There is a caucus of Democratic Senators. It has no name. Nobody admits membership. But it is there. We see this, because we have seen its stamp on most of the legislation that the Senate has not passed in the last two years. It should be called the Cowardly Caucus. Right now the Cowardly Caucus is quivering with fear over filibuster reform. They know an overwhelming majority of the American people support it. They know that President Obama has called for it. They are whining, “What if moderate Democrats (DINOs) side with Republicans in an up or down vote?” Their fears are probably correct, but I say that Democrats should proceed with filibuster reform by changing the Senate Rules on day one. Here’s why.
The Senate needs to stop being the place where legislation goes to die. If that means the other side gets some of theirs through, so be it. If it hurts Americans, that will give voters an incentive not to return Republicans and DINOs to office, and to support Senators that they see fighting for them.
Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate. They have the stick of stripping plumb committee assignments from recalcitrant Democrats, who refuse to support the people, if they would but have the courage to wield it.
Democrats still hold the White House. Obama can veto anything egregious that reaches his desk.
If we don’t fix this now, Republicans will do so in 2012, because we will have handed them all three branches of government, unless voters see Democrats fighting for them. Allowing Republican Filibuzzards to block everything, crippling the nation, through continued abuse of the filibuster, is the easiest way to keep voters thinking that all Democrats belong to the Cowardly Caucus.
18 Responses to “Editorial: After the Election, Filibuster Reform?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I don’t think of moderate Dems as Dino’s. It’s the rightwingers that pretend to be D’s, constantly vote w/the R’s that I despise. Nelson is the biggest one and ole Blanche was just handed her pink slip.
Gridlock is coming…count on it.
Dusty, I should have put ‘moderate’ in quotes like that. The press calls them moderate. The parenthetical was intended as a qualifier, not a description.
Filibuster reform should be the top priority of the lame duck session.
Jack, unless they invoke the nuclear option in a lame duck session, which I am certain they will not, changing the Senate rules would require a 67 vote super majority. On day one of the new term it takes 50.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) has been calling for an end to the filibuster this past year under the cleverly named title “Constitutional Option” (which is bound to confuse Teapublicans). We may not get a full end of filibustering at the beginning of the 112th Congress (the next opportunity to change Senate rules), but I think at that point we can at least get a few things done:
[1] End the filibuster for executive branch appointments and procedural votes. There simply is no justification for the minority to prevent a President from filling the posts mandated by law of his or her administration (and that goes even if a Teapublican were president); or to filibuster procedural votes to prevent the actual bill from being acted on. You don’t like an appointment, or you don’t like an actual bill? Fine. Give it an up-or-down vote, and get on with it.
[2] Make them actually filibuster. It currently takes only one Teapublican in the chamber to “note the absence of a quorum” to bring up a quorum call – and so prevent cloture. That’s simply too easy – and it shouldn’t be!
[3] At the very minimum switch from requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster, and instead require 41 votes to continue it. That makes the minority do all the hard work of rounding up votes when an actual majority wants action.
I agree with the first. The second and third allow the Republicans to tie up the Senate indefinately, which is what they want to do.
Sadly, Reid is already back peddling. Business as usual, my friends.
Maybe that should have been back “pedaling?”
I would favor limiting the number of filibusters allowed each session. Put the shoe on the other foot. Say the Republicans have the majority in both the House and Senate. Without a filibuster, a conservative Republican President could appoint all the conservative judges, even to the SCOTUS if an opening comes about, The Bush tax cuts would have been permanent because the Republican Congress would not have had to use reconciliation, etc.
The filibuster has been abused in this session of Congress. I do not favor eliminating it, just figuring out a way to limit its use and get back to majority rule. Either make the minority party, or those wanting to continue debate, to talk 24/7 or limit the number of times it can be used.
Just to be clear on my earlier comment, judges are not “executive branch appointments.” In fact judicial appointments require the “advice and consent” of the Senate before being appointed. Executive branch appointments are things like ambassador to the UN, White House Chief of Staff, directors of OMB, CIA, etc.
That would be an effective compromise.
I understood it as you intended it.
What the Dems need to do is get rid of the filibuster, then grow a backbone and learn how to fight
back.
Welcome John! 🙂
I trust you must be the other half of the famous author, Marva.
The very thought of Democratic Senators with spine makes me giddy with euphoria.
I keep getting the feeling that Democrats like the filibuster…in the hands of the republicans. It gives them a way out of legislation that their benefactors don’t like and they can blame it on the republicans. Remember, Dems and republicans get lots of money from the same people. The Dems have been rolling over too easily.
There is more going on than meets the eye. I predict no change in the filibuster rules…unfortunately. 😈
Jerry, that’s certainly true of the DINOs like Nelson (NE).
Excellent analysis of the issue.
The difficulty is the embrace of tradition by Democratic Senators who have, over time, developed an insider’s loyalty to Washington non-Constitutional institutions over their constituents. There are some reasons for that loyalty. Remember when ending the filibuster for judicial nominees was considered the “Nuclear Option”? There was never this degree of abuse as a routine procedure before the election of President Obama.
The obvious remedy for tradition bound paralysis is voter pressure. You correctly point out most voters are for an end to the filibuster. But what is relevant to politicians is not what the majority wants, but rather what the majority consider important enough to change their ballot. This is, to voters who care enough to have an opinion, a process question. It barely registers.
The solution, if there is one, will be the survival of enough Democrats this year to change the rule in January. That only takes a majority. No filibuster during adoption of rules. The driving force, again if there is one, will be a distaste for the current abusiveness. That distaste comes from actions by Republicans. The majority is a gift from the Republican base who, in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, and Washington, snatched defeat from the jaws … well, you know.
Welcome Burr! 🙂
Excellent analysis and I completely agree. That’s why I said it has to be done on Day One of the new session.
I also agree that our majority in the Senate is a gift from the insaniTEA wing of the Republican party. For example, Even Chickens for Checkups would have clobbered the Nevada Leg Hound.