It’s quite possible that Harry Reid didn’t have the votes in his own caucus to really weaken the filibuster, but he raised expectations too high and came off looking like a chump who won’t stand up for himself. I hope Sen. Tom Harkin is wrong, but I fear that he is not:
The deal preserves the concept of the modern Senate as a body in which 60 votes are required to get most things done, which has drawn the ire of liberals, such as Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, and a host of outside groups. Harkin predicted President Barack Obama’s agenda will suffer as a result of the deal.
“I said to President Obama back in August … and the night before the election, ‘If you get re-elected and we don’t do something significant about filibuster reform, you might as well take a four-year vacation,” Harkin said.
The deal Harry Reid struck with Mitch McConnell was not significant. It was a lost opportunity that did not take into consideration Mitch McConnell’s precarious reelection prospects and desire to avoid a primary from his right. It forecloses the one hope we had to advance legislation through the Senate and force the House to respond. It was an abdication of duty. And the only hope left now is that Obama can change the political landscape somehow, either through his Organizing for Action group, or through some fortuitous and yet unforeseen events.
We will see almost immediately what bad faith will do. Cordray will be filibustered, and today’s ruling about recess appointments in the appeals court strengthens the hand of the minority. Hegal will be filibustered. I doubt that anything more than a small handful of judges will be confirmed. The executive branch has been seriously weakened today. Without persons willing to undergo confirmation, and without a certain up-or-down vote, who the hell would volunteer to waste a year sitting outside McConnell’s office licking his boots?
Who left the Senate in pro-forma session for those appointments?
Repukes. They came in for the 30second session, so that the Senate has not stood in recess for years. Probably has not been in actual recess since Clinton’s 2nd term.
And as was pointed out during a story about the NLRB, every decision made by these now-non-appointees is null and void. The Repukeliscum can now entirely handcoff the entire Executive Branch. Why should they confirm a single person? What is to stop a filibuster of every single appointee, judge, ambassador, national panel, whatever?
This is one court’s decision. It will, no doubt, be appealed, and enforcement enjoined during the appeal.
Even so, the decision by 3 Repuke appointees is a bad way to start. I think that the token session thing is a travesty myself.
Adam Bonin at Daily Kos is of the opinion that this invalidates all previous recess appointments not made at the inter-session recess. And all decisions resulting from those appointments.
Sentelle and company might have uncorked a major destructive decision–if it’s upheld by the Supreme Court. It could keep lawyers employed for centuries.
It’s a massive bomb thrown into the executive recess appointment power—it basically strips it down to nothing. What was once a major threat by the prez is gone.
Would these three Repub judges (one Reagan, one Daddy Bush and one Cheney) have issued such a ruling during the Cheney Admin? By destroying the prez’s recess appointment power have these three “conservative” judges basically come to the conclusion that there won’t be many more Repub executives?
Finally, interesting timing on releasing the opinion—one day after the filibuster vote. The opinion permits a (Repub) senate minority to filibuster and frustrate executive appointments indefinitely and the (Dem) prez has no power under the Recess clause to keep the gub’mint running. This comes out the day after Olde-Tyme Senator Reid caved on his one chance to restrict the filibuster. Coincidence? Not likely.
Heckuvajob, Harry.
I agree. It’s a huge hit against the Executive Branch. What is to stop the Repukes from failing to confirm a single appointee? For the Repukes, no government is better than some government. The Dems want effective government.
This decision basically hands a huge huge win to the Repukes.
Do those in the Senate really want effective government?
Oh, cmon. the Reps wouldn’t do that. I mean, Reid and McConnell shook hands on it (again). There is honor among thieves.
Reid came off as a guy who lied through his teeth to his own party, to his own base, about something they all cared about a great deal. There is plenty of video of him talking about what had to be done. Rachel had a fine piece on it last night.
“didn’t have the votes…”
Easy for Reid and Durbin to say, especially in a system where we make sure that none of our brave senators ever have to TAKE a vote. Even if 50 Dem votes weren’t there (Biden could break a tie), let’s have a vote on the Merkley/Udall proposal, see who was on the side of reform and fighting McConnell’s procedural abuses, and who was John McFool’s buddy. Let’s see who wants to piss all over the activist base.
Also, in what column was Harry’s vote gonna be? Looks like he talked a good game about supporting actual filibuster reform ahead of the election, while actually being totally in favor of his old Super-Majority Senate. He’ll be around to see a senate Repub majority and a Repub prez soon enough, and will get to see McConnell shit all over him as Repubs vote out the filibuster entirely or cram big changes down the Dem minority’s throat. Heckuvajob Harry!
Reformers were taken in, it looks like. All to make sure that Harry’s watered down reforms were done with 2/3 support and not by simple majority vote. Can’t get Mitch and his boyz too mad, remember! Then they’ll REALLY obstruct, haha!
Anyway, it seems pretty clear that current Senate leaders don’t actually support procedural reform and never will. Conveniently for them, there’s never gonna be a vote to prove the suspicion.
So Mitch’s turds will keep filibustering Obama’s court (and other) nominees per usual. To say nothing of actual reform legislation. Harry and Carl can watch from the sidelines, lovin’ their Old-Tyme Senate charade. With the DC Circuit just ruling that Obama’s recent recess appointments to the Nat’l Labor Relations Board are unconstitutional, we’re right back at square one. Elections have consequences? Only when Repubs win, apparently.
Would Never Have Worked!
That’s the pathetic part of this whole thing. Switching the burden of sustaining a filibuster to the minority was the ONLY useful thing proposed — and even THAT would not prevent the GOP from filibustering anything that they really wanted. They’re not going to have fewer than 45 Senators over the next 4 years and unless the filibuster were eliminated, they could STILL block everything.
In short, the “talking filibuster” would simply provide the GOP the ability to make endless talking points that would be broadcast on Fox News as “heroic”. They would simply “recognize” each other in 4 hour shifts and keep up the filibuster.
Switching the burden COULD theoretically wear out the opposition to a bill or appointment.
However, IF the Republicans were united they could sustain the filibuster of anything they really wanted to — say an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court.
That Reid took the “reform” from feeble to non-existent is pathetic, but predictable.
We need to keep demanding the COMPLETE ELIMINATION of the filibuster, NOT it’s “reform.”
You are wrong. IN the current approach, one person on the filibuster side must be present, while all members seeking cloture must be there. In the proposed method, all member of the filibuster side would need to be on hand, while only 1 member seeking cloture would need to be present. It would put the cost of maintaining the fillibuster on the side of the filibuster. As it stands, the filibuster has no consequence today.
FWIW, I’m not convinced that the filibuster should or must be completely eliminated—it has been used by senate Dems to protect many things from vicious Repub majorities in the past, such as the Arctic Wildlife Refuge most recently.
But it should be returned to its roots of being a major circus and a national “event”. Not done easily, routinely or thoughtlessly as the inevitable last step in every opposition to every bill or appeals court nomination. Which is what McConnell and his turds basically turned it into.
You show your work and folks know how badly bought by lobbyists you are. The theory of the “rotating villain” is beginning to gain some credibility. Who is the designated villain among the Democrats who will ensure that the game continues despite public outrage?
I think everybody needs to sit down, take a deep breath, and read this. The author, David Waldman, has been a leading activist for filibuster reform and knows a good deal more about the subject, I suspect, than most of us. While not exactly ecstatic over the agreement, he provides a more balanced view than I’m seeing on this thread.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/24/1181721/-Takeaways-from-the-filibuster-fight
David is right, but so am I.
And then there’s this.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/01/did-harry-reid-choose-to-lose-battle-to.html
David is a great asset to our side and one of the most knowledgeable folks about congressional mechanics around. He also feels a need to do something to keep morale up (or at least existent) on the left.
To me his silver linings are very little more than whistling past the graveyard. DK does not take kindly to revolutionary thought.
And as for someone takin’ a vacation for the next four years, that advice is much more applicable to the useless senators and reps of the Do Nothing Congress than Obama.
Obama (unlike, say, Harkin) will have plenty to do trying to run a paralyzed, resource-starved gub’mint and foreign policy, with no new appointees. Maybe Olde-Tyme Senator Harry can just (actually) recess the senate for the next four years–at least then we could get some unchallengeable recess appointments, haha!
So what does this mean for aggressive gun legislation? At first glance it seems to make it impossible. Surely there a 40 Southern and Western Senators that would sustain a filibuster, especially since they don’t actually have to speak. Will they be “gentlemen” and agree to a straight up or down vote? While hesitant to ask, “Will pigs fly?”, I think the answer is “No”.
Just want to add that I too would like to see a roll-call of Senators for and aginst the strong filibuster reform. Come on, you gutless wonders, stand up for what you believe, no matter what it is. I have more respect for the Senator that says, “I would vote ‘No’ because I think the world hasn’t changed in 200 years.” than I do for a US Senator that hides his vote behind closed doors.
I started a comment…in disgust, Booman, in sheer disgust…and it grew.
Here it is:
The Senate Dems Did Indeed Do Their “Duty,” Booman. To Their Senate Club.
Read it at your own peril.
You can’t keep faking forever.
Not even Obama is going to be able to do that.
Bet on it.
WTFU.
AG
The Senate Dems finally proved that Nader was right after all, much as it gives me ulcer pains to say it. There is no more doubt that their priority is to themselves and their worthless little club, and against the interests of America and its people. Reid flat-out lied to us in public, then betrayed us just as openly. There’s no weaseling or mitigating that stark, inarguable fact.
What about the Nuclear Option? If the GOP can really grind the appointment process to a halt (and if there’s nothing from stopping them, they tend to do what they want), then that would make an excellent political argument in favor of going Nuclear–“nuclear,” so called, because the GOP were going to do it in mid-session after the Senate rules had already been established.
Instead of reforming the filibuster, it might still be possible to just ignore it. It’d be a drastic (!) move, but with public opinion in favor, it could be done.
I don’t have a link for you, but I read earlier this week that Reid promised McConnell that he won’t change the rules until 2015. I am so angry I could spit.
Just as I predicted. Tom Harkin has had enough. He is retiring.