There is some weird stuff going on with filibuster reform that you can read about here. You may remember that we’ve been talking for a long time about a “nuclear option” or a “constitutional option” that would be invoked on the first day of a new congress in order to change the rules of the Senate with a mere majority of the votes. I’m not going to go over all the details again (the linked source is an adequate refresher). What’s important is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can use a procedural trick to extend the period of time he has to change the rules far beyond tomorrow. He could extend the “first legislative day” of this Congress all the way to January 22nd, when the Senate is due to convene for business. So, all the new members would be sworn in and then Reid would merely recess instead of adjourning the Senate.
In the meantime, Reid would negotiate with the Republicans in order to come to some kind of agreement that could win the approval of three-fifths of the Senate. This would be a “non-nuclear” way of changing the rules. The outlines of a possible compromise show that the Republicans are seriously worried that the Dems have the votes for a nuclear option and are therefore quite willing to make some serious concessions.
However, at least so far, the Democrats who have been leading the charge to change the filibuster rules are nowhere near satisfied. They want to create a “talking filibuster” both because it would make filibusters less common and because it would make those who filibuster more visible and accountable.
It’s an interesting set of considerations worthy of some serious game theory. How much power are you willing to take for yourself in the majority, knowing that you will one day be in the minority? Is transparency and accountability more important than getting a large bipartisan consensus that the minority’s ability to obstruct for obstruction’s sake should be severely curtailed? What are the downsides in the short and long term to using a mere majority to change the Senate rules, and how much are you willing to give up to minimize or avoid those downsides?
What is certain is that senators like Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have already locked in significant concessions from the Republicans by making such a credible threat against the filibuster. Since Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain have floated the following deal in response, we can consider these positive changes as the bare minimum we’ll get in any deal:
Levin and McCain, the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, have put forward a three-part reform of the filibuster rule.
Their proposal would make it easier for the majority leader to take up new business by empowering him to deny the minority the ability to filibuster motions to proceed. In exchange, the leader would have to guarantee the minority leader and a bill’s minority manager each the right to offer an amendment, even an amendment on non-germane business.
The leader would have the option of scheduling an immediate vote to end a filibuster of a motion to proceed if five additional senators from each caucus sign a cloture motion.
Additionally, the Levin-McCain plan would speed the process for bringing legislation to conference negotiations with the House. It would collapse the three motions currently needed to proceed to conference into one motion that could be voted on after two hours of debate.
Their proposal would also speed consideration of lower-level executive and judicial branch nominees. Motions to end debate on non-Cabinet-level officials and district court nominees could receive votes after two hours of debate.
Levin and McCain have proposed putting the new process in place through a standing order, which would need to be approved by three-fifths of the Senate and would sunset at the end of two years.
Personally, I think that that deal isn’t good enough. But I sure am glad to know we’re going to do at least that well.
They have absolutely got to pass the full reforms. I don’t care if the delicate sensibilities of longtime Democratic senators get hurt. They’ve got to realize that they aren’t dealing with Republicans in the Senate like John Chafee and Lowell Weicker anymore.
Doesn’t sound like all that good a deal from here.
Parliamentary rules are truly bizarre.
All that plus the talking filibuster.
Something strong has to be in the deal if the GOP wants to avoid the nuclear option.
Th reason is, once the opening senate day is finished, so is the nuclear option — until the start of the next congress. If the threat of it is effective now, that threat will vanish after January 22d, so we’d better get some strong control on the filibuster in return for our restraint.
I don’t understand the talking filibuster. You make the person who’s filibustering talk? So they can get all the attention on their pet issue? And if they go for waaaaay long, they’ll get more and more media attention and become heroes?
This is supposed to move things along, somehow? Isn’t adding ‘talking’ in an attempt to control ‘filibuster’ like adding ‘ice cream’ in an attempt to control ‘weight’?
What it means is that if McConnell, or any of the other Pukes, want to hold up the Senate then they have to be on the floor and take up their precious time. Filibustering right now is painless for the GOP.
Simply put, right now all we hear is that the Senate voted down a particluar act. The reporting doesn’t include the fact that frequently, waht was bvoted down was merely the ability to bring the law up for discussion or to stop debate on the bill. By making people actually spend time talking they make themselves publicly responsible for trying to prevent passage of a bill. There isn’t a shared responsibility.
Plus, it means no other business can be conducted while the filibuster is taking place, which brings additional negative consequences. Yes, the individual may become a hero to some people, but in the eyes of many, depending on the subject matter or the act under consideration, they will be seen as trying to prevent progress. And if it is almost entirely done by Republicans, it gives the party a black eye.
Generally speaking, a lot more bills will come up for up and down votes this way.
I know it isn’t talked about much but I am more interested in a solution to the secret holds and the GOP putting holds on almost all of Obama’s nominees. I’d like to see secret holds eliminated completely, giving each Senator a maximum # of holds for each session and for each nominee to have a maximum hold of 2 months before getting a vote.
Did you see this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/03/1175908/-Unanimous-Senate-Confirmations-Part-of-Deal
I did see that. It was excellent news. Only 2 judges in that list unfortunately though.
“It’s an interesting set of considerations worthy of some serious game theory.
“How much power are you willing to take for yourself in the majority, knowing that you will one day be in the minority?
“Is transparency and accountability more important than getting a large bipartisan consensus that the minority’s ability to obstruct for obstruction’s sake should be severely curtailed?
“What are the downsides in the short and long term to using a mere majority to change the Senate rules, and how much are you willing to give up to minimize or avoid those downsides?”
Or you could just make up your mind once and for all that you actually believe in democracy and democracy means majority rule.
Jesus, man.
Come on.
we live in a republic, kiddo
Yes, we DO live in a republic.
That means we don’t have a KING.
I think the term you are looking for is “representative democracy”.
you bring up an important distinction – direct democracy, representative democracy, republic. must add to this later, however
I favor “democratic republic” over “representative democracy” to describe our system, because there are so many other strictures and forces in our constitutional system other than popular will, such as the individual right guarantees and the checks and balances system. The democracy element is better includes as an adjective than as the noun.
The proposals look pretty good, but I wonder how much teeth and staying power they will have. What’s the difference between doing this by “standing order” vs. by a rules change?
cake-cutting problem: person A gets to cut the cake in two, while person B gets to choose which piece he wants. 🙂
If you are a Taliban member of the Senate you have to love this, “In exchange, the leader would have to guarantee the minority leader and a bill’s minority manager each the right to offer an amendment, even an amendment on non-germane business.”. A non germane amendment will be the focus of the filibuster as it eats up time. In no real world is this good game playing giving up time for non real events.