It’s a fair assumption that much of the public and especially readers of this blog are frustrated that the amount of progress made this year in enacting legislation has been severely hampered by the use of the filibuster. Effectively, it now takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The opposition party can block legislation and then run against the majority party by stating that nothing got done. The filibuster effectively incentivizes the minority party to grind government to a halt, which is good politics, but against the interests of the American people and their decisions in the previous election.
This is not a partisan issue. Both parties complain about the filibuster when in the majority, and then defend it while in the minority. This makes sense- they are acting in the interests of their political parties. However, it introduces a Catch-22. Since it takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule, and a 67 vote majority has been unseen since the Watergate Era, it would take the support of the minority party to change the rule. The minority party will never agree to remove the filibuster while in the minority, as it would be self-defeating.
I propose, therefore, that the Senate vote to end the filibuster 10 years from now. This debate would not be about partisan politics, but rather whether the filibuster is good for the country. In fact, the two main parties would effectively be betting on themselves by supporting such a bill, as they would be projecting their confidence of being in the majority in the future. Of course, it might make it hard to “morally” justify using the filibuster in the meantime, but most justifications given are blatantly transparent, and the person giving them can usually be quoted as taking an opposite position five years ago. Let’s put this up for debate. We’d have a chance to make our system of government better in the future.
I like Udall’s idea of just not readopting the rules at the next Senate. This will take a united Democratic front and Joe Biden to go along, but this needs to be reworked from scratch. I would propose adopting rules closer to Roberts which require a supermajority to close debate, but only if no member actually seeks recognition. Also there should no longer be a supermajority required simply to START a debate.
however, I find it hard to imagine the Democrats doing such a manuever at the beginning of the next session. Say the Dems lose 5 Senate seats (about the over-under now) and then begin the next Congress in January by abolishing the filibuster as per the Udall method of not renewing the previous rules. The GOP and probably the MSM would be all over the party for pulling “tricks” in order to reverse a perceived election loss. As much as I think it would be good policy, I just don’t see it happening that way.
…to establish majority rule. Like I said it would require a united Dem front and not cower to potential accusations of the GOP or MSM.
The filibuster is an inherently conservative rule. If the status quo wins every time, conservatives take a few hits here and there, but win in the long run. A proposal to abolish the filibuster starting 10 years from now is still bad for the GOP and they knew it. If Dems are in the majority in 2011, they need to simply do away with it at the beginning of the session. It only takes 67 votes to change the rules if you do it mid-session.
Because the conservatives by definition want a less active government and hence fewer laws passed, then the filibuster is an inherently conservative rule. However, all it would take would be 8 GOP senators in addition to the 59 current Democrats to change this rule. I believe there are enough moderate GOP senators that are in principle opposed to a procedurally gridlocked government to pass a rule abolishing the filibuster in ten years. Additionally, if the GOP en masse voted against the proposal, they’d lose any future right to complain when their judges are not given up or down votes as they did in the 05 and 06 timeframe.
Judges are the one situation where I think the filibuster is appropriate.
A law that can be made by a majority vote can be undone by a majority vote, but a judge has life tenure, so there’s good reason for requiring a supermajority for judicial nominations. Gridlock there might not be a bad thing.
<
p>I think you have a good point about what happens if Dems try to change the rules unilaterally next session. I think it’s worth paying the short term price in the media to get more accomplishments to brag about later, but Senators may disagree.
<
p>One alternative, if there is not enough moderate GOP support now would be to take the hit and let the GOP abolish the filibuster next time it controls the Senate. Then keep their rules the next time the Dems control, and make that the new tradition. It would be a very painful 2 years or so, but worth it in the long run.
If judges should require a super majority, than it should be codified as such instead of through the filibuster. This could even be a bargaining chip in getting the filibuster abolished for other votes.
<
p>Let’s hope the GOP doesn’t take over anytime soon.
to give up the only method they have to stop something which they feel “must” be stopped? Are you serious?
<
p>Name half of these Republicans whom you think would surrender their only remaining power?
The best chance of ending the filibuster: if the Dems had 52 seats now, and the GOP had as rosy a picture as they do now (gain 4ish seats) then the GOP might be game, since they’d be likely to gain in the next session.
<
p>It’s extremely unlikely that the GOP will get to 51 senators in the 2010 election; eliminating the filibuster now not only cuts of their legs now, but it does so for 2011-2012 too.
The provision for this to go into effect ten years from now should remove calculation of which party would benefit, since nobody can claim to know the makeup at that point. Any Senator that voted for the provision and is still around in ten years would have an equal chance of being helped or hurt by it.
In 2012 there will be 20 Democratic, 9 Republican and 2 Independents US Senators running for reelection (unless they decide not to run). The opportunity for a swing of Republican to Democrat seats is 2:1 and I would have to wonder how the public, and especially the Democratic electorate would feel if the US Senate was a Republican majority and there was no Filibuster option for Dems… including SCOTUS picks.
<
p>Be careful of what you ask for…
…regardless of majority vs. minority position. I can see an argument for requiring supermajorities for judicial picks, especially SCOTUS, but I would prefer to constitutionalize such a provision.
currently if 41 oppose, they only need one person in the senate to object, creating the filibuster.
<
p>Require that they have 10. In the room. As it gets closer and closer to election, the objectors are stuck in the room instead of campaigning or fund raising.
<
p>Want to filibuster? Go for it. But make it uncomfortable.
It’s in the spirit of the ‘Gang of Fourteen’ that cautioned against the ‘nuclear option’.
<
p>I’d add the proviso that the Senator who introduced an attempt to gut it ten hears hence – and as you say, it’s not partisan and somebody will – must immediately resign. Sort of like the clause you put into your will that anyone who legally challanges your wishes cannot benefit from said challange.
Every current Senator will be up for re-election at least once between now and ten years hence anyway. Besides individual Senators don’t stand to benefit by proposing this anyway.
I’m trying to think of a way to prevent ‘Paul Kirk Syndrome’ – passing this while a majority and then trying to reneg if you find yourself in the minority when the time arrives.
<
p>And while no individual would especially benefit, a party might – but might find it hard to find volunteers to introduce repeal if the victory to change the law back to suit convenience would be a Phyrric one.
…you won’t have the power to do anything but whine and stomp your feet. A previously majority party may WISH they could have the old rules back when they find themselves in the minority, but by then it would be too late.
kill it dead, now. Yesterday, even. If the filibuster is bad for America now, why should we wait 10 years to change it?
<
p>Democrats should think long and hard about not changing it, because there’s a very high likelihood that should the Republicans win the Senate now, they’d get rid of it anyway, preemptively striking. They know even the Democrats aren’t going to stand for this crap forever.
we shouldn’t need to wait 10 years to change it. However, given the rules and political reality the way it is, I feel 10 years is better than never.