In light of the Senate’s recent NLRB-related ridiculousness, here is a quick update on the status of the filibuster debate.
For those who’ve been living in a cabin in the mountains with no Internet access for the last year or so, here is the deal. In recent decades, the use of the filibuster has spiked dramatically. In the 1960s it was used against eight percent of major bills (and it was largely evoked by Southern senators who felt that Jim Crow laws were just swell). In recent years the number of major bills facing a filibuster skyrocketed to seventy percent. What’s more, the nature of the filibuster has changed: you no longer have to pull a Mr. Smith or a Huey Long: talking endlessly for hours to delay a vote. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster requires a 60-vote supermajority to overcome. The Obama Administration is practically immobilized by the tactic, making the real change the president promised almost impossible. The same will be true of the next president, regardless of party.
The Nation has an interesting new piece on the filibuster by Thomas Geoghegan (and “the Editors”), a compelling Chicago author who has written some amazing books. Geoghegan argues that the Democrats should forces the Republicans to actually follow through on their filibuster threat, force them to actual keep the debate going for hours, days, weeks. In addition to being exhausting, it will also put their more nonsensical objections on full public display.
It’s an interesting idea, although I doubt anyone will ever try it. Indeed, like most strategies to end the filibuster it would be hard and/or unpopular to enact, as the minority party never has much reason to forsake their primary legislative strategy. But if the filibuster is to be ended, or modified as Senator Tom Harkin proposed, the reform would have to be projected into the future, to avoid accusations of a partisan powerplay. I realize the Republican Party’s habitual obstructionism makes this tough, but here is how it would work in theory. The two parties agree to retire, or weaken, the filibuster beginning in, say, 2016—when we can have no strong idea of which one will control the White House or Congress. Then it won’t be about healthcare reform, or Obama, or today’s Republicans. It will be about reforming a broken law that is hamstringing our government and its ability to deal with the major issues of the day.
> The same will be true of the next president, regardless of party.
Oh honey, you wish. The Dems will never use it 1/10th as much as the ‘Pubs have been this year. Dem’s motto: In Majority, ineffectual, in Minority…ineffectual.
The Filibuster isn’t even a proper rule, it’s an understanding.
Just have the Senate leader ignore it and there is NOTHING – and I do mean NOTHING – that they can do.
The filibuster should be replaced by duels with pistols at dawn. I’m sure the Republicans, the self-proclaimed traditionalists and gun rights advocates, would agree. Right? Waiting for fair elections or, at least, for the old bastards in our “House of Lords” to die of old age is taking way too long. Yes, pistols at 10 paces should do it…well, we can hope.
Geoghegan is right: Reid should call the GOP’s bluff and MAKE them actually go through with the fillibuster. Put them ON RECORD as actively opposing popular legislation and then watch as the independents steer away from them in future elections like gazelles avoiding a pride of lions.
The Filibuster rule making someone stand there and speak will never be enacted, because at any time the speaker can make a quorum call and make legislators come back into the session, even at 3 in the morning.
That’s a great rundown of how the filibuster works, well done.
Yeah, just imagine if we didn’t have the filibuster during the Bush years. He would’ve been able to give tax cuts to his buddies, invade a sovereign country and tap our phones without a warrant. Whew… good thing we had that filibuster!
The filibuster complaints are symptoms of the problem, which is lack of any progress legislatively. The cause of that lack of progress is Obama’s painfully inept leadership. Screw up some leadership and filibuster problems will evaporate.
Every time the Senate reconvenes, it establishes the rules it will function under. Reid can do away with the filibuster when they come back from recess. It is actually very easy. It is not in the Constitution. It is just a procedural guideline accepted by the Senate. It has been and can be changed.
Yeah, make them go thru with it, but really just fucking end it like I said.
1. Biden rules amendment to rule 22 is in order.
2. McConnell objects.
3. Dems sustain Biden with 51 votes.
4. W 51 votes they restore democracy and majority rule to America. And no it won’t be unpopular and hard! It will be easy because it’s fucking democracy good god you mean you don’t think we can sell democracy and equal rights and effectiv voting rights?
Just. Do. It.
The GOP isn’t going to make a deal for the present or the future as you suggest and we can’t afford to wait for democracy and majority rule; it’s our right, it’s our right now and remember the fucking fierce ugency of now?
Where’s our fucking majority rule? Where’s our fucking constitution? This 60 vote thing vioaltes majority rule. Where’s our fucking change?
Wait till 2016 and a bipartisan la de dah?
WTF?
Just do it.
IOW
be the change you want dammit.
@5: do you think the other GOP senators will be happy with their filibustering collegue calling a quorum at 3 a.m.?
i still say do it. make them stand up and show us their rich old man whingeing skills.
Dirty Jackass Jake, are you a principled progressive or a pussy?
When are you going to call Yoko down at the Guild and organize this scab rag?
@8 – How does one show “leadership”, exactly? The Senate isn’t accountable to the President. What would you like to see Obama do differently that would make the filibuster problems “evaporate”?
It is a relevant point that the Dems have not used the filibuster effecively (but was it not used to put a stop to Social Security privatization?) however be very careful what you wish for. The next Repugnantkin in the White House could quite possibly do considerably more damage even than the last one with no way for the non-caveman minority to throw a wrench in the works (I am envisioning the federal courts stocked to the rafters with Scalia clones).
All the parliamentary tricks in the world aren’t going to cover up the fact that Harry Reid is completely incompetent.
They should limit the number of filibusters the minority can use in a year. Say, 5 or so.
With that rule, Richard Shelby would never get the chance to hold Obama’s nominees hostage to get government pork for Alabama, because another Senator would scream, “What about my state?” and they’d end up fighting like birds over breadcrumbs.
What the fuck so we will commit to being hamstrung until 2016. Bad deal, the democratic party would never recover from that.
The democrats should propose this rule change for the next congress, and they should force the republicans to filibuster, though your line “to end the filibuster it would be hard and/or unpopular to enact” is just false. The current congress could wisk it away with a simple majority at the beginning of the next session, but it would be impossible to end before because the rule could be filibustered. The democrats would do themselves a huge favor to come out with banking reform and then force the republican filibuster, if they refuse to rein in the banks they will lose this election. Health care isn’t the greatest issue, although important more common ground is found in regards to fixing the economy, if republicans want to filibuster that, during an election cycle, it will be their water loo, and if democrats try to make health care their saving grace, the budget hawks will run around screaming debt with their head cut off will change the electorate’s priorities. People want to see the government respond to our needs, and while our need is health care, it’s the economy stupid.