I’ve been wondering whether or not Harry Reid has enough votes in his own caucus to change the rules of the Senate next year. It sure sounds like he believes that he does. He says he is going to change the rules and that he isn’t going to settle for any handshake agreement from Mitch McConnell. I guess that this means that Reid is at least locked into making an effort to change the rules, and I doubt he would commit himself this way if he didn’t feel pretty confident about his prospects of succeeding.
I suppose it is possible that he is bluffing in an effort to convince McConnell to make concessions, but I think it is more likely that Reid actually does have enough support to make the changes if McConnell refuses to come to the table with a serious proposal.
It will be interesting to see what actually winds up happening. I like the proposed reforms, but I worry that we’ll get relatively little out of them compared to the risk we will incur down the line.
Is the persistent talking filibuster in Reid’s Plan? If it is, I suspect C-span would gain audiences. The West Wing, reminded us there is an honorable filibuster. If filibuster was taken seriously (by that I mean real information 24/7 from variety of sources) I think it would be great. When Sen. Bernie Sanders did his filibuster several years ago, I tried to get a couple of Dr. Seuss books to him to read at the “children’s hour”. (Even through a local DC bookstore I failed.) Sen. Sanders grandfatherly voice could have read Bartholomew and the Oobleck and the moral message would have been undeniable even to then President Bush.
I’ll provide an issues booklist to any Democrat or Independent with conviction who revives the honest filibuster tradition. Remember Mayor LaGuardia!
Sen. Sanders wasn’t technically filibustering. But he did talk for a long time.
Harry Reid has been discussing rules changes that would require the minority to talk and to keep a presence in the chamber in order to forestall efforts to end debate.
However, he hasn’t been specific about how this would be accomplished.
I have written a couple of recent pieces that speculate about how it would work.
One prerequisite for a genuine filibuster is a lack of an unanimous consent agreement that restricts the time for debate. By eliminating the requirement of 60 votes to begin debate, Reid is opening the door for senators to talk forever because he can begin debate without unanimous consent. However, he cannot limit time without unanimous consent.
The trick is how amendments will be handled.
Thanks for the info and I had forgotten Sen. Sanders’ effort wasn’t really a filibuster but my sixty+ imagination was delighted and did want to hear him read Seuss. Still do.
Booman, do you agree the filibuster might make good information-public interest viewing, especially considering email floods.
I think McConnell’s the one who’s bluffing. The situation with the GOP threatening the “nuclear option” in 2005 isn’t really that similar, mainly because filibuster reform by the Dems now is a popular move whereas in 2005, when the GOP threatened it, it was not. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released May 20, 2005, found 78 percent of Americans believe the Senate should take an “assertive role” examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt. Dems’ use of the filibuster was incomparably more limited; they used it on a few conservative judicial nominations. Now the whole GOP are widely seen not only as bullies but spitting in the face of national election results.
I understand the strategic issue; if we do this now, then when the GOP are in control … and I don’t exactly have an answer to that. But sometimes “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.”
The mandate that dare not speak its name — officially, the concept of “mandate” “seems” to have become inoperative, because there is no agreed-on criterion for what constitutes a mandate. And you know how the press are with he-said, she-said. But in actual, political fact, there is a mandate: Obama was elected on a clear platform that a majority of the public want to see implemented.
So here’s the thing: I think Reid sees this, correctly, as a “now or never” situation. He doesn’t want to spend the next four years like the last four. It’s funny — so many Dems were disappointed in the first term that Obama and Reid didn’t put up a fight. Now they are showing signs that they’re not afraid of a fight, a lot of those same Dems are saying don’t fight, you might get hurt.
Maybe they have come to the conclusion that (a) there’s too much urgent business that needs to be taken care of; (b) the GOP are committed to obstruction no matter what. (c) the more Dems get done, the better it is for the future of the country, and the less likely the Repugnants will control the Senate any time in the near future.
The moral of the story is, you were right all along. It’s not that the Dems have no spine, it’s that they had no leverage. Now they do, and you will see some spine.
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1114
“a man’s gotta do…”
This seems right to me. Basically, the inconceivable abuse of the filibuster by Mitch’s Morons after 2008 was a direct challenge to Reid’s Dems. Either keep eating Repub shit, day after day, month after month, year after year, or DO something about it. Mitch McTurd: “Yeah, whatcha gonna do about it, Little Harry, you sniveling Dem weakling?”
This filibuster gambit by Mitch’s Morons was intentional and knowing—by embarking on it, THEY decided to destroy the Old Senate and its antiquated rules. It was THEIR decision to massively abuse the rules and make the situation unendurable. They wrecked the Old Senate and its arcane procedures. Why in the world Harry and his Dems can’t take this tack and denounce Mitch’s Morons for what they decided to do in 2008 is beyond me. They never blame the Repubs no matter what shit they pull, nor do they even explain the shit—its incredible.
As for whether these reforms make any difference in governing the country over the next two years, however, the answer to that seems clear—they won’t. Even if the senate reforms “work”–and they likely will to some degree—Boner’s House of Turds is never going to pass any legislation that Reid’s senate adopts. We are in a complete paralysis situation and no actual government (let alone progress) can be expected as a result of the Repubs securing the House through their 2010 Gerrymander.
The senate will perhaps look (and be) more functional, and it may pass some popular bills that will then go to die in Boner’s FunHouse. Perhaps Obama and the Dems can make some political hay out of this as the country suffers through its Repub Gridlock Syndrome. Perhaps Dems may start making the case that Boner’s Boneheads and their House of Gridlock are an illegitimate body that is willfully frustrating actual progress. Perhaps–it’s the best that can be hoped for.
The most important area in which they could make a difference in governing the country is Presidential appointments.
There are a heck of a lot of empty positions that have been languishing because of the GOP filibuster.
That’s exactly what I was going to ask: would these reforms affect the appointment process, or just legislation?
I heard just yesterday that there are more judicial vacancies now than there were when Obama took office. It seems to me that if the public had any idea how badly needed these appointments are, how long they’ve been held up, and the ostensible reasons for doing so (often a single senator places a hold demanding some legislative consideration), I don’t see how the backlash could be any less than huge.
And it’s not just judicial appointments, either. There’s absolutely no precedent, no comparison, and no excuse for how the Senate GOP have been conducting themselves.
As for what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, as was said by someone else, the GOP would have done the nuclear option mid-session if the Dems hadn’t let them have their way. Basically it’s “do it our way or we’ll change the rules, illegally if need be, and then do what we want anyway.” Where’s the protection in having the filibuster intact if that’s the situation? And anyway, the GOP will be sure to change the rules immediately, should they return to power in their current crazy incarnation.
On your last point, “the GOP will be sure to change the rules immediately, should they return to power”, that is true, but the point really is that it’ll be even easier for them if we do it for them in advance.
But right, so what?
Another point — although the House can block anything, the situation can wind up making them look so bad that might help flip the House in two years. Not saying it’s gonna happen, but … shouldn’t be a total loss, those in the most competitive districts would have to run on a record of having blocked a lot of popular legislation.
What exactly is the risk down the line? More intransigence from the Republicans? Even greater obstruction? I don’t understand. They’re doing it already.
Or is the danger that when the Republicans are in power they will totally eliminate minority privileges? I mean, if the country wants a Republican senate, I assume they want a republican agenda in the senate, just as right now we have a Democratic senate, and the country has asked for a Democratic agenda. If the Republicans insist on subverting that process than at least let them work and sweat for it like their heroic industry captains or our ordinary families do. And let them do it in public and not through anonymous holds that the media can ignore as arcana.
The danger is that the Republicans will change the rules with 51 votes the next time they retake the chamber. Right now, there is a kind of taboo on doing that. There will be no taboo once we cross the Rubicon.
But which rules changes would be so dangerous?
They were perfectly willing to do it in 2005 – when it’s wouldn’t even be technically “legal” by Senate rules, unlike at the start of a session. When the Democrats basically capitulated and let all but 3 (IIRC) judges through then the Republicans let up.
Besides that, there had been a strong taboo against gross misuse of the filibuster before (e.g. filibustering appointments that would receive unanimous consent) and that didn’t stop them in 2009-2012.
If the Republicans ever need to get rid of the filibuster to get their agenda through it’s just gone. They respect only power, not taboos.
No offense, Boo, but if you think there are any taboos left…I don’t know what to tell you.
In the last five years the traditional GOP has utterly collapsed. The crew that has replaced them will do absolutely anything.
Anything.
we will see what happens.
you can always depend upon Dems to get squeamish
they delude themselves that they’re NOT dealing with anything other than sociopaths.