![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Math, majorities, and morality
The Senate is an arcane place. The myth is the members are all friendly to one another, and that collegial nature allows them to be more deliberative than the House, where the short terms, and the dissolution of that body, every two years, prevents "Statesmanlike behavior".
This is, of course, nonsense. The standing committees, the tenure of long incumbency, all combine to make the amount of deliberation the House does about the same as that for the Senate.
More relevant, the legislative cycle for both is the same. When the House is dissolved every two years, all the bills the Senate might have gotten passed are dead; because they can't be reconciled to a House Bill. It all has to start over (in theory they could just present the same bill again; but some of the senators might not still be on board, and it takes time from new business).
In, and of themselves, those myths wouldn't be too pernicious. The problem is the newer myth that, "it takes 60 votes to pass something out of the Senate," which is gaining new traction as Brown's win in Mass. means the Republicans again have a 41 member caucus (though, to be honest, with Der Liebermaus [I-Lieberman], and Nelson (D Neb.), they have had an effective 42 votes in favor of gridlock on pretty much anything the Republican party doesn't like. It doesn't matter the least little bit how they vote on bills, if they keep working to keep bills they know will win; and they don't want to vote on from being put to the question).
Fact 1: The Senate passes a bill by simpe majority.
Fact 2: The filibuster allows a principled minority to stymie a piece of legislation.
Fact 3: (this is the important part) Changes in the rules, back in the '70s made a filibuster almost risk free to the people waging it.
See, back in the bad old days, a filibuster prevented the senate from getting any work done. The business of legislating came to a complete stop because the floor was being held. So they changed the rules. Filibusters, when actually being done, took up the morning session, and then the bill in question would be tabled and other things could be addressed.
Which pulled the teeth of the filibuster's possible backlash. There things sat, for a good long time, with both parties keeping the big guns of the procedural armory in check, pretty much. Until the aftermath of the Contract With America crowd. I think most of the evils of the present partisan mess stem from that huge swath of not merely freshmen Representatives, but the neophyte nature of a lot of them to holding office. It made them a lot more partisan, and less aware of what is needed to keep a pluralistic nation afloat. A number of them moved on to the senate, and the machines they built were built by people with blinders, but I digress.
So when Bush/Cheney were being threatened with actual fiibusters, the goons working with them (Lott, et al.) threatened to change the rules of the senate; which is a lot easier than stopping a filibuster. They called it the nuclear option, and it would have made a filibuster a lot harder to just get away with. The Dems caved, and lo! when the Republicans (those paragons of the, "up or down vote") became the minority, the number of filibusters engaged in went through the roof.
The amazing part of the way the game played out was the Dems took it on the chin. The obstructionist Republicans went around saying, "they have the majority, and they can't get anything done." The one occasion when Reid said, "Break out the cots, we're going into special session," they flinched. The last thing they seemed to want was to be seen for what they were (shades of the folks defending Prop. 8. Cameras in the courtroom? The HORROR. Lists of who it was who actually made public contributions to the funding behind Prop 8? A disaster), accountability for what they were doing was anatheman to them.
Reid, of course, didn't take it to heart. All he had to do to make the pain of throttled legislation stop, was make the Republicans actually show what things they were against. Make them stake some claim to principles larger than, "preventing the Democratic Party from doing anything."
Now, with the election of Brown, we have to listen to all that balderdash about, "the needed 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate."
Well, it ain't so. All that needs to happen is to use a tactical nuke. Don't change the number on cloture. Let them have their ability to hold the floor open. But make it a real filibuster again. None of this gentlemen's agreement to have morning filibusters and afternoon sessions. Nope.
Just go back to the old ways of standing up and talking, out in the open, where the public can see what they are for, and against. If they have uch strong principles they will be glad to have them on display.
And the filibuster will, once again, be something which has some claim to merit.
This is, of course, nonsense. The standing committees, the tenure of long incumbency, all combine to make the amount of deliberation the House does about the same as that for the Senate.
More relevant, the legislative cycle for both is the same. When the House is dissolved every two years, all the bills the Senate might have gotten passed are dead; because they can't be reconciled to a House Bill. It all has to start over (in theory they could just present the same bill again; but some of the senators might not still be on board, and it takes time from new business).
In, and of themselves, those myths wouldn't be too pernicious. The problem is the newer myth that, "it takes 60 votes to pass something out of the Senate," which is gaining new traction as Brown's win in Mass. means the Republicans again have a 41 member caucus (though, to be honest, with Der Liebermaus [I-Lieberman], and Nelson (D Neb.), they have had an effective 42 votes in favor of gridlock on pretty much anything the Republican party doesn't like. It doesn't matter the least little bit how they vote on bills, if they keep working to keep bills they know will win; and they don't want to vote on from being put to the question).
Fact 1: The Senate passes a bill by simpe majority.
Fact 2: The filibuster allows a principled minority to stymie a piece of legislation.
Fact 3: (this is the important part) Changes in the rules, back in the '70s made a filibuster almost risk free to the people waging it.
See, back in the bad old days, a filibuster prevented the senate from getting any work done. The business of legislating came to a complete stop because the floor was being held. So they changed the rules. Filibusters, when actually being done, took up the morning session, and then the bill in question would be tabled and other things could be addressed.
Which pulled the teeth of the filibuster's possible backlash. There things sat, for a good long time, with both parties keeping the big guns of the procedural armory in check, pretty much. Until the aftermath of the Contract With America crowd. I think most of the evils of the present partisan mess stem from that huge swath of not merely freshmen Representatives, but the neophyte nature of a lot of them to holding office. It made them a lot more partisan, and less aware of what is needed to keep a pluralistic nation afloat. A number of them moved on to the senate, and the machines they built were built by people with blinders, but I digress.
So when Bush/Cheney were being threatened with actual fiibusters, the goons working with them (Lott, et al.) threatened to change the rules of the senate; which is a lot easier than stopping a filibuster. They called it the nuclear option, and it would have made a filibuster a lot harder to just get away with. The Dems caved, and lo! when the Republicans (those paragons of the, "up or down vote") became the minority, the number of filibusters engaged in went through the roof.
The amazing part of the way the game played out was the Dems took it on the chin. The obstructionist Republicans went around saying, "they have the majority, and they can't get anything done." The one occasion when Reid said, "Break out the cots, we're going into special session," they flinched. The last thing they seemed to want was to be seen for what they were (shades of the folks defending Prop. 8. Cameras in the courtroom? The HORROR. Lists of who it was who actually made public contributions to the funding behind Prop 8? A disaster), accountability for what they were doing was anatheman to them.
Reid, of course, didn't take it to heart. All he had to do to make the pain of throttled legislation stop, was make the Republicans actually show what things they were against. Make them stake some claim to principles larger than, "preventing the Democratic Party from doing anything."
Now, with the election of Brown, we have to listen to all that balderdash about, "the needed 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate."
Well, it ain't so. All that needs to happen is to use a tactical nuke. Don't change the number on cloture. Let them have their ability to hold the floor open. But make it a real filibuster again. None of this gentlemen's agreement to have morning filibusters and afternoon sessions. Nope.
Just go back to the old ways of standing up and talking, out in the open, where the public can see what they are for, and against. If they have uch strong principles they will be glad to have them on display.
And the filibuster will, once again, be something which has some claim to merit.
no subject
Unfortunately, I'm not and "from your lips to the DLC's ear" probably means that there's a lot of LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU happening.
Nevertheless, I will try linking on my seven-reader bully pulpit. You never know.
no subject
Not quite. The Republicans threatened to create a situation where a parliamentary ruling that could be upheld by a majority vote would declare filibusters of judicial nominees (and perhaps some other appointees) unconstitutional. (Based on the constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent...)
They did not create a situation where the filibuster for legislation, as opposed to appointments, would be declared unconstitutional. That would be a much tougher row to hoe, as the Senate introduces its own legislation and has the constitutional authority to determine its own rules.
I agree that Reid could call their bluff in the way you suggest. It would be a very interesting thing to watch. But Reid does not seem to be capable of pulling it off; he simply will not risk all legislation being halted on the unproven assumption that the Republicans will cry 'uncle'.
no subject
It doesn't require something being declared unconstitutional, since the filibuster itself is merely a Senate rule. Nothing requires it, and it's been modified at several points.
The issue isn't what the Republicans will do; it's what the public will think of the Senators, no matter the party, who commit to the filibuster. One of the things "The West Wing" did a disservice with was the episode about the filibuster. We have it painted for us in the hagiographic haze of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Well, it's not like that any more. It's been changed so that the minority party always gets to veto things it doesn't want.
That's not the way the game is supposed to be played.
no subject
Yes, yes, this, this.
no subject
no subject
While, in fact, a few days on Facebook convinces me that people can say things like "*giggle* I don't want the same people who run Amtrak making decisions about my children's health!", and friends of mine whom I otherwise hold in high esteem will just roll their eyes and go "Oh, that wacky (name of person)!", and continue to break bread with them, which is more understanding than I can bring myself to give.
N. Dakota?
Re: N. Dakota?
no subject
This is why real filibusters were given up, and the "virtual filibuster" invented instead.
no subject
no subject
The general idea now is that it takes 60 votes to pass something in the senate. That's a problem, and it needs to be fixed. If the majority has to work to pass bills, fine. The minority sure as hell ought to have to work to kill them.
no subject
no subject
I'm am so sick of the Dems being wimps about, oh, EVERYTHING! Get 50 votes, let Biden break the tie... a lot more bills would pass that way.
no subject
no subject