TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Dec 3, 2010 8:11:50 GMT -5
motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/12/it-finally-time-reform-filibusterWeaknesses : - 5 is an arbitrary number and all of the amendments will probably be nonsense by leadership - I'm not sure if there's a limitation on the length of an amendment offer - the strategy I could see would be to offer the longest amendments possible and require full reading of them
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 3, 2010 9:20:29 GMT -5
One wonders what Jeff Merkley's (and Kevin Drum's) thoughts would be about the ending "abuse" of the filibuster if there were 59 Republican Senators and 41 Democrats.
Merkley I cannot speak to, but based on the tone of his text, I'm fairly certain Drum would not have written this blog entry in that case.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 3, 2010 9:27:26 GMT -5
The other weakness is that there's no problem with the current system. Legislation leading up to the Iraq War, which Mother Jones' leadership and readers would love to undo, was passed by Congress. Easily. The threat of a filibuster didn't stop massive trillion-dollar bailouts from getting passed whose defenders like to point it as one of the best examples of legislation during the fiscal crisis, nor did it stop health care reform - one of the most contentious issues right now, and one that Republicans did everything to stop. Obama is 2 for 2 on Supreme Court nominees.
There's only one reason to reform the filibuster, and that's because it makes things easier and means that you have to spend less time negotiating with the other side. In a political culture that's increasingly poisonous, that sounds like a dumb idea. Higher thresholds make it harder to pass legislation, which means that less dumb legislation gets passed.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 3, 2010 10:04:50 GMT -5
One wonders what Jeff Merkley's (and Kevin Drum's) thoughts would be about the ending "abuse" of the filibuster if there were 59 Republican Senators and 41 Democrats. Merkley I cannot speak to, but based on the tone of his text, I'm fairly certain Drum would not have written this blog entry in that case. Well, I remember the GOP had a different view of the filibuster when they last had the majority in the Senate. Remember the nuclear option? That said, you're not wrong. I'm sure Drum would have thrown a fit if a GOP senator had proposed this in 2003. But I think this might actually have a chance of passing. The GOP seems very confident that they'll have the Senate back in a couple of years. Also, since the GOP already has the House, the filibuster isn't their last line of defense against "bad legislation" anymore - they can just shoot it down in the House. So I think there's a chance the GOP might go along with this. The question is whether the Dems will be confident enough to do so. I think it's a good idea. I like the filibuster in principle, as a way to avoid the tyranny of the majority. But using it on every almost single vote is simply obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism. The way the GOP has used the filibuster recently, they've basically done an end around on the Constitution to require 60 votes (on multiple occasions) for a bill to pass the Senate. That wasn't true before, even in 2003. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Dec 3, 2010 10:23:35 GMT -5
There's only one reason to reform the filibuster, and that's because it makes things easier and means that you have to spend less time negotiating with the other side Except that there is no negotiating going on right now. There was a negotiation on tax votes that was scheduled for today which got blown up because one GOP Senator decided to nix the whole thing, so now Reid has to force votes on each stage. The Senate is completely broken. I don't know if I agree with Merkley's minimums on what it takes to hold or sustain a filibuster - or whether his checks on whether the required amendments are sufficient - but allowing the filibustering of debate before a final vote is against what the Senate thinks it is ("the greatest deliberative body blah blah blah"). |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 3, 2010 10:37:04 GMT -5
There's only one reason to reform the filibuster, and that's because it makes things easier and means that you have to spend less time negotiating with the other side Except that there is no negotiating going on right now. There was a negotiation on tax votes that was scheduled for today which got blown up because one GOP Senator decided to nix the whole thing, so now Reid has to force votes on each stage. The Senate is completely broken. I don't know if I agree with Merkley's minimums on what it takes to hold or sustain a filibuster - or whether his checks on whether the required amendments are sufficient - but allowing the filibustering of debate before a final vote is against what the Senate thinks it is ("the greatest deliberative body blah blah blah"). If the negotiation on tax votes was such an important issue, maybe it could have been dealt with before election season and not ignored. When you procrastinate on your paper and try to do the research and write the paper the night before, it doesn't mean that the assignment is bad. Once again, the Senate is not "completely broken". In an era characterized by remarkable lack of bipartisanship, and without a filibuster-proof majority, the Senate was still able to pass health care reform. It wasn't what the majority wanted, but that doesn't make it bad. If the Senate can pass health care reform, they can do pretty much anything they need to do. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 3, 2010 10:58:28 GMT -5
I think the whole "one Senator" meme is more than a bit of a canard.
One Senator can take action, yes, but he or she wouldn't get very far in that action without the implicit backing of like-minded colleagues.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Dec 3, 2010 11:23:03 GMT -5
I think the whole "one Senator" meme is more than a bit of a canard. One Senator can take action, yes, but he or she wouldn't get very far in that action without the implicit backing of like-minded colleagues. Sure, he or she would. As we saw with the health care bill, there are three stages where you need to vote cloture. One person can hold up a bill at each stage. There's no reason for that. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 3, 2010 12:02:38 GMT -5
motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/12/it-finally-time-reform-filibusterWeaknesses : - 5 is an arbitrary number and all of the amendments will probably be nonsense by leadership - I'm not sure if there's a limitation on the length of an amendment offer - the strategy I could see would be to offer the longest amendments possible and require full reading of them This seems like a reasonable proposal to me. Prior to reading the article, my thought was that any proposal needs to better than the status quo, and I think with a few tweaks this could be. Thoughts: -I don't like the idea of making senators actually stand and talk during a filibuster to make it stick up. If we're going to keep the filibuster, we should just admit that its not really about continuing actual debate on the bill going, but about preventing bills from being voted on. If the whole point of making it harder to invoke is to increase debate and improve legislation, then modifications should be about removing the incentives to invoke it, not increasing the disincentives. -5 is an arbitrary number for amendments. Why not 10 amendments? Or 15? A bill as sweeping, as, say Health care Reform probably could use a lot of amendments. Then again, any cap on the number of amendments is going to be arbitrary. How big is the amendment tree now? -I might be wrong about this, but I don't think ending the reading of an amendment requires unanimous consent. If it does, then the way to avoid delays like the reading of amendments would be to require, at most, a majority of votes. If the Senate is going to modify the filibuster, they can modify that procedure. Plus, capping the length of an amendment might be the same as prohibiting certain types of amendments, like substitute amendments. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Dec 3, 2010 12:14:51 GMT -5
Thoughts: -I don't like the idea of making senators actually stand and talk during a filibuster to make it stick up. If we're going to keep the filibuster, we should just admit that its not really about continuing actual debate on the bill going, but about preventing bills from being voted on. If the whole point of making it harder to invoke is to increase debate and improve legislation, then modifications should be about removing the incentives to invoke it, not increasing the disincentives. I agree. My disagreement with the 5 is more towards the idea that the five will end up being your standard "no funds from this bill go towards illegal immigrants" or "no funds from this bill go towards child molesters" rather than actual amendments of value that may come from individual members who will get shot by leadership's desire for 5 political amendments. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Dec 3, 2010 14:25:03 GMT -5
I think the whole "one Senator" meme is more than a bit of a canard. One Senator can take action, yes, but he or she wouldn't get very far in that action without the implicit backing of like-minded colleagues. Sure, he or she would. As we saw with the health care bill, there are three stages where you need to vote cloture. One person can hold up a bill at each stage. There's no reason for that. As we saw with the health care bill, this was not Mr. Smith raging against the dying of the light. This was much more than one person holding up debate. The Senate is not the House, despite a consistent trend of Democrats who'd like to make it that way ("How come these annoying little states get the same number of Senators as California and New York?"). We don't have a unicameral legislature, and things have worked out pretty well. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 3, 2010 15:41:43 GMT -5
One glaring omission from the Constitution is the filibuster. While we have bicameralism, a filibuster was not important enough for the Framers to protect it.
I don't want to see it go, but some reforms are in order, particularly to address the bad faith use of the filibuster to force unneeded votes. See the countless judicial nominations that were effectively filibustered - requiring vote on cloture - only to have unanimity (or close to it) on the merits.
|
|
