see whether his bets came in. There wasn't ever any real supermajority and there hasn't been any ability for either party to stop a filibuster in the Senate since Clinton left office, has there? (Not that the wimpass Democrats actually stood up to anything since Newt became Speaker of the House either, but I again digress.)

Sooooo why in the name of HELL does the media manage to get "lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters lost their supermajority and can't stop filibusters" into every breath taken in or breathed out by every reporter on every network morning noon and night since about fifteen seconds after Kennedy left the Senate floor for the last time? WHY are they repeating this idiocy??? WHYWHYWHY??? Somebody make them stop. Please???
[identity profile] eracerhead.livejournal.com
If I'm not mistaken, The Senate was intended to temper the majority rule of The House, to prevent the tyranny of the majority from running roughshod over the minority. We're hearing now as we did a decade ago about the nuclear option, where the filibuster will be abolished.

IMO the filibuster is a necessary part of The Senate and abolishing it would tend to eliminate an important tool for protecting the minority. The problem we are having with the filibuster isn't because of the filibuster, it is because according to the current rules it doesn't need to be carried out; a Senator must do nothing more than threaten to filibuster. The solution is to make it more painful to filibuster.

With so little cost of entry it's no wonder it is being used more than ever to obstruct. The Senate needs to change the rules back to where Senators must actually filibuster. Make them stand up and read the phone book on CSPAN until they drop dead. Because of the higher cost of entry, the filibuster will be used much less, as in only when Senators are really serious about an issue.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


Craig Becker, a routine nominee for the National Labor Board was voted down Tuesday night. Ryan Grim writes: "The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a nominee."

Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it. "I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it," said the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination. After a record number of filibuster threats, cloture motions, many on the Hill are eyeing next January as an opportunity to change Senate rules with a ruling by the chair of the Senate: who happens to be Vice President Joe Biden. Such rule changes do not require a supermajority vote (i.e. 60).
[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com
So, since Scott Brown was elected the Democrats sound as if they're ready to curl up and die.  But why is the mere whiff of a threat of a filibuster enough to kill health care reform?  Why don't the Democrats show some respect to the sizable portion of America that voted them in based, at least partially, on their promise to reform health care.  Why don't they just try to push it through and let the Republicans actually filibuster, not merely threaten to do so.   In fact, while we're at, screw Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Lieberman, let's put together a serious health care reform bill and try to pass it with a majority and forget these people who care more about their political asses than doing the right thing.

Let the Republicans and Republican wanna-be's be the ones holding up legislation that the majority wants to pass and let Americans see them do it day after day on CSPAN and on the nightly news.  Why don't the Democrats do this?  Is it just because they're gutless milquetoasts, or is there something more subtle going on?
[identity profile] penguin42.livejournal.com
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001210001

Once again conservatives have jumped at the chance to define and confuse the terms of the debate. Why are they so darned good at this?

Now it's concerning the idea of a "nuclear option" -- originally coined to mean a senate procedure which would do away with the 60-vote cloture requirement with only a majority vote. Nuclear both because of potential political fallout, and because it would do away with filibustering forever, and therefore potentially harming both parties. The republicans were considering using it to bypass a filibuster of some nominees, but a small bi-partisan group managed to forestall its use.

Another more limited method of getting around filibusters is the budget reconciliation process. Limited because nominally it only can apply to budget-related issues. The republicans actually used this process to enact some of bush's tax cuts, without any populist uprisings whatsoever.

But now fox news and some republicans have started using the term "nuclear option" to refer to both of these processes, in a way that is very hard to interpret as anything other than intentional, disingenuous attempt at confusing the debate. A quick search on the internet finds that conservative blogs have quickly picked up on this, and are deriding how terrible and authoritarian the use of the "nuclear option" (meaning budget reconciliation) would be. Many mention the actual threat of the nuclear option the republicans made, but no one seems to mention the actual uses of budget reconciliation.

Honestly I think that both techniques are undesirable, and as much as I wanted this health care bill, I wouldn't suggest democrats use either for the health care bill itself (budget reconciliation for a "clean up" bill to adjust taxation and entitlement structures to make the house happier is more palatable to me -- but just a little). But why confuse the terms at all? Why can't we have debates on actual facts rather than spun-up labels topped with distorted historical perspectives? Or is it the liberals who are being overly pedantic and worried about semantics and details while the conservatives are simply cutting to the core of the issue and "clarifying" things for the public? But then, why can't the public just look at the actual facts and "clarify" things for themselves?
[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
I have seen over the last few days a lot of the Progressives want to do away with the Filibuster. It seems you types have forgotten that under George W. Bush the Republican wish to do away with the Filibuster when they had a majority of two houses of Congress meant that they were drunk with power. A bunch of Dixie-accented fascists tearing away at our institutions for Jesus. The Filibuster was necessary to prevent the rise of the Republic of Gilead and the horde of monstrously obese republicans marching in American-flag shirts shouting "Heil Busch!".

And now all of a sudden that you guys are in power and the tables are turned it's undemocratic. I see.

And for the Republicans-so where was this emphasis on strict construction when you guys did things like suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act? Yeah, OK, fine, you don't want KSM to have a trial. Fair enough, he's an evil scumbag. That's understandable. But come right out and say you want him strung up, don't bother with the rule of law defense when you guys undid a fair number of constitutional protections, including the act that forbids use of soldiers as law enforcement and were fine with arresting innocent men like Maher Arar and the idea that our government should be allowed to tap our phones for its own devices. Oh, and the creation of Homeland Security really undermines any idea that you believe in smaller government, especially since that is bloated and inefficient even by Washington standards.

A plague on both your houses.
[identity profile] zebra24.livejournal.com
Democrats lost the election 52:47 in this traditionally Democratic state.
Why?
Didn't Obama mentioned to the people that it's important to win this election for an Obama-care reform?

Democrats told us that this is a referendum on a health-care reform.

They lost it and what? Nothing.
Now they talks now about over-usage of the filibuster.

That's funny, isn't it?
Congratulations: I hope America is not going to have one more 700 pages bill with only couple hours of discussion.
I am not so optimistic about stopping the Obama-care, but definitely after real debates It won't be so devastating.
[identity profile] enders-shadow.livejournal.com
"We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. "Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body." -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/health/policy/21senatecnd.html?_r=3

It seems that the filibuster has become overused and maybe over-powered.

I realize the Senate is meant to represent all the 50 states and it does so, equally, but doesn't that give an incredibly lopsided advantage to the people living in the low-population states to control the high-population states?

The Senators from NY, California and Florida have the same power as those from Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Meanwhile...what's the population diff? NY+Cali+Flor=60 mill? 70? I'm not gonna do the math. meanwhile Idaho+Montana+Wyoming=10 mil? Maybe?

This bothers me.
I am beginning to think that abolishing the senate might actually be a good idea.
(enter Emperor Palpatine macros about abolishing the Senate here)

I'm not convinced but it's something I'm thinking about. What do you think about this?

Maybe if we simply got rid of the filibuster I wouldn't mind so much--though that might be for another post. Since it's use has skyrocketed in the past 50 years.

filibuster?

So yeah, thoughts?

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
OSZAR »