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?
