The Senate is a weird place with strange rules. One of the key features of the Senate is that it requires unanimous consent from all 100 members to move from one piece of business to another. If even one senator objects to the Senate’s agenda, the majority leader has to file for cloture, wait a couple of days, and then muster 60 votes to override the lack of unanimous consent. One result of this is that one obstructive senator can slow down the calender considerably just by denying their consent for anything that is introduced. Even a Senate with ninety-nine Democrats and one Republican could get tied in knots if the one Republican always refused to consent to the next order of business.
This is what has been happening all year. Harry Reid tries to schedule a vote on Obama’s nominees and some Republican refuses to consent. What should have taken one day takes three or four days. Pretty soon, there aren’t enough legislative days left on the calendar to address Obama’s full agenda, and things begin to slip. This is a problem even if the Democrats have sixty ready votes to override a filibuster, because it chews up debate time anyway. But, now that the Democratic caucus will have sixty members, we will probably see less of this kind of rote obstruction. Or, maybe not. Maybe the Republicans will become even less inclined to offer unanimous consent since that will be the only arrow left in their quiver. Slowing down the Democrats could be their most effective way of resisting their agenda.
Even so, we should see at the very least an improvement in how often the Democrats prevail on these cloture votes on nominees. But major legislation on health care and climate change is another matter. On those issues, there are Democrats that don’t want to see Obama’s agenda pass into law. And they might very well join the Republicans in filibustering Harry Reid’s calendar.
“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”
I agree with Harry Reid, but I have a piece of advice. He should get very tough with his caucus on the issue of allowing for an up-or-down-vote on both the health care bill and the cap-and-trade energy bill. These are the two top priorities of this Congress, and they should not be filibustered by Democrats. Harry Reid should tell the caucus that voting against cloture on those two bills will result in a loss of seniority, including committee and subcommittee chairs. Members can vote anyway they want on final passage of these two bills, but they cannot filibuster them and remain Democrats in good standing.
If he does that, he will guarantee the passage of Obama’s health and energy agendas and earn the praise of all Democrats. If he doesn’t, he’ll be held up as a punk who must be run out of Washington on a rail.
The bigger question is what pressure will Obama and Rahm exert on Reid to make what you say happen. Cause if there is one thing I hope both Obama and rahm now understand, Reid is the only thing sitting between Obama and being thought of in either the same breath as FDR or Hoover(depending on what is passed or not passed)
Is there anything Rahm Emanuel does besides exert pressure?
You mean besides exert pressure on Progressives to vote for Blue/Bayh Dog crap? I don’t think so.
Worse than Hoover. He didn’t protect war criminals.
Taking another tack–did the Democrats ever use the non-consent arrow?
“My caucus doesn’t allow it.”
This is the United States Senate, not a volunteer bake sale.
I’d say every time you vote for a filibuster, we take three months off your seniority. Vote how you want, feel free, but we will keep count. Maybe give you a few freebies every year, like three or four. Use them wisely, my fellow Senators.
What’s the worst that could happen? A few jump ship to the GOP, like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman? Fuck em, they barely vote with us on critical votes anyway. I’d pay that price to scare some discipline into the other 58 Dems.
Next, I would punish the GOP for filibusters. Those who filibuster will no longer have their amendments approved in committee. They will be persona non grata. Every bill they write — dead on arrival. Those who vote for cloture more regularly begin to win back such privileges.
That’s what I would do.
In other words, you would play hardball. Are the health of all Americans and the well being of the planet important enough issues to start practicing some tough love on recalcitrant senators of both political parties? Or will Obama and Reid quietly go down with the ship. Sure hope they both have an acute sense of survival.
I keep asking, and not even Boo seems to know: how did we get to the point where filibustering has no downside — like having to actually stand there and hold the floor the whole time? And why is this being allowed to continue?
It’s kind of a myth that you ever had to stand there and speak after they adopted the cloture rule.
But we know the filibuster best from its role during the Civil Rights Era.
Notice that the reduction to sixty was a reform of the Watergate Babies.
But, you don’t have to physically stand there and talk if you are willing to engage in a constant game of noting the absence of quorum. Otherwise, the Senate has to be in attendance at all times to prevent the absence of a quorum.
A small handful of senators can effectively filibuster just by continuously noting the absence of a quorum and forcing roll call votes. There is no way to force the Republicans to stand up there all night reading from the phonebook.
There never was. They chose to speak back during the Civil Rights Era because they were grandstanding.
The only way to punish the GOP for obstruction in the Senate is to do what was done in 1964. Set aside all other Senate business for 57 days (or however long it takes) and complain loudly to the American people.
Truly excellent, Booman. Thank-you.
Sounds right to me. If the current rules allow, make health care reform the only business of the senate until the matter is decided, just as majority leader Mansfield (going against the old school advice of Pres Johnson) wisely kept the 64 CR bill on the floor, bypassing the reactionary Judiciary Comm’ee.
That means no committees meet and no off topic floor speeches are allowed during regular senate hours. Extend regular hours and cut back on or eliminate scheduled holiday recess time if necessary.
Of course, the Dems will need to get sharper and more forceful in their public relations game, which should at least be much better funded than the pitiful amount spent in 93, while aggressively calling out the other side in paid ads and free media for being in the deep pockets of the insurance and pharma industries.
The pressure on anti-cloture Dems should ideally come this way, from the bottom up and not through heavy-handed and possibly counterproductive “arm twisting” by senate leaders.
If they were fighting for a single-payer system, I’d support going to the wall like they did in 1964. But for this half-assed health care reform? No, just pass it through the reconciliation process and continue with incremental change. Obama is already finding it impossible to get his administration staffed up because of Republican obstruction. We can’t afford to waste even two days of Senate time, let alone fifty-seven.
Thanks for clarifying. It’s surprisingly hard to find the answer. I realize the filibuster has served our side well on occasion, but it’s really time to put an end to it, along with all the other “gentlemanly privilege” that’s based on the Senate’s House of Lords origins, not the Constitution or law.
If there was ever a time to call the GOP’s bluff it is now, with a popular president and issues like health care and environment/energy commanding large majorities wanting change.
Personally I could go with abolishing the Senate altogether.
BooMan, this is delusional.
there is no more chance of this than of Harry climbing the Capitol dome, jumping off, flying like Superman and landing unharmed.