In the movies, in order to filibuster, Senators have to stand in the Senate and make their case to the American people. But in the modern Senate, a filibuster takes no such act of principle or courage. Senators can filibuster simply by placing a phone call to a clerk and heading off to dinner!
This January 5th, we have a chance to change the rules of the Senate, and make Senators engage in an all night talk-a-thon in order to block legislation or nominations. The key is to adopt new rules on the first day the Senate convenes next year, when only a simple majority of Senators is required for a change in Senate rules.
I’ve joined with Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall, who are fighting with some dedicated colleagues to make this happen. To get across the finish line, they need to get as many people as possible to show their support for making the filibuster real. You can do so by signing the petition Daily Kos has created:
Sounds like a good idea to me. The Constitution wisely requires just 50 Senator votes plus the VP to pass legislation, not 60. Silent filibusters, which allow Senators to block legislation indefinitely with ease because they do not actually have to appear on the floor, undercut this important constitutional principle and should be abolished.
But Mitch will never let Barack do it.
<
p>Sorry, folks.
But Mitch will never let Barack do it.
Sorry, folks.
<
p>… this is all on the majority. The debate and the votes on the rules themselves cannot be filibustered. So, I think, that if Harry Reid can get his ducks in a row that’s all it’s going to take.
He can influence Congress, when it’s important, e.g., when he strongarmed Democrats to scuttle the bill allowing importation of prescription drugs:
<
p>
<
p>Eroding the current filibuster rules would interfere with Obama’s triangulation bipartisanship racket, and he’ll go to the mat to stop it.
you really think that Obama is going to actively work hard to stop the Democrats from being able to implement their shared agenda (in the Senate, anyway)? Against a unanimous group of Democratic Senators? No freaking way.
Or ten bucks if you’re not a Sam fan
<
p>It’s going nowhere – that wouldn’t be “bipartisan”.
He’s not a Senator. The person we need is Joe Biden in the Chair who can make rulings without “Mitch”‘s permission. (Actually any Dem Senator could preside and make the ruling.) Then only a majority will be needed to reconstitute the rules once the old ones are thrown out.
I’d like to see the filibuster go completely — it’s an unnecessary check on what is probably the most complex approach to democracy in the Western world* — but at least make them work for it. Last I heard, the entire Democratic caucus has signed up for some sort of reform.
<
p>If nothing else, I’d ask that Obama not do what he usually does, which is send people to rush out and announce in the press that Democrats won’t actually try to get this desired goal, and will happily settle for a symbolic compromise.
<
p>—-
*Cohabitation in France may be an exception.
but I like the idea of all 40 having to hang around. Heck, I’d put it back at 2/3 (instead of 3/5th) if it required that the filibuster be maintained by affirmative vote of 34 US senators at any time that a member of the non-filibuster group called for a vote. Even if they could all do perfect 16 hour shifts without bathroom breaks, it would still take 51 of them to hold a continuous filibuster, and even then it would suck 16 hours a day out of each of them.
<
p>So, they could slow down legislation, but it would cost them their own time to do it. Watch as the filibuster threats dry up in autumn on even years, and in the second half of December every year. The rest of the time they might slow things down, but they couldn’t stop a majority.
…that a single Senator can just put a hold on something and make it stick based solely on partisan unity, without having to take the floor and defend himself?
A legal or evidence-based response is preferred, of course.
And the absolute best way to defeat it, guaranteeing its failure, is to have it come from DailyKos.
<
p>Markos should seek partners in the effort if he wants to succeed — a smattering of liberal groups, and at least a few bona fide conservative groups. I’d suggest the Heritage Foundation to start.
I wonder how Senator Lamont (D-CT) will respond to this charge…oh wait
the Tactical Nuclear Option?
<
p>Have all of the circumstances that made the filibuster great prior to 2007 changed? I suppose they have.
I didn’t, even though at that time it ostensibly benefitted the Democrats, but it would be intriguing to know what has changed your own thinking on the matter. Perhaps you were being coy.
<
p>What I find most illuminating about this thread is the tenor of comments about the expected performance of the President: a disparaging consensus, with not one voice, at least so far, raised in opposition.
I still have faith in the president.
<
p>I thought this thread was about the Senate?
I still don’t know that I care about the silent filibuster, which seems like a distinction that elevates form over substance.
<
p>I was chuckling that the merit of the filibuster has evolved since 2005, from being a pillar of the Republic to pernicious threat to democracy. It is rather like the deficit in that regard, or the reach of executive power.
<
p>On the whole, I think that the filibuster has value. The Republican caucus has been able to over-exert the power it offers a minority in recent years, but that is because of an unusual degree of unity in the ranks of their caucus, which seems like something of a historical anomaly in a two-party system. So, I would be “constitutionally” skeptical of permanent fixes to temporary phenomena.
…is the frequency at which it has been (ab)used. I like things generally to come to an up or down vote eventually, but if we are going to delay at least make the delay mean something.
From someone who usually echoes my views
<
p>
<
p>There are a host of ABA qualified judicial nominees from Miguel Estrada to Janice Rogers Brown that were consistently filibustered, Ambassador Bolton, and a host of Bush nominees and initiatives. I am pretty sure privatizing social security failed for the same reason.
<
p>Now I am not saying any of those policy outcomes were preferable, having personally met Bolton I know he holds downright dangerous views on foreign policy (though I was happily surprised he supported overturning DADT, probably cynically to get more cannon fodder for his fantasies of American empire), and Justice Brown and Justice Estrada would have been significantly to the right of the Roberts court which is saying something. But CentralMassDad makes a good point, it is downright stupid and hypocritical for Democrats to self righteously defend using these tactics when we are in the minority and condemn them when we are in the majority.
<
p>Other great examples. Bush uses a recess appointment for Bolton, is called a dictator and abusing his executive authority. Obama uses recess appointments and is called a great political tactician. Bush uses signing statements and is condemned as nixonian. Obama is praised for his deftness. Sen. Nelson votes for Alito is concemned as a turncoat, Sen. Graham votes for Kagan and is praised as a principled maverick.
<
p>My broader point is, if we want to see these abuses stop than we should get both parties together to stop abusing them. Neither party should play politics with crucial cabinet and diplomatic posts. Both parties should vote on a justices qualifications rather than ideology. And both parties should sensibly use the filibuster and other parliamentary tactics. But I remember back when Bill First was about to gut the filibuster and everyone on this blog decried it. So it seems like the sour grapes also has an element of short term political thinking. We will be back in the Senate minority and a lot sooner than most people here recognize (think 2012)
I believe judicial nominees should not only get up-or-down votes, but should be given priority on the agenda. If they must be filibustered it should be done according to the principles of this reform. I believe that recess appointments are entirely justified if the Senate fails to have an up-or-down vote. I believe this regardless of who is President. However, the blockquote from my previous comment you used IS measurable and entirely and objectively accurate. The 111th Congress HAS seen more filibusters, almost entirely of the lazy variety than previous Congresses.
<
p>One could add warmongering, Guantanamo, extra-ordinary renditions, government ordered assassinations, faith based initiatives, and a host of other concerns to that list. Of course when a liberal President does bad things the left never makes a peep…
I note his excellent comment posted twenty-two minutes after your call to action. 🙂
If somebody wants to filibuster, then they should be willing to do the work.
<
p>Robert Byrd reading phone books. THAT is tradition!
I think Strom might have used the phone book, not Byrd, but I can’t swear to that.
He tended to uphold Senate tradition and prerogatives for their own sakes.
(Hopefully not for a long, long, long time)…and the Republicans ram through the Senate an ultraconservative agenda defining marriage as between one man and one woman, repealing health reform, lowering taxes for the wealthiest (again), giving money away to hack corporations, gutting environmental projects, cutting social security benefits, cementing an end to net neutrality, approving anti-choice judges, while the Democrats are powerless to stop almost any of it because they can rarely sustain a filibuster…I’m sure we’ll all be glad we made this reform.
<
p>Naw, I actually agree with this reform in principle. The Senate is a paralyzed body. But that scenario is definitely in the back of my mind.
If that scenario comes to pass I hope we filibuster until we’re blue in the face. Remember this reform is only designed to require that filibustering involve actual speech and debate.
This Senate, following the lead of the previous Senate, defeated more filibusters than any Senate in history. Why? Because it had to deal with more filibusters.
<
p>(details here)
<
p>Filibusters were exceedingly rare until the 92nd Congress (71-72). And then doubled in frequency in the last two Congresses. (GOP bipartisanship in unaction)
<
p>On top of this obstructionists use holds and quorum call tactics to stall and delay legislation. How exactly Kos’ plan eliminates these silent lazy filibusters I don’t know, does anybody?
<
p>Why this is important is covered here
<
p>If they want to filibuster, we should at least make them work for it.
<
p>
It’s the Merkely-Udall plan which Kos is supporting. How this works is you write the rules to more closely follow Robert’s in requiring that debate continue until cut off or no member seeks recogntion. You can also eliminate the use of holds and allow for quorum calls to only be used if their really isn’t a quorum present for a vote. The Chair should be empowered to rule points and motions diliatory.
First – how do you determine a quorum isn’t present unless you take the cound? (Ghost of Christmas Past – Sal DiMasi looking around empty chamber, and stating he believed a quorum to be present…)
<
p>As far as empowering the Chair goes – would you have wanted Dick Cheney determining when the Dems were behaving on a dilatory fashion?
You can take a quick headcount to determine if 51 Senators are in the chamber. Besides, speeches can continue with out a quorum being physically present anyway. Once an actual vote is called there need to be at least 51 votes cast for the vote to be valid, which is of course easy to figure out. There can be some standard. In bodies that use Robert’s if the quorum is doubted and checked, you can’t raise another quorum objection when the same question is pending. The House does not use quorum calls this way. If they do a quorum call they actually need people to come to the chamber, not just use it as a delay tactic. If the majority doesn’t like the Chair’s ruling they can appeal it to the body, at least by Robert’s and I propose the Senate do the same if not already covered. There WILL need to be some other rule tweeking beyond simply saying debate shall be required in order for this to work. I hope and trust that Merkeley and Udall are working on appropriate language to put this into effect. If Cheney is in the chair and the Democrats are the majority they can overrule him; if they are in the minority they would and should have to stand up and debate rather than play procedural games.
As one of the lone voices defending the filibuster on this blog (remember folks someday it will be our voices that shall be in the minority, that is just the flow of politics), this reform will restore the filibuster to its original purpose, to allow lone dissenters their rights to speak and to make a difference. The silent filibuster has given the very notion of a filibuster, one crucial to the parliamentarian development of our democratic system, a horrid name, one of a minority impeding the will of a majority. Restoring it to its proper place, will ensure it will be remarked upon as what it ought to be, a defender of the minority from the tyranny of a majority.
redefine the threat of a filibuster to be a filibuster. I think that forcing senators to actually have to do the work of a filibuster might have the effect of eliminating most of them. That could result in a large reduction in the number of filibusters, and also eliminating the need for drastic rules changes to curtail them.
I think one element behind this is forcing a politician to physically and visually stand in the way of the business of the nation in a directly accountable way. The filibuster as constituted is particularly pernicious as it is easy to enact without being seen as enacting it.
<
p>Newscasts broadcasting Senator Moron (R-US) reading the phone book because he opposes health care for children or what have you will make Senator Moron and his caucus less likely to take this step than they would if they just had to send a page to the Clerk of the Senate.
Nicely elaborated. You explained what I was implying by my statement about doing the work of a filibuster.
…every Democratic Senator who will sit in the 112th has signed a letter urging Harry Reid to pursue this reform. Rachel Maddow admits some concern that when it’s time to pull the trigger they will prove themselves afraid of their own shadows.