It's different if you're a republican

[pecunium]

Remember all those complaints the Democratic Minority wasn't giving the presidential nominees the "straight up or down" vote they deserved?

The comments that the president ought get the appointments he asks for?

That the Senate was supposed to advise, and the consent was pro-forma?

Now that the Republicans are in the minority, it seems things have changed. Now principles matter, and those can't be sacrificed, just to give the president what he wants. On a procedural vote, the Republicans in the Senate have stopped a federal appointment to the Dept. of the Interior.

This crap needs to change. I am not saying do away with the filibuster. I am saying the filibuster needs to be onerous again. It used to be a filibuster was an ordeal. The people who were maintaining it had to actively hold the floor.

West Wing had a moving episode about it.

Only it hasn't been that way in more than thirty years. After the filibuster of Abe Fortas the rues were changed. One, more senators were required to support the filibuster (it went from two thirds, to three fifths) and two, the filibusters were moved to only the morning sessions. By default all that's needed now is to have 41 senators who won't stop it, and hold the floor until lunch.

But even that's not required. Saying they want to filibuster is enough to bottle the legislation. Which means the filibuster is painless. Given the number of Blue-Dog Democrats, getting 41 senators to vote for cloture is hard, even when the numbers appear to be there (that's why the Republicans tried to invoke the Nuclear Option; they had a bare majority, and couldn't invoke cloture. They got around it by co-opting a bunch of Blue-Dogs, and so making pretty much impossible for the Dems to get the votes to stop it).

Reid can insist on doing it for real, but the habit is so strong, to just let the procedural filibuster happen, that it's only been done on a budget bill.

It has to stop. If the filibuster is to be kept (it's a parliamentary rule, not a constitutional requirement. The House allowed it until the 1840s) it has to be work. The people who oppose a piece of legislation need to be willing to stand up and be seen.

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Alternately, we could just kidnap Norm Coleman, and hold him incommunicado until they seat Franken.

[urox.livejournal.com]

2/3 is more than 3/5 so that would be less senators supporting it. ;)

[ckd]

I think pecunium meant supporting the filibuster, not supporting cloture. At 2/3, you only need 34 votes to block; at 3/5, you need 41.

[lexica510.livejournal.com]

From the days when a filibuster was really a filibuster:

"Lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for!" Give 'em hell, Mr. Smith.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

Something is strange about the Dept. of Interior appointment vote.
Since two Republicans voted for cloture, if all the Democrats had been there
cloture would have been invoked. But two were missing!

So either Reid is a complete idiot (calling for a vote when he knew two key people were absent), or a stupid leader (calling for a vote without knowing two key people would be absent), or something else is going on: why Kyl would vote for cloture is a mystery.

[eagle]

Reid's office is saying (according to Salon War Room) that this was a test vote to see where the votes were rather than the final attempt to get the nominee confirmed. I suspect option three: the public artifact of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

The filibuster rule cannot be be changed without 2/3rds consent.
That's part of the set of procedural rules that went into effect when the cloture threshold was reduced from 2/3 to 3/5.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's completely true, or the "Nuclear Option" couldn't have been a real possibility.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

The trick to the nuclear option is a complicated maneuver to have a majority vote (by raising a point of order) on the question of whether the filibuster rule is constitutional (which is why, back in 2005, Republicans referred to the idea as the 'Constitutional Option') in the case of judicial (and presumably other) appointments.

So the rule itself would not be changed; in some sense the interpretation of the rule would be changed.

Looked at slightly differently, the text of the Rules of the Senate cannot be changed without 2/3rds consent, but there are parliamentary tricks that can be used to get around those rules, if you're willing to piss off the other party big time and ignore tradition.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was it. But the thing which was interesting was they Veep declaring that continuing debate was unconstitutional.

From a purely parliamentary POV, were I the Majority Leader, I'd say... here's the deal, change cloture to 35, not 40, or my invoking my privilege to force you to stand in the well and be seen to be blocking the entire business of the nation.

For every single bill you want to block. I won't ever move the question. Just suspend debate, and move to the next one.

[warclaw.livejournal.com]

The reason I think they won't move to change things is quite simple:

By allowing the Republicans to take this obstructionist stance, the Democrats accomplish two things that are near and dear to a politicians heart.

1: They build in an excuse for if/when things get worse, or fail to improve fast enough for the public's taste. "It's not OUR fault, if those darned Republicans hadn't blocked us from doing what was needed, we'd be doing MUCH better. Blame THEM, not us!"

And 2: The current obstructionist stance taken by the Republicans is NOT being received well in general by the public, and as they continue with it, public opinion swings farther away from them. Most Democratic politicians are quite happy to allow the Republicans to shoot themselves in both feet repeatedly....if only with an eye towards the next election cycle.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The thing is... no one gets told the Republicans are being obstructionist.

What we read is, "The bill could 't get the 60 votes neede to pass the Senate." In the House and Senate races last time around the Republicans used the results of their obstructionism to beat up on the Democrats. They said, "they have a majority, and practically nothing was passed. It was the most inactive Legislative period of all time."

To add to this, they've been blaming the Democrats for not using their minority time to put brakes on Republican excess. It's their way of saying they are doing the people's business by obstructing things.

In short, IOKIYAR.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I'm a big fan of inactive legislatures. The less they do, the less they can screw up. I seem to be in the minority on this.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

One reason not to insist on an actual filibuster:

It takes time. If a filibuster actually happens, then I think nothing else can get done on the floor of the Senate. (Presumably committees can still meet, although I'm not sure).

So there is a tradeoff. Does the Senate get potentially tied up for days trying to call some group of Senators' bluff, or do you move on to business you feel has a good chance of getting done?

Also, there are ways to block legislation which require a 3/5ths supermajority to block without filibustering. These have to do with points of order but I'm having trouble finding a clear explanation
or reference.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

That is the reason to call it.

Even now, a real filibuster is rare. Unless the majority leader insists, the present system is when a bill is being fillibustered, that takes up the morning. In the afternoon the regular business gets done.

But if something is that important, it ought to tie up the whole process. Otherwise a small group can do what has been done (get in they way of popular bills), for free.