It's different if you're a republican
May. 13th, 2009 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRemember 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 03:14 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 03:24 am (UTC)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.