Ezra Klein is right. The Senate is broken and we have to deal with it. I particularly liked this metaphor.
Law professor Lawrence Lessig often compares the dysfunctions of the Congress to the woes of an alcoholic. An alcoholic, he says, might be facing cirrhosis of the liver, the loss of his family and terrible debt. Amidst all that, the fact that he drinks before bed at night might not seem his worst problem. But it is the first problem, the one that must be solved before he can solve any of the others.
However, the earliest date that we could really address the filibuster is probably 2011, when the 112th Congress convenes. At that time, provided that the Dems still have control of the Senate, they could change the Senate filibuster rules with a bare majority. Otherwise, it takes a true supermajority of 67 to change the rules. There has been some talk of ruling the filibuster unconstitutional with a 51 vote majority, but I can’t see that happening and I won’t be advocating that kind of nuclear option. I don’t think the filibuster is unconstitutional, and that is the reason I don’t support that approach.
So, I think we realistically have to face the fact that we’ll need 60 votes to do anything next year. But we should really treat 2010 as an opportunity to lobby against the filibuster and educate the public about the many reasons we cannot afford to let a small minority of senators obstruct the president’s agenda.
I’ll have more to say about this tomorrow, but I want to be clear about one thing tonight. In 2010 we are going to have the 60 vote requirement, and we need a strategy for dealing with it that doesn’t involve just bitching about it. We need the votes of all 60 Democrats for everything we try to do next year. And if we can’t get those votes, we have to make them up from the other side. So, let’s be of two minds. What do we need to do in 2010 to get things done, and what do we have to do in 2010 to pave the way for doing away with the filibuster in 2011?
but why is
that period so special that it only takes a majority? Is it because the Senate is first starting the session and nothing else is on the table?
Yes.
It’s a weird loophole where the majority can set the rules, but they are then set in stone.
Thoughts on Harkin’s proposal?
…”and what do we have to do in 2010 to pave the way for doing away with the filibuster in 2011?”
So, then, what say you? What do “we” have to do on that point, hmmm?
What the rules in CT for filling a vacancy? Does the gov. have to appoint someone from the same party?
Yes. Jodi Rell, a Republican would have to appoint a Democrat for a vacancy in Dodd’s seat. Technically, she would have to appoint a Connecticut for Lieberman candidate for Lieberman’s seat, but I think that party has been dissolved. So that creates an uncertain situation. Does that then give Rell the discretion to appoint anyone–say, a Republican?
Is there a provision for a special election or does the appointment last to the end of Dodd’s term (2010) or Lieberman’s (2012)?
At most, the appointment is good only for around three years in the current situation.
are premature.
Ultimately the problem is that in the event that the situation is reversed, and the Republicans were in power again (much like what we had with Bush Jr.), many Democrats could view the filibuster as a useful tool to obstruct some of the nonsense.
I wasn’t aware of this loophole regarding the Senate rules, and I am a little baffled as to why if this is so easy that this wasn’t corrected at the start of the current session. If all of this were true, the majority in any Senate session could rule out the filibuster as it is generally only of use to the minority – so the question remains why it is that the filibuster has continued this long? Bureaucratic inertia perhaps? But the current level of Senate dysfunction has reached a level that something has to change.
Except … the Democrats only blocked some of the most odious stuff … they were always “keeping their powder dry”
you have to think about what the filibuster really is. It’s not supposed to be a tool of obstruction. It’s a reflection of the unanimous consent rule. Remember that there was a time when our union was a little shaky. Many states were happy to sever their ties to the federal government if they thought it was wronging them. If a piece of legislation was going to unduly screw a state, the senators from that state could object. It was a peacemaking tool. And it allowed a senator to say, ‘hold on a minute. We haven’t thought this through. Here’s why this provision should be stripped.’ Operating by unanimous consent is supposed to foster collegiality, and it usually has in the Senate. But it’s not working now.
There is a certain mindset that believes in elves, Santa Clause, the East Bunny and other kindly lies.
There is another mindset that is caused by a lifetime of propaganda. To wit: the US is Not one of the most evil countries to have ever existed.
There are honest politicians. No politician ever took a bribe, a payoff, a noshow job, an underpriced piece of land. The loan of a car. Etc.
This mindset leads to being of two minds. There should be only one. Start at the top and work down. Obama has commited over 11 months of war crimes, impeach him in return for single payer. I’d even throw in a show trial and an execution for the killings in Pakistan and Yemen for the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You just have to think in human think not in political babble and it becomes real clear real fast.
The Senate is functioning precisely the way it’s been designed to function: to frustrate and defeat egalitarian movements from generating law. It’s not broken. It’s the House of Lords. In America it’s the corporations that are the lords. Lieberman is the Duke of Hartford.
BTW, TPM story reporting possibility of Senate movement on Climate Change is pretty slim.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/with-health-care-winding-down-senate-dems-can-soon-focus-
on-climate-change-right-wrong.php
Just as the TPM article says, the left is going to have to swallow nuclear power. I don’t see why it’s such a hard pill anyway. I am a nuclear proponent, so I guess that’s why I don’t see it.
One that I’m not willing to swallow is opening up the ANWR and/or more oil drilling. It’s like these idiots believe oil companies are nationalized or something; we’re not Venezuela, GOP.
One thing that scares me is that during the campaign trail, Obama hinted at being open to more drilling if it resulted in clean energy investments. I didn’t like where that was going on the campaign trail, and after seeing the health care spectacle, I definitely don’t like where it’s going now.
the left is going to have to swallow nuclear power. I don’t see why it’s such a hard pill anyway.
Plus, as long as proposed plants call for once-through reactors, there are the problems of peak uranium and long-term waste storage.
Just a reminder of what exactly he said:
I have no problem with nuclear power in the abstract. My problem with it is:
With the parameters you set, the only thing to do is to gear every bill so that it can pass under budget reconciliation rules. If the Dem caucus isn’t goingt to (or can’t – take your pick) punish wayward members by stripping committee assignments, then a major lever to enforce discipline is gone. The President and the party committees have little leverage because only a third (approximately) of senators are up for re-election. Thus most don’t need crunch-time fundraising efforts or joint campaign appearances. And it is unlikely that money would be withheld in any case. Voters have little leverage against the worst Dems because the senators are not up for re-election this cycle, or because the senators just don’t really give a damn about their constituents.
As for the other side, beyond the duo from Maine, there doesn’t seem to be anybody that could be convinced on important bills. McCain, Voinovich, and Gregg have the 63-65th lifetime PP scores, but McCain and Gregg are much worse this session.
That leaves reconciliation.
I think the filibuster is unlikely to be killed this session, but to rule out the nuclear option from the get-go makes no sense for two reasons. First, it is unlikely there will be any major accomplishments otherwise. And second, it’s a lousy bargaining tactic.
Has any Democratic senator voted to sustain a filibuster this session?
yes. Bayh, McCaskill, Feingold, and Webb have done so repeatedly, including on virtually every appropriations bill. But only on votes that weren’t close.
See the results here.