Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 5, 2010
Politics Can We Kill the Filibuster Now?
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota—Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan—won't be running for reelection in 2010. No one seems to think that the Democrats can hold this seat, which means... um... let's kill the filibuster now, hey? In other depressing/distressing news: Republicans think they have a shot in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. If they pull off this upset, they GOP will be able to block health care reform—unless, of course, the Dems do away with the filibuster. Which they should do. Now.
UPDATE: Krugman makes the case for killing the filibuster:
Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.
Read the whole thing here.
1
How they gonna do that, Dan?
To get cloture on a rule change you need 2/3 of the Senate. Meaning 67 votes.
To get cloture on a rule change you need 2/3 of the Senate. Meaning 67 votes.
3
Yeah, I'm sure you weren't so in favor of this idea a few years ago when the Republicans tried it during their reign of power.
5
Why don't they do what they really want anyway and just change the party name to Republocrats and then we don't have to follow the petty political circus that mostly amounts to nothing?
One party where they can all fight with each other over who is more conservative...that's all they do now.
One party where they can all fight with each other over who is more conservative...that's all they do now.
6
@2 - That's a risk we should take. The ruling majority should have a chance to enact their platform, even if that platform is hideously awful - if people hate it, and it does bad things, as a Republican platform would for a few years, the party responsible would be held accountable and their entire platform discredited in a way that's never possible when the platform remains only a theory.
7
But don't just take my word for it. Read Ezra Klein's much more eloquent anti-filibuster arguments here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl…
8
Americans who vote for Republicans remind me of battered wife syndrome. No matter how much damage the Republicans do, they just keep getting some people's vote.
9
To my fellow commenters saying that the filibuster is a weapon we'll need in the future: sorry, you're wrong. The filibuster prevents change. That means that in the long run, its existence favors conservatives. Besides, they have already broken their half of the old tacit bargain: the majority allows the filibuster, and in return the minority uses it sparingly. They have been using it to block virtually everything. The filibuster, combined with the malapportionment of Senate seats, is the reason America is so far behind the rest of the advanced world. It is time and past time we ditched it.
10
These anti-filibuster arguments are all well and good. But does anybody have any real, practical idea of how to get the necessary votes to achieve this?
If not, it's a pipe-dream.
If not, it's a pipe-dream.
11
Yes, we need to end the 60 vote rule. This is the biggest barrier to change in our whole system and it doesn't matter how many Obama the urban archipelago elects when rules like this empower folks like Ben Nelson to rule over our fate by being the 60th vote.
Face it, if the GOP wins fair and square they should not be subject to this rule, either. It ain't democracy.
Dear Sen. Mansfield please
(a) quote your authority, (b) then explain the rule on voting requirement for adoption of the rules, including the authroity you quote, and (c) consider the various strategems by which a chair can rule be challenged then have the rulign upheld based on only a simple majority vote?
Face it, if the GOP wins fair and square they should not be subject to this rule, either. It ain't democracy.
Dear Sen. Mansfield please
(a) quote your authority, (b) then explain the rule on voting requirement for adoption of the rules, including the authroity you quote, and (c) consider the various strategems by which a chair can rule be challenged then have the rulign upheld based on only a simple majority vote?
12
@4, we won't need it in the future, because the Democrats are such cowardly little pussies they'll never in a million years use it.
13
If it takes 67 votes to get rid of the filibuster, you'll have to wait for the Dems to be in the minority. No Republican would shoot himself in the foot that way. But Democrats? That's their m.o.
14
@11,
From the Standing Rules of the Senate:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
From the Standing Rules of the Senate:
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
15
I look forward to bringing back caning and horsewhipping as well as duels to the austere traditions of the Senate.
not to mention spitoons ...
not to mention spitoons ...
16
Honestly, the next time the Dems are in the minority they should filibuster everything.
"The Republican Senator from South Carolina moves we break for Lunch."
"The Democratic Senators from California, California, Oregon, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, New York, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Vermont, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington object."
That'll terminate the existence of the filibuster fast.
"The Republican Senator from South Carolina moves we break for Lunch."
"The Democratic Senators from California, California, Oregon, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, New York, Massachusetts, Massachusetts, Vermont, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Rhode Island, Washington, and Washington object."
That'll terminate the existence of the filibuster fast.
17
Just ignore it and force them to vote - no matter what the Rule is, the Senate determines everything by majority vote, so that will kill it fast.
18
Remember, folks, in the U.S. Senate, North Dakota (population 641,481) has just as much representation as California (population 36,756,666). And this would continue to be true even if the filibuster were (was?) repealed tomorrow.
I keep thinking, if we progressives really want a progressive nation, don't we have to start moving to places like North Dakota in serious numbers? As impractical as this may be, I'm really kinda serious when I say this.
"Serve your country. Move to North Dakota." At least it's better than, "Serve your country. Volunteer to fight in Afghanistan."
P.S. Someone told me a couple days ago it was -37F in Bismarck.
I keep thinking, if we progressives really want a progressive nation, don't we have to start moving to places like North Dakota in serious numbers? As impractical as this may be, I'm really kinda serious when I say this.
"Serve your country. Move to North Dakota." At least it's better than, "Serve your country. Volunteer to fight in Afghanistan."
P.S. Someone told me a couple days ago it was -37F in Bismarck.
19
on the plus side, at least the democrats will have an excuse for not being able to accomplish anything.
21
Mike Mansfield:
the standing rules aren't in effect on opening day.
All we need is for the chair running the meeting to so rule.
Then he/she gets challenged, the challenge is put to a tabled vote, which is a majority, and we have changed the rules.
That's all.
Read the CRS report, noting back a long time ago "Vice President Richard Nixon, as presiding officer, said during debate that he believed that the Senate could adopt new rules “under whatever procedures the majority of the Senate approves.”
Until you apporve those standing rules, they are not in force. This is the same in every legislative body in existence.
It's a matter of NOT HAVING THE BALLS TO DO IT.
the standing rules aren't in effect on opening day.
All we need is for the chair running the meeting to so rule.
Then he/she gets challenged, the challenge is put to a tabled vote, which is a majority, and we have changed the rules.
That's all.
Read the CRS report, noting back a long time ago "Vice President Richard Nixon, as presiding officer, said during debate that he believed that the Senate could adopt new rules “under whatever procedures the majority of the Senate approves.”
Until you apporve those standing rules, they are not in force. This is the same in every legislative body in existence.
It's a matter of NOT HAVING THE BALLS TO DO IT.
22
@ 12, I seem to recall the Dems using it against Bush when they were still in the minority. (Remember the 'pubs talking about the nuclear option? They meant killing the filibuster.) I can't tell you what noxious piece of legislation it was, but I was damn glad they filibustered it.
24
@ 21,
Sorry but the standing rules are always in effect. The Senate (unlike the House) is a continuing body. Amending the rules takes a resolution, which can be filibustered like any other vote.
Sorry but the standing rules are always in effect. The Senate (unlike the House) is a continuing body. Amending the rules takes a resolution, which can be filibustered like any other vote.
25
Matt from Denver @4 & @22, take off your partisan blinders; stop thinking of the filibuster issue only in tactical and political terms. The filibuster isn't wrong because it hurts Democrats. It's wrong because it is a perversion of democracy.
And has it ever occurred to you, Matt, that, whatever repulsive legislation the Republicans may be able to pass some day with a simple majority, a filibuster-free Senate would ultimately do a lot more good than harm?
Even then, this isn't about good and harm. It's about right and wrong.
And has it ever occurred to you, Matt, that, whatever repulsive legislation the Republicans may be able to pass some day with a simple majority, a filibuster-free Senate would ultimately do a lot more good than harm?
Even then, this isn't about good and harm. It's about right and wrong.
29
23
We'll see your 10 states
and raise you 30.
Asshole.
Two can play that game....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzbdY_rPt…
We'll see your 10 states
and raise you 30.
Asshole.
Two can play that game....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzbdY_rPt…
30
All this fretting about filibuster misses the big point-
if the Democrats proposal weren't so shitty and if Obama's "leadership" wasn't such a pussywhipped farce it wouldn't matter.
Try coming up with some proposals the people actually want....
if the Democrats proposal weren't so shitty and if Obama's "leadership" wasn't such a pussywhipped farce it wouldn't matter.
Try coming up with some proposals the people actually want....
31
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
I read shit like this and it makes me almost wish United 193 had hit the Capitol.
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
I read shit like this and it makes me almost wish United 193 had hit the Capitol.
32
@31,
That's a pretty revolting comment. You don't like the language of some Senate rules so you (almost) wish terrorists had destroyed your nation's capital?
If it was supposed to be funny, it isn't. If it's supposed to reflect your passionate disdain for the imperfect system of governing we have in this country, grow up. Democracy is a big fucking mess. Only totalitarian regimes get shit done effortlessly.
That's a pretty revolting comment. You don't like the language of some Senate rules so you (almost) wish terrorists had destroyed your nation's capital?
If it was supposed to be funny, it isn't. If it's supposed to reflect your passionate disdain for the imperfect system of governing we have in this country, grow up. Democracy is a big fucking mess. Only totalitarian regimes get shit done effortlessly.
33
It makes me nervous to advocate repealing the filibuster, but I think it has to go. Politics are more stilted than ever. And I am pretty sure donkeys will fly out of Paul Krugman's derrier before that happens.
35
32: You don't like the language of some Senate rules so you (almost) wish terrorists had destroyed your nation's capital?
Not the building. It's a beautiful building.
Not the building. It's a beautiful building.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS