Just posted this as a comment on Daily Mull
I don’t understand what the big deal about the filibuster is. Why suddenly to pass a law you need not 51, but 60 votes in the Senate?
Let them filibuster! The longest filibuster in history – talking for 24 hours and 18 minutes – was by Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Guess what? The bill passed anyway. Why does a mere threat of filibuster makes Harry Reid all scared?
Please share widely!
Break out the cots and make have the Republicans wear themselves out blowing hot air. Granted, it’s a high stakes gamble using health care reform to break them…but there were other issues (like the stimulus) that we should have made them filibuster until they could talk no more. It will only take one time to break this filibuster threat.
and you still need the 60 votes. No?
You need 60 votes to force cloture: to limit how much time is allowed for debate before a vote has to be taken. But even without cloture, the leadership can still call a vote if there’s nobody asking for time to “debate”, so to prevent a vote, the filibustering party has to prevent a cloture motion from passing and they have to keep someone up there talking any time the leadership might call for a vote. If ever there’s a point at which nobody from the filibustering party is looking to speak, and the Senate has a quorum, they can vote. So it is possible to get past a filibuster without passing a cloture motion.
<
p>In practice, these days, if a cloture motion doesn’t pass, the leadership moves on to considering some other matter, rather than delaying all Senate business to continue endless “debate” on the current question.
<
p>I do wish they’d actually force the Republicans to do a real filibuster. However, it’s asymmetric: They have to keep the Senate in session with enough members present for a quorum call, while the Republicans only have to keep one Senator at a time present and talking. As long as there’s another Republican ready to take their place when that Senator is done, the filibuster keeps going, but if ever there aren’t enough Dems around for a quorum, the filibusterers can take a rest. So, basically, the could keep all Democratic Senators from having a Christmas / New Years break, and from going back to their states on weekends.
If I’m reading your post correctly, what you say is not accurate. Specifically, you say:
<
p>
<
p>As much as I would like it to be otherwise, that’s not how the current Senate rules operate. You cannot simply “call for a vote if there’s nobody asking time to debate.” You must end debate (i.e. through cloture) before a motion to vote will be entertained. That’s why the filibuster (and the threat of a filibuster) are so powerful.
<
p>You do bring up a good point with the so-called “double tracking” procedure in your second paragraph. This is probably a big reason why filibusters really became more common after the adoption of double-tracking (which occurred in the 1970s). Now, filibusters have become a “nothing to lose” phenomenon. Those conducting the filibuster can no longer be blamed — at least not fully — for gumming up the works of the entire Senate. Instead, leadership can be blamed for not using the double-tracking procedure to move on to other business.
Generally if nobody is seeking recognition you can move forward with a vote. No need to call the question first.
Mitch McConnell would stay stand for 20 hours straight telling Americans why they don’t deserve affordable health care? Or Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson explain why the health insurance industry deserves a government bailout for 15 hours straight?
<
p>I would have much less problem with the filibuster if we actually made parties filibuster, because it’s very difficult to coordinate nonstop speechifying, maintaining the numbers to continually block the vote. Try that for days straight… If Reid and Obama could play hardball, they could easily roll the Republicans, but the two of them are too weak in the knees to ever stand up for what’s right.
The whole act of getting up and speaking for X hours straight is only theatre, and does not actually have to be done. All that is required, as pointed out elsewhere, is for someone to periodically get up and deny unanimous consent for certain motions.
rules were changed to make it easier to filibuster…
That’s simply not the case. The Senate has never put restrictions on debate or dilatory motions, with the exception of cloture, which has been easier to achieve over time, not harder as you suggest.
<
p>Hey, I’m not the biggest fan of Reid either, but I’m a bit concerned by the many people who, in their attempt to criticize the Senate leadership, just make up Senate procedure out of whole cloth or, when corrected, choose to ignore how things actually work.
<
p>Criticisms of the process (and how Senators are using it) are a lot more convincing when the underlying facts about that process are correctly stated.
And I don’t even know if we covered all this, to tell the truth. But the refresher course is appreciated.
I say abolish the Senate. It’s outlived its usefulness.
I’d have to agree on your point about abolishing the Senate, in an ideal world at least.
<
p>As far as Senate procedure goes, I do think that certain incorrect assumptions about the way Senate procedure works is at the base of some (though by no means all) of the liberal criticism of Reid, et al. I am not an apologist for Reid, who I think is far from ideal and should be replaced as leader in the next session if the Nevada electorate doesn’t do the job for us. Yet I have some sympathy for him, given the frustrating constraints of the Senate rules. As pointed out elsewhere, it is not as easy to force Republicans to read from the phonebook, to eliminate the filibuster, or to use budget reconciliation as some progressives suggest. Once we have a better handle on how Senate procedure really is a true constraint on liberal policy in this case, and not just an excuse for Democratic leadership weakness, we can form more convincing criticisms of what’s going on down in Washington.
Hoyapaul was, in fact, wrong. check out my comment below.
<
p>You get a six for suggesting the Senate should be abolished. We need more people coming to this conclusion, because it’s the right one.
1975…
<
p>
<
p>http://www.thenation.com/doc/2…
<
p>Now, you:
<
p>
<
p>Does this apply to you, too, or will you apologize for suggesting I “made something up,” when you, in fact, were just ignorant on the issue?
I agree that the filibuster should be eliminated as soon as there is the support to do so. (Which there is not. There are more than 10 conservative Democrats who like the power the status quo gives them, and those who aren’t themselves the pivotal 60th vote or anything still feel that the filibuster lets them have their cake and eat it too by allowing them to support policies but not have to pass them into law.) I certainly agree with the conclusion that there should be a popular movement to encourage Senators to change the rules.
<
p>But the idea that making them literally filibuster would shame them into not filibustering is a complete failure to understand how modern politics works.
<
p>If you look at CSPAN, what the Republicans currently are doing is completely ridiculous. Even the current obstructions they’re using require a certain amount of laughable ritual to engage in, hell, even ordinary debate consists of each side trotting out talking points while the real substantive negotiation takes place outside the Senate floor. Furthermore, there was NEVER a time where filibustering required a single person to continue debating, just for debate to continue. Each person can hand off debate to the next person, giving each Republican plenty of time to get some shut eye. They wouldn’t need to read out of the phone book either (even in the old days when that was done: they chose to read out of the phone book to show how “serious” they were).
<
p>If the people are not laughing already at the status quo, they will not be laughing at Republicans giving speeches. If anything, there is a real risk that it could be presented in the media as the Democrats being the unreasonable ones, since you can spin the whole thing as Democrats wasting time. “The poor innocent Republicans wouldn’t be doing this if that mean old Harry Reid hadn’t force them to.”
<
p>Liberals would think the Republicans were laughingstocks, conservatives would think the Democrats were laughingstocks, and the middle, not being particularly informed as to the particulars of parliamentary procedure, wouldn’t know who to blame so they’d just put a pox on both parties as wasting everyone’s time.
<
p>You could be right. You could be wrong. Maybe it would be something in between — reducing the obstruction (which is what I think would happen). We don’t know, we haven’t tried it.
<
p>The truth is the right-wing (which includes people like Nelson and Lieberman) has always tried to do as much as it can behind closed doors, writing their draconian policy buried in bills with no fanfare, because they know their true agenda is nearly universally unpopular.
<
p>They may not like it very much having to stand up and defend themselves on national tv for hours straight trying to deny people when they try to derail popular reform efforts. They’d very much rather do it behind closed doors, where no one can see.
<
p>If Reid could actually force the Republicans to stand up and defend themselves on national TV (through a filibuster or other means), that would be great. But he can’t.
<
p>Maybe, in fact probably, Reid hasn’t done enough to push for greater reforms. He could have publicly threatened Lieberman with the somewhat limited reprisals at his disposal, which may have backfired, but maybe not. He could have lobbied the White House to put more pressure on the Senate, since Obama has much more of a bully pulpit than Reid. He certainly could have made a convincing argument about why the holdouts should support the public option on policy and political grounds, but he either did and it didn’t work, or he just flat-out failed.
<
p>But the suggestion that he can force the Republicans to have a real filibuster on national TV is simply not true under current Senate rules, which at least is a better explanation for why he hasn’t done so than that he’s somehow scared to do so in cahoots with the insurance industry.
First, I said the rules were changed to make filibustering easier.
<
p>Then you said it didn’t and gave a big, long, but ultimately uncited explanation on how little I knew about the system.. must be making things up… yada yada yada.
<
p>Then I show how you are, in fact, wrong.
<
p>Now the thing you were wrong about is now you’re point. Huh?
<
p>—-
<
p>Reid and the Democrats have a lot of latitude to change things around. I will not go into all of the tools available, but there are avenues available to them to change the rules and/or circumvent them. No one will say Reid or the Democrats have an easy job, but boy have they displayed a remarkable ability to grasp defeat at the hands of victory, as well as any willingness to stand strong or employ tough tactics to accomplish progressive reform.
Forcing the Republicans to filibuster is very different from putting this into the public eye.
<
p>They won’t be doing this on national TV except for CSPAN, and for all practical purposes, CSPAN is behind closed doors. A filibuster is by design very boring, (unless the Republicans went out of their way to make it exciting) so the news media would not actually broadcast it, they’d just comment on it, which would ultimately not be very different from the commentary they currently engage in.
or circumvent them, but I don’t want to here there’s nothing that Reid and the Democrats could have done. That’s just patently false.
Yes, I know the use of the filibuster has increased since the 1970s, and in fact dramatically so since the mid-1990s. You don’t need to need to tell me that. Of course, since you’ve misread both my post and the very link that you cited to (in an insulting manner no less), let me clarify for you.
<
p>The rules concerning the filibuster were indeed altered during the 1970s, at the insistence of Mike Mansfield and others. The vote required to invoke cloture was lowered from two-thirds to three-fifths, although that latter number was out of all of the Senators duly sworn, rather than present and voting.
<
p>However, the most important change was the development of “double-tracking”, which is what the article you link to is explaining. This did not make the filibuster “easier”, but it led to the filibuster becoming more common because it reduced the ramifications of the filibuster (in other words, it did not require a filibustering Senator to shut down all Senate business completely — only on the issue being filibustered). Indeed, it makes no sense to say that the filibuster truly became “easier” to conduct, because Senate rules have never prevented individuals from debating as much as they want, or to use dilatory motions, with the exception of cloture (which, as I said above, became easier to invoke, not harder).
<
p>I guess you’re free to go on insulting me, but I just ask that you at least do your research first.
Did Reid play hardball, i.e. use all the pressure and coercive tools at his disposal as Senate Majority Leader to get the maximum substantive health care reform possible? I think not. Whether it’s the filibuster or other strategies that have been suggested by others here in the past week, they were not used. With a popular new president – who rode into office with significant backing by progressive activists who clearly want stronger health reform – and majorities in both houses of Congress, it’s troubling that the Majority Leader and the President played pattycake on this. Something’s rotten in Denmark and I’m not talking about COP15.
… in what you’re saying here:
<
p>”This did not make the filibuster “easier”, but it led to the filibuster becoming more common because it reduced the ramifications of the filibuster”
<
p>What’s the distinction between being ‘easier’ and have ‘reduced ramifications’? Presumably the previous ramifications presented a disincentive. I suppose you could want to make a distinction between the opportunity cost and ‘effort’, but that would imply that the ‘ease’ of the procedure depended only on the ‘effort’. But political ramifications are part and parcel of any political calculation of the ‘difficulty’ of getting something done. For example, the procedural ramifications of reconciliation must be calculated when describing ‘ease’ of using that procedure, yes?
<
p>This isn’t a comment on the general assertion about anything other than the contradiction I’m noting here.
I see what you are saying, but my point is that, in fact, the filibuster has not become “easier” because the tools of procedural delay have always been available for Senators to use. Indeed, it has been easier to break the filibuster because of the development of cloture in the first place, the lowering of the hurdle to invoke cloture in the 1970s, and the development of reconciliation procedures in the early 1980s. The definite trend has been to make maintaining the filibuster more difficult.
<
p>This is a different phenomenon than the filibuster becoming more common. Even if the rules had not changed at all (to allow double-tracking, most importantly), I would not have been surprised to see filibusters becoming more common due to the increased polarization of the two parties in the 1980s and 1990s.
<
p>So we have a situation where: (1) maintaining the filibuster has become more difficult, not easier, at the same time that (2) the use of this filibuster has increased. The fact that cloture has been successfully invoked far more than in the past is a reflection of both trends. But it is not a contradiction at all; indeed, it is a very interesting and important aspect of how the Senate works (or fails to work) today.
I think I’ll side with James Madison on this question. Bigger states would have the say and swallow up the concerns of the smaller states, not particularly republican or democratic (small r and d respectively) if you ask me. Remember Ted Kennedy would not have been able to do half the things for MA if his influence was overshadowed by Senators by more populous states. I understand this would, in theory, give the Dems more power in terms of Senate seats and EC votes, but in principle it is simply un-American. You want a one party unicameral legislature move to a country with a Westminster system, you will find individual members are actually less accountable to their constituents and Prime Ministers are basically elected dictators.
The initial proposal James Madison drafted by Constitution (the “Virginia Plan”) was to have both the Senate and the House of Representatives be proportionate to the size of states, with the difference between the two being that the Senate would be smaller and would have its members appointed by the House. But small states wouldn’t agree to it and so eventually the current formulation of the Senate and House was formulated by the Connecticut delegation. When he got around to writing the Federalist Papers he was able to think of some arguments for it, but it was a compromise, not some high-minded ideal. And ultimately, the question is whether small states and large states have different interests. Maybe that was case in Madison’s day, but what issues are there on which California, Texas, and New York can unite against Hawaii, Idaho, and Vermont on? The major issues of our day do not break down on small-state big-state lines.
<
p>Also, removing the filibuster has absolutely nothing to do with giving states in the Senate proportionate representation. The filibuster was not even the result of planning, but was simply the result of Senate rules being written (quite a few years after the Constitution) allowing indefinite debate, which it was eventually realized allowed for legislation to be killed by refusing to stop debating it. And as the linked article notes, it didn’t really get used as much as it currently is until recently.
<
p>Also, parliamentary democracies (which also have absolutely nothing to do with this: there are plenty of presidential democracies without anything resembling our Senate) have more political parties than the United States does, and in many senses can be deemed more democratic. The Prime Minister doesn’t have the same system of checks and balances we have, but he serves only at the pleasure of parliament, and can be removed from office at the drop of a hat if popular opinion starts to turn, and still has to work within the framework of rights that the country respects. By some measures, (such as The Economist’s Democracy Index) many parliamentary democracies are actually more democratic than the United States.
Thanks for the suggestion, jconway, but my whole family lives here so I think I’ll stick it out for a while. But don’t you think the combination of disproportionate representation and the power of the filibuster gives “the minority” a tad too much power? Perhaps I could live with one or the other of these idiosyncracies, but the two together act as destructive impediments to representative democracy.
No Senate rule requires any Senator or Senators to speak, even if they are conducting a filibuster. While the “classic” filibuster is the one exemplified by Strom Thurmond’s marathon speaking session, it’s not the only type of filibuster. The more common one, and the one Republicans would use if Democrats forced them to use an “actual” filibuster, is the use of the infinite quorum call.
<
p>This is how it would work: you would need only one Republican Senator on the floor. That one Senator, rather than needing to talk endlessly out of the phonebook or whatever, would simply raise a point of parliamentary inquiry by suggesting the absence of a quorum. The Senate clerk would then be required to call the roll, which would take several minutes. At the end of this process, the Republican Senator could then again suggest the absence of a quorum, and the whole thing would happen again.
<
p>Rather than giving Republicans the black PR-eye because of their reading recipes or other such nonsense, all that would be happening is the clerk reading the roll, over and over. Is that really “forcing the Republicans to filibuster?” Yes it is, since nothing requires them to actually talk for hours on end. But I don’t see what benefit it really gives the Democratic majority, or anyone else for that matter.
Sure they can force a quorum call and the Democrats could show up and answer it. Then they stay on the floor (at least 51 of them) and the next time quorum is called for one of them can move it be dispensed with. Even with objection all it takes is a majority vote. Even better is if the chair just ruled repeated attempts out of order and simply refused to recognize the point. Then there is an appeal from the chair which can be sustained by majority. I swear if I could preside over the Senate this week I would make Franken’s tweaking of Lieberman look tame by comparison.
but here’s the problem: you cannot simply “dispense with” the quorum call if you have 51 members of the majority on the floor. “Dispensing with” the quorum call requires unanimous consent, which would obviously not be granted by the Republicans. It simply is not true under current Senate rules that “even with objection all it takes is a majority vote.”
<
p>I’d also agree that these infinite quorum calls are a dilatory motion. Indeed, that’s the point. The unfortunate thing, however, is that there is no rule against dilatory motions in the United States Senate, with the exception of debate occurring after cloture has been invoked. Then we’re back to needing 60 votes.
…if I were in the chair my patience would wear awfully thin awfully quickly. If someone tried to make us do it again I’d take a page from Nancy Reagan’s book and just say no. If someone wants to make a stink and say the rules require it, fine, let them appeal my decision to the body. I’d love to get people on the record specifically voting to delay the process. Similar things have happened before though I’m not sure why the minority didn’t just leave the chamber so they weren’t physically present either.
Points of order are out of order during a quorum call.
I picture it going like this:
<
p>Senator: Mr. President I suggest the absense of a quorum.
Me: A quorum was just established and your point is diliatory, who else seeks recognition?
<
p>I’m usually a by-the-book guy when it comes to rules, but I also know how and when to shut down people who are abusing them even if they are technically correct.
Wouldn’t the quorum call stop double tracking because the Senate can’t do anything without an “official” quorum? Wouldn’t an unanswered quorum call (and subsequent non-action from the Majority Leader) effectively shut down the senate?
Have at least 51 Democrats remain in the chamber and procede with business. This would also make it easier for the President to do what I just described above.
I’m still not sure the president officer can rule a quorum call dilatory, regardless of whether or not all 100 senators are sitting in their 100 seats. I was reading a variety of points when chair have ruled QC’s out of order, and the appeal failed, but I’m still not sure of the implications of those rulings today. I would suspect if it were that easy (as only a simply majority is needed to sustain an appeal to the chair) then the Dems would immediately affirm the quorum and force the Republicans to hold the floor through speaking. But since they didn’t do that (and others have said they couldn’t end the quorum call) I would have to believe your assessment wrong.
… in theory this would be true:
<
p>
<
p>However, unfortunately we have seen ample evidence of great reluctance on the part of Democrats to do ANYTHING that in the least bit smacks of forcing the issue. Maybe even the incessant quorum calls are good enough to prove our point. Some of us have said make them filibuster while others have pointed out that that does not require speech-a-thons. OK then if we can’t make them talk make them hold the floor in other ways such as quorum calls. We still should be able to get PR out of this by saying certain Senators aren’t interested in debate, but scoring points and delaying.
<
p>While your reference to Strom Thurmond is historically accurate, it is not relevant to the question of “why does a mere threat of filibuster make Harry Reid all scared”? In the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the proponents of that legislation already had the votes to invoke cloture by the time Thurmond began speaking. So it is not as if Thurmond “lost” despite the filibuster — he was doing nothing more than using the lengthy filibuster to make a political point, not because he thought it was actually going to stop the bill. (By the way of interesting historical parallels to today’s situation, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a weak piece of legislation that left progressives disappointed at the time, but which ultimately helped pave the way for possibly the most important congressional statute of all time — the 1964 Civil Rights Act).
<
p>In Reid’s case, by contrast, the threat of the filibuster is a lot more real. A single Senator could indeed derail the entire thing, thus giving those individual Senators (Lieberman, Nelson, etc.) much more political leverage. Even if one thinks that Reid needs to be a much “tougher” Senate Majority Leader — and I’d certainly agree that Reid’s no Lyndon Johnson — it’s understandable why the filibuster threat was such a problem for him.
The 1957 Civil Rights Act was not the be all and end all for Civil Rights, but I think most historians would agree that it was certainly important. And by the way, the Civil Rights Act may have been the most sweeping Civil Rights bill, but even then we still needed to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because if you want real civil rights, voting rights have to be a part of that. I don’t see how they wouldn’t be. It’s a process. And it’s long.
<
p>One could make the case that that’s where we are now. Passing health insurance reform this year helps pave the way for a more aggressive bill in years to come. This bill gets everybody invested in health care reform, it covers about 30 million more people than it otherwise wouldn’t, sets up exchanges which could be successful, etc. It’s nowhere near where we need to be, but to vote against it now would be an overwhelming setback.
What rights did it protect that weren’t protected before?
Did it codify Brown v. Board into law?
From what I can remember, probably the most important thing the 1957 Act did was create the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Probably more important than the Commission’s actual accomplishments, this established the principle of federal government oversight of civil rights violations. It also very mildly strengthened the Attorney General’s office when it came to civil rights enforcement. It did not codify Brown v. Board into law (though, of course, as a majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Brown v. Board was already “law”).
<
p>Now that I think more about it, this might be the perfect parallel to the current health care bill. I know that the bill caused a rift in the civil rights (and progressive) community, with some thinking is was a sham that would actually set back civil rights (and thus be worse than the status quo) because it would give Washington the incentive to claim that they’ve “accomplished” civil rights reform and thus take it off the table in future years. Others thought it was worthwhile because it was at least a small step forward — one that established the principle of government involvement in this area that could be built upon in future years — even if the bill itself didn’t come close to achieving the ultimate progressive goals of banning segregation and racial discrimination.
<
p>By the way, most of what I learned about the maneuverings surrounding this bill came from Robert Caro’s magnificent “Master of the Senate”, about Lyndon Johnson’s time as Senate Majority Leader, which I highly, highly recommend to anyone who enjoys politics. (OK, advertisement over).
Regardless of how we end the Republican/DINO filibuster, tweak things in conference, or whatever else people are calling for, we are not going to get a perfect bill.
<
p>We have lost on healthcare reform for 60 years by holding out for a perfect bill, and losing the opportunities for good bills. We could have had very good healthcare system FROM NIXON, but we didn’t think it was good enough. Even Ted Kennedy understood that, and the lesson it taught.
<
p>I’m with aftertig, this is a process. We get what we can now, and come back for more next year, and the next year, and the next year, ….
<
p>Humphrey got the Civil Rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, which included healthcare as well. It took several years and several pieces of legislation to get real progress.
<
p> I like the House bill better, and hope a better bill emerges in the end. But, there is good stuff in this bill; it’s an important step forward. Let’s take the step, and keep on walking.
The Democrats should have called the Republican’s gambit for the nuclear option on the filibuster. The Dems essentially agreed not to use it. As a result, they agreed to not use the only weapon at their disposal to oppose two poor choices for the SJC. They preserved the weapon–the filibuster–but put it in a museum. What’s the point?
<
p>Paul Krugman writes about the filibuster today and talks about how difficult it has become to govern the country.
<
p>The filibuster is not a law, it’s a self-imposed rule. For the sake of the country, it should go. It should have gone before.
I just picked up Caro’s “Master of the Senate” (written back in 2002) to re-read what it said about the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and the parallels between that debate and this health care debate are remarkable. Check out these quotes from the book, in regards to some of the liberal views of the 1957 bill at the time (pgs. 1007-1008):
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
For all the arguments, wise advice, exhortations – and past examples – about taking what we can get right now and improving it as we go along – and there is certainly that case to be made – for all the above, I still did not see President Obama or Senator Harry Reid speak out forcefully for a public option or Medicare buy-in. I would have been OK with accepting the current Senate bill if I felt the President and Senate President had done their best, had gone to the mat for the best health care reform bill they could get. But I don’t think they did their best. I don’t think they tried hard enough. I think they were timid and tepid, both of them, and that really, really ticks me off.
Senate Prez is our local thang.
lol… the political version of a freudian slip.
I guess fiction can be interesting…
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
perhaps this was a bit harsh. I’m just sick of all the BMGers who lately think they know everything and go on “correcting” other people when they are, in fact, wrong. Note to commenters: If you’re going to “correct” something, provide some evidence that you are, in fact, right. Lest ye be subject to snark. Otherwise, it’s just not all that interesting and very much comes across as patronizing.
I can say that I certainly don’t know “everything” and don’t claim to. I’m not that arrogant. I just want people to be well informed, including myself. But there’s no reason to be insulting (and indeed if and when I cross the line into insult, I’m wrong as well).
you not inform people they’re wrong about something, to the point that you suggest they’re making things up, without any citation or explanation to justify your claim, when those people are, in fact, correct about what they said. It is insulting, in perhaps a different way, but it is still insulting.
<
p>I added my initial reply to my own post because I figure you weren’t aware of your own factual errors, but given the fact that you boasted with such gusto about how I was wrong and you were right, with nothing to cite to back your claim, it was more than annoying. And patronizing. And I’m kind of sick of that know-it-all ‘tude on BMG as of late, especially given all the health care stuff going on.
<
p>If you know you aren’t always going to be right, may I suggest you don’t be so patronizing next time? Instead of suggesting the person who you think is wrong is making shit up or lying, perhaps you may want to either ask for more information or say you think they could be mistaken. Just a suggestion.
<
p>(I probably wouldn’t be so harsh, but you are the second person to do this in two days. Suggesting people don’t know what they talk about, without any justification, is not a good way to express dialogue or avoid being insulting, since that seems to be a goal of yours.)
LOL. Indeed. Ryan, as I said upthread, so far it’s looking to me like Hoyapaul is right about the way the filibuster works, both presently and historically. My suggestion: read the CRS report linked below — all of it — and then come back. That’s a far, far better source than some non-objective writer for the Nation who may or may not know what he’s talking about.
I was right. Even Hoyapaul seemed to suggest that, which I applaud (because, indeed, the rules change in 1975 did make it easier to filibuster. Period.). Hoyapaul had other legitimate points to make — I wouldn’t disagree that Harry Reid’s job is hard, but I don’t think that reason alone is reason enough to forgive him for his lack of leadership. That’s where I think I veer off from Hoya’s central point.
<
p>Anecdotal, but I went to the North Shore Young Democrats holiday gathering last night. While most people seemed very angry about what was going on, I found it interesting that we all agreed Harry Reid has to go, even if it meant the people of Nevada taking care of our Senate leadership vacuum problem. Kudos, also, goes out to Congressman Tierney, who came to visit with his wife and made it evident that he was not willing to give up the store on this bill. Changes have to be made to make the Senate bill acceptable; there’s a lot of progressives in the House who will not vote for it otherwise.
that your link to the Nation article does not remotely disprove Hoyapaul’s points. I haven’t read the CRS links and probably won’t have time to do so today, but it seems to me that, so far, Hoyapaul has the better of the argument.
Where did I say Hoyapaul’s “points” were wrong. You’re trying to say I’m arguing something I never argued. Here was the disagreement, upon which Hoyapaul cavalierly said I was wrong without having all the facts.
<
p>
<
p>my response:
<
p>
<
p>Hoyapaul’s response:
<
p>
<
p>Except, that, it is. Rules changed in 1975 allowed for this to happen; before then, people actually did have to stand up for hours to filibuster. I wouldn’t have been so angry, if not for this (in the same Hoyapaul comment as above):
<
p>If he’s going to come to that sort of a blanket criticism, display that kind of assertion about someone who presents a fact he disagreed with at the time (though he seemed to accept the fact that I was right on that point later on, even using it to bolster his larger point — which is fine), he ought to make sure he’s actually right about the thing he was trying to ‘correct.’ I only raised the point because I thought it a good learning moment. We aren’t always right about our facts; we shouldn’t be so cavalier and patronizing about them. There’s a lot of smart people on BMG, chances are high that there will be a lot of things some posters know that individuals won’t.
<
p>As far as I’m aware, the only fact Hoya’s been wrong about in this thread is the one he attempted to take me to task on. That’s the only area where my criticism to him applies. His greater point — that Reid faces various challenges — is certainly correct, probably in many ways even we all don’t know about. I merely don’t find it a strong enough excuse, not on one of the most important issues of our time, a generational problem for America.
I guess I’d direct you to my response to you above regarding the filibuster, because I think you’ve misconstrued my points and incorrectly labeled my posts as “fiction.”
<
p>More helpfully, I’d suggest a really good document for you and anyone else interested in the history and current operation of the filibuster, so nobody has to take my word for any of this — this excellent Congressional Research Service report [PDF] from 2003. It is pretty comprehensive, and actually an interesting read given that it is about Senate procedures. Indeed, I’d highly recommend checking out the CRS for a whole host of issues involving policy and congressional rules, because they know their stuff.
It would be really terrible if we had to give up key institutional bodies like the Senate and its ancient traditions like the filibuster, tools that when properly used defend the rights of minorities and states, just to teach Joe Lieberman a lesson. I think the more pragmatic ‘stick’ to beat him with would be to say simply, you lose Homeland Security if you vote against the bill. I don’t understand why that threat hasn’t been used already and if Reid really wanted to play ball that’s what he would do. I guess they are worried it would alienate him to the point where he votes against every bill coming up, but at that point since he is no longer Chairman he can’t steer defense pork to CT, and the voters will presumably kick him out for being an obstructionist do-nothing Senator.
This is getting into a larger argument, but I wonder if it is true (on balance) that the filibuster has served to defend the rights of minorities and states. It does seem to me that the filibuster has served to stand in the way of progressive change far more than it has served progressive goals (like against retrenchment of the social safety net).
<
p>A big reason is because progressive programs (like Social Security, Medicare, civil rights reform, etc.) generally tend to be very controversial at first, but then increasingly popular over time. Republican assaults on the welfare state have generally failed and even backfired over time. In that way, even without the filibuster, it’s considerably more difficult to get rid of a policy once enacted than it is to enact in the first place.
at least the way it’s currently used. All legislation deserves an up or down vote on the merits as do noimnees. Requiring a supermajority per se to call the question is not horrible (Robert’s Rules requires 2/3), but it needs to be combined with other rules allowing to fix the time for debate in the first place (Robert’s requires 2/3 to extend debate as well.)
I think we should reform it and bring it back to the way it was pre-1970. Mr. Smith style filibusters where a candidate can have unlimited time to debate a bill and stall it, this does give one Senator like Lieberman tremendous power, but does it in a way that forces him to use the power of his oratory to convince others of the necessity of killing the bill. Sometime around then the filibuster morphed into a mere vote delaying and vote killing tactic and one that has been consistently abused. Reforming it so that filibusters can only occur on the votes for actual bills, and maybe even for arbitrarily designated ‘important’ bills, would be both principled and practical. Having filibusters for nearly every cloture vote and quorum call grinds the Senate to a halt in a way the founders, the people, and the Senate would not want and it does not serve to convince anyone of the particular merits or demerits of a particular piece of legislation, but are only used as tools of obstruction. Those should be eliminated. So I say limit filibusters to the final vote, eliminate their use on cloture, ending debate, quorum votes, and other procedural rather than substantial votes.
Require the speech-a-thons to remain germane to the matter at hand. No reading the phonebook or grandma’s recipes. They should be interruptible by things such as points of order or even motions to call the question, but once acted upon the speaker resumes the floor. Although, honestly I don’t see why a single Senator has to speak forever. I’m more of a make-your-point-and-sit-down person. One hour per speaker at a time seems like more than enough.
I kinda like the idea of record filibusters and people standing there for hours using the power of their oratory-its very much in the Roman Republican model that the founders favored and very much against our horrible sound bite culture that has destroyed the integrity of American politics one speech at a time. When Tom Dewey ran on a platform of ‘hope, change, we must move forward together, and our rivers are full of fish’ he was ridiculed, when Barack Obama did it he was declared the best orator since Martin Luther King and Cincinnatus. I am sorry, I bemoan the fact that our politics has lost that sense of really inspiring and persuasive rhetoric and that they are no more Daniel Websters, Charles Sumters, or Henry Clays around.
Here is a whole page of links regarding Senate rules, starting with the official Standing Rules of Procedure and Senate Manual and continuing through other articles and analyses, including toward the bottom a history of the filibuster. Ryan makes a good point elsewhere in this thread that a lot of us may be pulling stuff out of our sleeves and I confess that I can’t guarantee I’m not guilty of that myself. I’m probably a bit biased toward my experience with and knowledge of Robert’s Rules, which I know the Senate doesn’t use, but I still think a chair with a spine can at least force the issue. It is also my understanding that there is a lot of “Senatorial courtesy” at work here that harkens to the days of the Senate being a gentlemen’s club where everyone socialized together at night and worked together in good faith during the day. Republicans have obviously ditched that notion while Democrats apparently haven’t yet.
. . if you want to. If you need 50 votes, you can get stuck at 49. If you have 58 votes you can decide you need 60. If you even more suddenly have votes crossing over from the other side, like on drug reimportation, you can change your own votes to make sure it doesn’t pass.
I’m more and more skeptical about procedural excuses–I think this bill produces the result that the most influential interests wanted.