In five days we will learn if the reformers in the Senate have the votes to make endless obstruction in that body more difficult in the 112th Congress.
Talking Points Memo has a fine run down of the tic-tok and dance steps required to get this done. Steve Benen adds some more details here and Jonathan Bernstein filling in over at The Plum Line has yet more background, reporting and speculation on what might go wrong. For yet more background on the issue here is Ezra Klein’s interview with Senate reform leader, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
A lot rests on what Vice President Joe Biden will do and whether or not Harry Reid sides with the reformers or uses the threat of them to cut a deal with McConnell for some changes short of full filibusterer/obstruction reform.
Over the next few days the clock is ticking and the behind the scenes planning, deal making and whip counting for votes will pick up steam.
As Tim F. has reminded us many times in the past, now might be a good to to call your Senators (again) and this time ask them to stand up for reform on January 5, 2011 (this action is especially encouraged if one or both of your Senators are Democrats). You can find your Senator here or from the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Tim’s Guide for first-time callers can be found here.
Senator Reid can be reached at (202) 224-3542 or by his Web contact form. Vice President Biden can be reached through this Web form or (202) 456-1111 for the comment line or the WH switchboard (202) 456-1414.
Chris Bowers and the folks over at Dkos (aka GOS) are also mobilizing folks for this effort.
What happens to the Senate Rules reform movement next week will define a lot of what can and/or what can not happen in Congress in the coming two years.
So, let’s get this party started.
Cheers
dengre
bloodstar
This really is a case of be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. And I might be the only person, despite all the frustrations and irritations of the current system, to think that major changes are a bad idea.
In fact the biggest problem is that no one has even tested the Republican resolve by forcing them to maintain a true 24/7 filibuster, instead it’s like, vote one time, oh damn, we’ll just quit and run away now.
hmmm
Judas Escargot
I think this is a very bad move, long-term.
Wasn’t the filibuster the only reason we don’t have to say “Justice Harriet Miers”? And don’t the Dems have substantially more seats up for grabs in 2012 than the GOP?
Kill the filibuster, and who knows what kind of nihilist stupidity the GOP could make into law come 2013.
kimp
What bloodstar said.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@bloodstar: Gotta agree with bloodstar here. Make them do the ol’ Strom Thurmond about twice, make them put their mouths where their money is, and you won’t hear the word “filibuster” nearly as much.
feebog
Except what Merkley is proposing will not kill the filibuster. Not even close. What it would do is put the onus on the minority to actually SHOW UP and stay on the floor to maintain a filibuster. It would also eliminate secret holds and cloture votes, streamlining the entire process.
BGinCHI
Until blocking the functioning of the Senate (and the House) has political consequences, I’m not sure filibuster reform is going to result in a great leap forward.
Yes, the Senate is flawed. But is a rule fix going to change the culture? Is it going to change the personnel and their sense of entitlement?
The problem is the GOP, first, the filibuster second.
Dennis G.
@Judas Escargot:
These reforms do not ‘kill’ the filibuster but they do make the Minority have to put some skin in the game to obstruct the Senate. These reforms would remove secret holds and end the auto-obstruction of everything. The Minority could still filibuster and obstruction could still take place, but it would be harder to do automatically and there would be political risks involved for all sides. The reforms would move things towards debate and votes. These are all good things.
As for Miers, her nomination ended when she lost Republican support on the Judiciary Committee and the larger world of wingnutopia. The filibuster and and any Democratic efforts at obstruction to her nomination were never issues at all.
Cheers
Uloborus
@bloodstar:
That is the major proposal being made. Currently they don’t HAVE to actually filibuster. The rules permit them to say ‘If you can’t get 60 votes, we won’t have this debate. Next topic.’ That’s why cloture is such a giant mess. The change proposed by the guy leading the reformers is to require 40 votes against debate to be present in the chamber at all times.
As for Dennis G, I’m going to take a pass on calling up McConnell or Paul. I’d rather they not know I think their assholery has been successful.
joe from Lowell
Progressive and liberal complaints about ditching the filibuster are remarkably short-sighted. Go back through history, through the filibusters of lynching bills and health care efforts.
You want single payer? It will never happen with a 60 vote requirement. Make that a 51 vote requirement, and we might get there the next time the Democrats have a good election cycle.
You can always find some exception to a rule, but a procedural requirement for a supermajority ultimately benefits the party opposing progress, and harms the party working for progress.
joe from Lowell
@Uloborus:
41, no?
JasonF
I’m still not convinced that making the Republicans stand on the Senate Floor and recite right-wing talking points is a winning strategy for Democrats. I think BGinCHI is right — as long as the American people don’t care that the Republicans are obstructing everything, it won’t really matter what the specifics of the filibuster are.
Uloborus
@joe from Lowell:
I read 40, but you may be right! The point was, THEY have the burden of having enough people to vote against present at all times, rather than us having the burden of having enough people to vote for at all times. It turns a procedural vote requiring a supermajority back into a traditional filibuster!
Dennis G.
@Evolved Deep Southerner:
What Merkley’s reforms would do is make them talk and if they couldn’t keep it up then the issue would move to a vote. Given the way that the Senate is completely broken these reforms are a good starting place.
If they pass that would be great (IMHO), but somehow I think the more likely outcome is a deal between McConnell and Reid. How good that deal might be will depend upon how much Mitch and his fellow Confederate Party members fear reform. An interesting game of chicken is underway and I support it.
Cheers
Stillwater
@feebog: Except what Merkley is proposing will not kill the filibuster. Not even close. What it would do is put the onus on the minority to actually SHOW UP and stay on the floor to maintain a filibuster. It would also eliminate secret holds and cloture votes, streamlining the entire process.
Exactly. Which is why they are good reforms that ought to be supported, right?
JasonF
@Uloborus:
@joe from Lowell:
Actually, Sen. Merkley’s proposal doesn’t require 40 or 41 votes to be present. It requires 5 (at the start of the filibuster) to 20 (the number increases as the length of the filibuster goes on). The big change is that once you drop below that threshold — that is, if you get to a point where there aren’t 20 people on the floor who support continuing debate and are actually willing to debate the bill at issue — then you’ve got cloture and proceed to a majority vote on the bill at issue.
Comrade Mary
PLEASE FORGIVE ME.
Now, the party don’t start ’til I walk in …
Uloborus
@JasonF:
Fair enough. I clearly read a much simplified version. I’m fine with that, too. I don’t claim to know what the best alternative to the current fiasco is. A filibuster has its purpose in the legislative process. If the minority party is sufficiently opposed, they should be able to slow down and block legislation. The value of that is very clear, and the tyranny of the majority is a danger that is feared for a very good reason. So what ain’t broke, don’t fix.
That said, the current situation is broke. The senate is designed based on the assumption that senators are all friends and nice to each other and are working together for (what they believe is) the good of the country even when they disagree. Now that that’s not true, the senate’s rules are full of loopholes that can be exploited. Supposedly no one was ever GOING to be so crass as to use them to cheat. Some kind of reform is absolutely needed.
Suck It Up!
I’m actually worried about the House and Paul Ryan and the media’s tendency to NOT report the crazy shit that Republicans do.
Walker
@Suck It Up!:
Absolutely. This new proposed rule change that Paul Ryan gets full say over what the spending cut amounts should be is 100% crazy. There is no way that is not going to lead to a government shutdown.
Mark S.
@Comrade Mary:
Hey, it’s better than when one of John’s post titles last night put the Jefferson’s theme song in my head.
Where it didn’t leave all night.
stuckinred
Where did I put Saxby’s phone number??? :)
Stillwater
I have some questions: I don’t get why a) Biden might be reluctant to agree to the proposed changes, and b) what the procedural argument for keeping the secret hold might be. Anyone know?
JAHILL10
@Suck It Up!: Yes indeed. What you said. The proposed rule change for the House Budget Committee is downright undemocratic and needs to be nipped in the bud PRONTO. Giving a Randian acolyte full control over all budgetary questions is just freakin’ insane. According to Steve Benen, the proposed rule changes call for all new initiatives to be offset by savings somewhere else in the budget but tax cuts don’t have to be paid for. In addition to calling our senators we need to be calling our house members to make sure this is stopped NOW.
Uloborus
@Suck It Up!: and @JAHILL10:
The budget debate’s going to be pretty insane, but we control the Senate AND the president, and we kicked major legislative ass all through the first two years, no matter how the media described it. So, thank god, we’re not defenseless. But god damn, is that rule fucked up. I can’t see how it can be prevented. The House is owned by the Tea Jerkers but good right now.
Yutsano
@Uloborus: Let them. They got their wish, they got the keys to the kingdom, now let the American people deal with the consequences. I personally think we won’t learn any other way.
General Stuck
@Stillwater:
Because when the goopers object to making these changes via a simple majority vote, then Biden will have to over rule the parliamentarian, when the parliamentarian sides with the wingnuts. He will have to declare a simple majority vote as constitutional, against senate rules and customs.
As far as reform goes, I am all for it, provided it’s done without the above needing to occur, and with the minorities consent. But either way, making these changes now will make little difference the next two years on passing legislation that can be signed by Obama, considering the wingnuts run the House.
Judas Escargot
@Dennis G.:
These reforms do not ‘kill’ the filibuster but they do make the Minority have to put some skin in the game to obstruct the Senate. […] The Minority could still filibuster and obstruction could still take place, but it would be harder to do automatically and there would be political risks involved for all sides.
Fair enough. And I’m all for the removal of the secret holds, which always seemed a little too… aristocratic.
But which party has shown itself more willing to put ‘skin in the game’ and take ‘political risks’ when it was in the minority, and when it really mattered?
As others have already said, be careful what you wish for. If you get it, it may benefit your opponents more than it does you.
jurassicpork
I gotta photo essay up dat basically details what exackly happened in da back room between Stevie the Ratt and incomin’ New Yawk governor Andy Cuomo. It’s fuckin’; beautiful.
Stillwater
@General Stuck: Thanks.
Pococurante
@joe from Lowell: Oh for crying out loud. The only change is folks have to show up to filibuster. Sheesh.
mclaren
Here’s a wakeup call for those of you who keep reciting the learned helplessness mantra that the individual voter can’t do anything and the corporations own it all and no one can change anything.
Jeff Merkley, the spearhead of this fight, was a very close call in the senate races in late 2007. Merkley, a Democrat, got elected to the senate instead of a Republican slimeball incumbent who was using every sleazy smear in the book in his campaign largely because people like me manned the phone banks and went door to door in the 2007 elections.
I showed prospective voters Merkley’s Republican opponent’s campaign literature and pointed out that the Republicans had nothing — no positive agenda, no policies, no plan, just smears.
Yes, I phone-banked and went door to door for Obama, but I also worked hard for guys like Merkley. Now, if we get some movement on senate filibuster reform, it’s going to be because Democrats got up off their asses in 2007 and volunteered and talked to prospective voters door to door and handed out campaign literature and engaged people and changed some minds.
So this is an example of how a very small change, one new Democratic senator, can lead to bigger things. Merkley is a freshman senator. He hasn’t been burned out. He’s interested in reform. That’s how you do it, people. Get out there and volunteer for the Democratic party and put your back into it. One election in the senate can lead to bigger things. Keep the pressure on. Phone your senator. Write a hand-written letter and mail it. Deluge the senate, email them, make your voice heard. If we get filibuster reform, that can lead to even bigger things. When enough people get involved, change snowballs. Good things can happen.
But only if we break out of that learned helplessness mode. Only if we actually get up off our asses and work for what we believe in.
Dennis G.
@Suck It Up!:
That is something to worry about. It seems that the GOP is getting ready to make Ryan the Secret Austerity Czar in an end run around the Constitution.
MTiffany
Dear Mr. Vice President,
Senator Majority Leader Reid is looking a little thin. Please encourage him to continue eating Senator Graham’s lunch.
XOXOXOXO
PS. -Weeper- Speaker Boehner is getting as fat and pompous as Lindsey, so perhaps Senator Reid should consider eating his lunch as well.
catclub
I just do not see how
Kent Conrad
Max Baucus
Mary Landrieu
Claire McCaskill
Jim Webb
Manchin
stick together on the side of the DFH’s against the GOP.
I’ll be happy to see them actually do so.
lol
@Judas Escargot:
They have substantially more seats up for election but the vast majority of them are safe – Only a handful are actually in remote danger. (Webb, Tester, etc)
And given that it’ll be a Presidential year with Obama at the top of the ticket, probably only 1 or 2 of those seats are competitive and there are a couple Republican held seats (like Brown) that we might flip. That’s not to say that Dems won’t have to work to be re-elected but if they play thing remotely smart, they shouldn’t have to worry about losing.
2014 is a different matter however…
MTiffany
@feebog:
Making the process less byzantine makes it more comprehensible to the public at large. A very good thing.
lol
Can I give a hearty L-O-L to the pretend “activism” of Chris Bowers and DailyKos? Their big initiative to mobilize Kossacks has been emails and online petitions. That was cutting edge in, say, 1996.
Signing an on-line petition, one with no personal contact information no less, is meaningless. No on Capitol Hill cares about on-line petitions. They only care about real petitions in so far as you provide names of constituents and addresses. Everything else gets tossed out.
Blogging isn’t a substitute for organizing.
AAA Bonds
I’m pretty glad Biden will have so much to do with this. By refraining from obstructing these needed reforms, the White House will have an opportunity to build back some of the confidence it’s lost.
I have a hard time imagining someone with enough money to get the White House to come out against this – although wonders never cease.
AAA Bonds
@lol:
You’ve got to realize that Markos has (like some of the writers here) expressed personal contempt for physical, walking-around-on-the-streets activism.
That’s why ACORN was such a key target for Republicans: right-wing or left-wing, Democrats have largely abandoned the work that ACORN does – and have abandoned messaging on street activism to the national press.
Phoebe
@Comrade Mary: Forgive you? Are you kidding? That’s one of the best things I ever got from The Daily Dish and I’m a lover not a hater.
Vote for it now!
Uloborus
@AAA Bonds:
…there are writers here who look down on physical walking-around-on-the-streets activism? Are there even any commenters here who do? I mean, constant bitch fights over WHO should be supported, sure, but I thought ‘Give time, money, effort, and your voice’ were frequent refrains on BJ, especially when elections roll around.
maus
@lol:
Signing online petitions is 100% meaningless to the voter. It’s pretty effective in setting up pleas for donations, though.
Tonal Crow
To those opposing this reform because of fears that the GOP will run roughshod over Democrats the next time they get a Senate majority: what makes you think the GOP won’t just abolish the filibuster and related unanimous-consent rules then?
And to those opposing this reform because they think there’s nothing the Senate can do with the House in Boehner’s hands, doesn’t the Senate (but not the House) vote on judicial (and other) nominees?
lol
@maus:
That’s true: petitions are useless for persuasion but they are handy for list-building and organizing.
And again, there’s the problem – the only people they’re soliciting to sign this petition are the people they already have on their list. They’re not building the list at all.
Maybe some folks will sign up for GOS just to sign this petition but it’s probably being offset by people unsubscribing because they’re only getting emails to sign a fucking petition.
That the Dean campaign was paying Markos and Jerome for their “expertise” sheds a lot of light on why he got his ass kicked in Iowa. Just so sad and pathetic.
General Stuck
@Tonal Crow:
Happy New Year!! Tonal crow
Tonal Crow
@General Stuck: And to you as well. May it be better than 2010!
Scott P.
The filibuster has never been used by liberals/progressives to block conservative legislation or judicial nominees. Never. It has been used many many times to block liberal legislation. Given that track record, I’m all for weakening it.
Tonal Crow
@Scott P.: I can’t vouch for “never”, but Democrats didn’t even filibuster Robert Bork. He got an “upperdown vote” and lost it 42-58. ‘Course, one could argue that they didn’t *need* to filibuster him, given the result, but clearly Democrats have often have failed to use their powers effectively, while Republicans have done the opposite.
It’s gotta change.
MTiffany
@Judas Escargot:
No, the fact that Harriet “I may not know stare decisis, but I know when to be starry-eyed” Miers couldn’t answer basic questions about jurisprudence is the reason she’s not a sitting Supreme.
Moses2317
Thanks for posting this. I’d also recommend people write letters to the editor of their local newspapers. My understanding is that Congressional offices watch the newspapers back home to get a sense of where the voters are at on an issue, and that progressives tend to get their butts kicked in the letters to the editor department.
Also, here are my suggested points regarding filibuster reform that we should urge Senate Democrats to push for:
* Mend It, Don’t End It: We do think it is appropriate to have a properly-limited super-majority requirement for legislation in the Senate. The 60-vote filibuster requirement helps ensure some long term policy stability, which is an important value for a functioning democracy. Such a super-majority requirement can also be good for protecting progressive gains. Most progressive policy change at the national level has come in short bursts – a few years during the New Deal, a two-year period after JFK’s assassination, and the past two years under President Obama – followed by long periods of time in which there are unsuccessful efforts to turn those gains back. In some cases, those efforts to overturn progressive gains have been turned back by relying on the filibuster. Eliminating the filibuster completely would make it much harder to protect our gains over time.
* No Filibustering Presidential Nominations: While a limited super-majority requirement makes sense for legislation, it does not for President appointments. For one thing, a President should have some leeway with who he or she wants to carry out the duties the President was elected to perform, and the filibuster interferes with that. In addition, the Constitution limits the Senate’s role over Presidential nominations to “advise and consent,” which does suggests that super-majority requirements may not be appropriate. Finally, the ability of the Senate to undermine the ability of our federal judiciary and agencies to operate is effectively is highly detrimental to our country, especially in times of economic crisis like we have had over the past couple years.
* Shift the Burden to Those Who Are Filibustering: Currently, any single Senator can invoke and maintain a filibuster by objecting, even secretly. This means that there is little direct political cost for filibustering, and it is the Senators who want to break the filibuster who have to spend their time on the Senator floor trying to break the filibuster. This burden should be shifted to the filibusters, by requiring that they have 40 votes on the Senate floor at all times to maintain a filibuster.
* Speed Up the Process: The 30-hour waiting period on cloture votes just encourages the minority to filibuster everything in order to throw sand into the gears of the Senate. And the ability to filibuster legislation at multiple points, such as on amendments or motions to proceed to debate, allows for further delays. These steps should be eliminated or significantly limited in order to ensure that filibusters are based on legitimate policy concerns, not just trying to delay everything.
http://www.winningprogressive.org/filibuster-reform-mend-it-but-dont-end-it
mclaren
@Tonal Crow:
Exactly. Precisely.
Filibuster reform matters. It’s important. But beyond that, a Democratic president needs to start using some of the available tools: recess appointments, signing statements, executive orders, fund sequestration, all that stuff that Republican presidents routintely do as a matter of course.
Likewise, a Democratic house needed to do things like “up or down vote” and getting the Demo vice president to break ties that Republicans routinely did when they controlled the House…but which Demos just can’t bring themselves to do.
Here’s the brutal reality Republicans realize but Democrats don’t: if the president does something that later gets ruled unconstitutional, whatever gets done typically remains in place even if the courts smack the president down.
So if Obama had used signing statements and fund sequestration and executive orders and the Supreme Court smacked him down, guess what? We’d still have no tax cuts for the rich and a closed Gitmo and maybe even a public option. Shrieking “BUT THE PRESIDENT CAN’T DO THAT! THAT WOULD MAKE HIM A KING!” misses the point. Republican presidents act like kings all the time. Since our constitutional democracy has gone away, Democratic presidents might as well start acting like kings, because goddamit, that’s the way the system works now.
Mike Kay (Christine O'Donnell's Co-Witch)
@Judas Escargot: Harriet Miers would have been a big improvement of alito.
she was taken out by the religious right because they felt she wasn’t sufficiently anti-abortion. the religious right has actually sobered up and realized that the gop has been stringing them along on abortion. the gop knows if abortion is overturned, the backlash will be cataclysmic, as dead women pile up in back alleys. at the same time the evangelicals got tired of 30 years of lip service and seeing the gop appoint 3 pro-choice justices (o’connor, kennedy, souter) – they weren’t gonna let it happen again.
Mike Kay (Christine O'Donnell's Co-Witch)
@lol: markos only uses the list to sell his books.
lol
The dems used the filibuster to stop Bolton as UN Ambassador, about a dozen judges and drilling in the artic national wildlife refuge. I think that’s about it.
The worst excesses of the Bush years unfortunately garnered bi-partisan support and passed with super-majorities in the Senate: Iraq War, Patriot Act, NCLB, etc.
Then there’s the things that Dems seem to think the filibuster killed but never could garner a majority. Social Security privatization, Harriet Miers, etc.
Meanwhile the list of progressive legislation that got killed by the filibuster just in this Congress is a mile long with an almost equally long list of nominees being held up.
The filibuster is a tool to maintain the status quo. Ask yourself, who does maintaining the status quo benefit?
Uloborus
@mclaren:
Uh… no. Republican presidents do not do this stuff as a matter of course. Only Bush did. It was why he wasn’t merely disgustingly partisan in service of grotesque ideals, but actually a constitutional threat to our government. It isn’t right for us to do it, either.
Anyway, Bush only got away with it because the checks and balances didn’t check and balance. Congress looked the other way.