Leading Democrats are hinting at the possibility of changing the rules in light of the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts — possibly doing away with the long-protected right to filibuster. Rep. Barney Frank has called for the Senate to change its rules while Vice President Joe Biden has decried the use of the rule by Republicans.
Putting aside the value and history of the rule, the Democrats appear to be doing precisely what they accused the Republicans of doing when the GOP was in power: manipulating the rules in raw power plays in Congress. Many Democrats are seeking to push through legislation before Brown arrives despite that fact that he was elected primarily on the basis of his promise to oppose the health care bill. Sen. Jim Webb has cautioned against such a move, here. House dems have already indicated that they are not interested in the suggestion from some in the Administration that they simply adopt the Senate bill to avoid any vote with Brown, here.
By any measure, the GOP winning Ted Kennedy’s seat is a seismic event — particularly given the focus on opposing the national health care legislation. In light of the election, the use of interim Senator Paul Kirk to push through legislation would be unseemly when he was never elected and clearly does not represent the wishes of the people of Massachusetts.
Changing the rules when you cannot win elections (even the bluest seat in the bluest state) is equally unseemly. Yet, that is what Frank appears to be suggesting:
“It is time to shut it down. God didn’t create the filibuster, it’s part of the Senate rules. . . .We have a serious constitutional problem. There has been a de facto amendment of the U.S. Constitution in an anti-small-D democratic direction. . . . It is outrageous. It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40.” Less populous states, he argued, end up with a disproportionate amount of power.
Biden also seems to have such a change in mind when he said the following on Sunday:
“As long as I have served … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they’ve done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators,” Biden said. “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.”
Biden did not seem bothered by the filibuster rules when he was in the Senate in the minority.
The use of the filibuster can be traced back as early as Roman senator Cato the Younger. Both the House and Senate once had the filibuster rule. The house got rid of it in 1842. In 1917, a rule allowing a vote of cloture was passed to limit filibuster, but it still required 60 votes. Its use increased in the 1960s as segregationists opposed civil rights legislation.
Celebrated in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the filibuster has often been heralded as forcing the Senate to reach compromises with large minority interests. If there are 41 members opposed to something like the national health care legislation, advocates insist that it is a good thing to force the majority to reach a reconciliation. The rule prevents a series of muscle votes by a slim majority.
Ironically, the health care bill may be an example of the value of the rule. Unlike the opposition to the civil rights legislation, there are credible concerns over the health care bill from both the left and the right. One could argue that such an important and historic bill should pass with at least 60 Senators or be rewritten to achieve greater consensus.
I have always shared some misgivings about the filibuster rule and Frank certainly has some good points to make. However, I do not like changing rules when it suits an election-challenged majority. This is simply not the time for such a debate – which will appear pathetically opportunistic and cynical. I think it would be a mistake to try to force through the legislation by slowing down the addition of Brown to the Senate or changing the rules to suit the majority. The insistence of the Democrats to pass something (or anything) labeled health care reform has led to a series of compromises and contradictions in the legislation. From the outset, the White House made so many compromises with the drug companies and other lobbies that it undermined its own credibility. Now, many liberals do not like it. Many conservatives hate it. Yet, the Democrats politically feel that they have to pass something at any cost.
I have to agree with Webb, who is being attacked by some commentators. If the Democrats can pass legislation with the new make-up of Congress, so be it. However, they should not tarnish their credibility or that of the final bill, by changing the rules or circumventing Brown.
I worked for Ted Kennedy in his 1980 presidential run and I am saddened that his seat was lost on this basis to the GOP. This was Kennedy’s legacy and the driving force of his final years in the Senate. However, the people of Massachusetts have a right to be heard on the question. Regardless of all of the effort to spin this loss, it was not simply a bad campaign (though Coakley was pretty weak in the campaign). This was a campaign that focused on national health care and the status quo in Washington.
I have long been a critic of this Administration and the Democrats in their utter abandonment of principle on issues like torture and civil liberties. While there are many good Democratic members who want to see a return to core values of the party, the party leadership has adopted, in my view, a pretty cynical approach to such issues. Instead, they have tried to be everything to everyone and have pleased no one but themselves. For that reason, many disillusioned liberals (including those who stayed home in the election) believe that they deserve this loss. Instead of changing the rules, how about looking at changing the Democratic position on the host of abandoned issues and values?
Maybe . . . just maybe . . . a few Democrats will now feel that they might as well give principle a chance since hypocrisy has not worked out for them. The Administration adopted many of the same positions as the Bush Administration on issues like privacy and failed to deliver on issues from gay rights to ending corruption in Congress. Democrats caved to lobbyists and engaged in openly corrupt practices that range from tax-funded vacations to obscene pork barrel politics. They has spent money with utter abandon and little concern for waste. After allowing lobbyists to cut up the current bill, there is no serious insurance reform, prescription drug reforms, or other needed elements.
Yet, the Democrats now just can’t understand why people are so unhappy with the Democrats. They have now lost Ted Kennedy’s seat and can only think of clever parliamentary tricks to avoid the result. The problem is much more fundamental and, if they do not understand that, they will not be in the majority for long.
you never know, sometimes you never know.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/steve-babik-child-porn-ch_n_428678.html
Now will Pete Townsend be allowed into the U.S. to perform at the Superbowl? If so will he be required to register as a sexual predator according to U.S. law. Inquiring Minds want to know.
EmpireCookie,
Do you blame Beck after this person announced on Nat’l TV that is daughters are available?
Come on what kind creeps do you think this will attract? To go as far and call him this is going over the edge, don’t you agree?
What a riot:
Glenn Beck welcomes Scott Brown to Washington: ‘This one could end with a dead intern.’
On his radio show today, Fox News host Glenn Beck praised the victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA), complaining that the media called the race too early because he wanted to better “savor” the moment. But Beck quickly pivoted to attacking Brown for an awkward joke he made during his acceptance speech last night. After introducing his daughters to the crowd, Brown said “just in case anybody throughout the country” was wondering, “yes, they’re both available.” Beck was outraged by Brown’s comments, implying that the new Republican senator may be a sexual predator capable of killing young women:
BECK: I want a chastity belt on this man, I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy. No, I’m just telling you. … This one could end with a dead intern. This one could end with a dead intern.
COHOST: Dead intern? I’m not sure I’d go that far.
BECK: I’m just saying it could end with a dead intern. … I’m just saying: Congratulations, now let’s monitor him. Let’s put an ankle bracelet on him. Let’s just know where he is at all times.
COHOST: You’re raining on the parade. We needed 10 minutes of celebration and you are a non-stop rain cloud.
BECK: Okay, we’ll get to the celebration now — if that’s what you think is appropriate.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/20/beck-brown-intern/
Addendum above: and Banking Reform. The dems were promising banking reform after the BUSH bailout of Wall Street. Hmmmm, we seem to be batting 0-3.
Wayne Jarvis: “In other words, the people are actually getting what they want. It is democracy in action.”
No, they’re not. It bears repeating:
****
—From the Official Platform of the National Democratic Party
Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans
If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care. In meeting after meeting, people expressed moral outrage with a health care crisis that leaves millions of Americans—including nine million children—without health insurance and millions more struggling to pay rising costs for poor quality care. … While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process.
Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.
Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.
Reproductive Health Care.
We will never put ideology above women’s health
****
Iraq and health care, that’s why the Dems/Obama got the White house.
———
Wayne Jarvis : “it pretty effing hilarious for the democrats to talk about justice and principles the week after the democrats threw both out the window to fellate Big Labor.”
No, wrong again. The unions had to threaten to withhold support for a promise not to tax health care plans working people already had paid for- or do you like the idea of being taxed multiple time for the same thing? You pay for insurance, you get a surtax on your plan and your income taxes are used to subsidize payment to insurance companies for the crappy plans they’re going to sell the millions of newly delivered sheep for shearing thanks to Congress’ crappy health care plan with no break on drug prices and reforms of the industry that will allow greater profits, 2/3 times the cost for elderly (55+) and pre-diagnosed patents with existing illness. You sure seem to like the deck stacked for the insurance companies and the Medical/Pharmaceutical industries.
Also, regarding fellatio, I suggest you recall that insurance and pharmaceutical company representatives were negotiated with first, by the Administration, before the Congress even took up the issue, and the ground rules for the scope of ‘reform’ were put into place. Of course that was done with much less fanfare and coverage than the union demands got so you may have missed it. I hate Brown the legislator for his philosophy but I wanted him to win in the hope that the health care bill, little more than another corporate giveaway, would die. Completely. I’m still hoping it works out that way.
When did we become a nation that thinks it’s s.o.p to pay extortion to the people and institutions destroying the nation instead of regulating them or putting them out of business? People want a party of opposition on the left and they’re not getting one and the dems are going to get slaughtered in 2010 because of it.
—–
BTW, good thread, fascinating viewpoints.
Spindell: Mee. Ow.
Do I watch too much TV? Given that my handle traces back to the (awesome) TV show Arrested Development (and I think I already dropped one reference to The Wire (also awesome)) the answer would probably be yes. What of it?
The point is counter-majoritarian features of our government do not “impinge freedom” unless you somehow define “freedom” as “the straight majority gets to do whatever the hell it wants whenever the hell it wants.”
You can nitpick all you want but the Democrats had 60 senators that caucus with them. They are and were in the drivers seat. The public doesn’t want the health care bill.
Mike Spindell,
Mr. Obama had a real, unprecedented, multi-partisan force of people behind him pleading for real ‘change’ and he squandered it all so quickly and nonchalantly.
Obviously, many registered Democrats did not vote in ‘Mass’ and predictably, there will be far more non-Democrats that will *not* be voting for *any* Democrats in any future elections because of Obama’s failed leadership and broken pledges.
Voters in Mass. obviously like their male representatives naked and glossy which is fine by me.
It looks like the voters, republicans and democrats, have all learned a hard lesson from the 2008 Presidential Election. I try to imagine myself as a Mass. voter … what points would I be considering when deciding for whom to vote? The democratic candidate was lazy and arrogant while the republican candidate was a former naked centerfold star … either one would fit beautifully in today’s Senate … sad, but true.
I’m a disappointed democrat and would probably hold my nose and vote for the republican simply to send a message to Obama and the Democratic Party … or not.
I have 4, long-time, good friends in Mass, 2 republicans and 2 democrats. I did the unthinkable and called each of them last week to ask what they were going to do. All four told me that their candidate was an insult to their intelligence and thus they were not going to vote.
Two of them seemed ashamed over that decision and two seemed angry but all four voiced the opinion that the United States Senate was a thoroughly corrupt institution and should be disbanded.
I’ve been hearing that opinion more and more from all sides of the political spectrum. Send every single one of them home. Hold new elections with the only stipulation being that no one who has ever held the position of U. S. Senator may enter the race. Radical.
Putting aside the value and history of the constitutional protection of slavery, abolitionists appear to be manipulating the rules in raw power plays in Congress.
Interesting Dr. Turley,
The Republicans get to change the time honored rules while the Democrats do not. It is an odd argument.
First it ignores the fundamental change in the way the Filibuster has been used. Ever since the election of 2006 the filibuster has been used to stymie the Democratic Party’s agenda.
I understand that the practice of law and the teaching of law almost requires one to ignore pertinent facts on the ground or a least distort them in such a way that they are no longer recognizable, but really, can we please have just a smidgen of reality here?
The Republican filibuster was not about some poor oppressed minority trying to gain input into critical policy making, it was obstructionism pure and simple. It was a rancorous political ploy used to destroy a legitimately elected President and his agenda. What part of “I hope he fails” was not understood? What part of Demint’s all too public strategy of politically wounding the President was not understood.
What ever good purpose the filibuster ever served, it is now lost. It has now become a way for a obstreperous minority to halt any and all progress. It has become a way for a small section of the nation, no more than one third if you look at voter registration, to impose their will on the other two thirds.
To go even further, as things now stand, instead of disposing of the filibuster what really should be disposed of is the Senate itself. It has always been a anti-democratic institution. It was designed that way, as a check on the passions of the mob. As such it was a force for good. But now, it has become a check on any type of good governance at all.
As an institution the Senate has become totally dysfunctional. The inept leadership of Harry Reid is only a symptom of a much larger disease. Each leader of the Senate regardless of party affiliation has gone down in flames three times running. If national leadership in the Senate is a political death sentence in a local election, then what type of people will be attracted to the position? It is not likely that the position will attract the type of people the institution needs to function well.
Without good leadership the institution will only get worse. It will become more corrupt, more sclerotic, more clubby, more beholden to special interests, and more corrupt. It will become less accountable, less flexible, less responsive, and less democratic.
The lack of leadership and the problems it brings are not the fault of personalities, it is a systemic problem. It is an institutional problem. Republicans and Conservatives are happy with this status quo because it acts like a ratchet moving the nation ever rightward. The Senate has moved from being a small “C” conservative institution to a big “C” Conservative institution. The Senate becomes a guarantee that no matter how bad things get, the policy programs of the free-market ideologues, and the hyper-wealthy that support them, continue.
Public institutions, even ones as steeped in as much long history and tradition as the Senate, are supposed to provide a useful function. When they cease to do so, when they become balkanized, corrupt,and incompetent; when misfeasance and malfeasance are part of normal operating procedure; the institution then needs either massive reform or replacement.
Barney Frank is oddly correct, if for all the wrong reasons. The Senate can not function in our current polarized politics with the filibuster. The whole health care debacle is proof of this. The legislation was a big gift to Corporate America because that is what gets passed in the Senate these days. House members were able to engage in all sorts of bad behavior because they knew they could count on the Senate backing them up. Senators were bribed because the filibuster math required them to be bribed. Results matter and the results of the abuse of the filibuster are manifest; it is past time to get rid of it.
“Please explain to me why North Dakota with a population of 200,000 or so should have the same power as a State with a population of 13,000,000?”
They don’t. The state with the greater population has more power in the House, but the checking power is equal in the Senate.
Follow the hyperlink that I provided in my previous post.
“Your sobriquet so well matches your historical understanding. Where’s your alter ego? Lying low to give this persona credibility?”
No need to make this personal. Sometimes people misunderstand history. That’s why I provided you with a link to the Senate website. I would also suggests reading “The Debate on the Constitution” Part One and Two.
http://www.amazon.com/Debate-Constitution-Antifederalist-Ratification-1787-February/dp/0940450429
The filibuster only exists because the Senate gave it power. If they gave it power, they can remove it. The Senate determines the rules. Changing the rules is completely within the rules.
Former Federal LEO and Stephen Pitt are correct, and I believe the real reason behind the upset in MA was due to the diebold voting machines which were used again by you know who.
Notice all make or break elections since 2000 are ‘close’ enough for that proverbial ‘upset’, that way the votes are more easily manipulated.
I believe most all of us are good citizens, but we need to put aside dem and gop differences and look at where we are being led.
The dems are setting the gop up to take back everything as they had under bush.
Think not?, Why then did they allow bushco to stack the courts????, Why is this non-reform health-care bill being backed by them when they could have pushed a much better bill through, but that was before they lost this seat….soooo convenient.
We all, as stewards of this great nation have some housecleaning to do…….if not….we will lose it.
Look back at the 2000 Election, even if Gore had won, do you remember who would have been our vice prez.?, and what he has hindered since?…things wouldn’t have been any different.
If you take the time to research PNAC and see elder bush stating ‘we need a new pearl harbor’, maybe the big picture will become much clearer on why our economy is headed south.
Ask yourself why 1000 professional architects and engineers at AE911truth.org believe we need a real independent investigation of 911.
During the early ’90s I felt independents were the only honest candidates and I’m going back to them, regardless of who I may be ‘wasting’ a vote on………
FFLEO,
Sadly I must agree with much you say. This defeat is the fault of a person getting elected, promising change and then doing the same old, same old. It isn’t about a Republican resurgence its’ about good people being turned off.
Duh,
Your sobriquet so well matches your historical understanding. Where’s your alter ego? Lying low to give this persona credibility? Please explain to me why North Dakota with a population of 200,000 or so should have the same power as a State with a population of 13,000,000? From the perspective of the Corporations that run this country and whose behinds you tenderly kiss it cheaper to buy votes that way. Less money needed for campaigning.
As a life-long Republican who voted for Mr. Obama and many State Democrats, this voting upset is more about Obama’s lying, hypocritical, fraudulent character than anything else.
****************
FFleo, I was just talking to my neighbor about that. Historically speaking the only big deal about this was that “The Seat” belonged to the democrats for thirty plus years. Which ever party is in control of the Whitehouse the other party is in control of congress. We are seeing history repeat itself.
The bigger picture here is what you point out FFleo. The American public is very aware of Obama’s lying hypocritical, FRAUDULENT character. Time and time again he was given the opportunity to come clean. A simple tasks such as providing an original birth certificate, allowing the public to see his college admissions financial documents. Allowing people to look at his actual passports to see what countries stamped them, all the way to something as simple of saying yes C-span can cover the healthcare debate just like he said during the campaign.
Obama himself is only to blame. He has created alot of mistrust with the majority of people. Then when one looks at one of his closest confidants as in Cass Sunstein and the other shady characters he has surrounded himself with, John Holdren,Van Jones ect. ect. It was only a matter of time before the kool aid started to wear off the independents who put him in office.
Jarvis,
Sorry that you get your views from watching TV and propaganda.
Anywhere in the world, or history where bi-camaral legislatures have been set up it was to ensure that an elite retained power. This was true in our constitution and primarily the issue was slavery and the fact that the South preferred a “plantation society.” You’re point would be better taken if there was actually a broad history in the US of the rights of minorities being protected. The Senate though has mainly acted to protect the rights of the elite and powerful and its’ done a damn good job of doing so.
“But all of this neglects the reality that the democrats HAD a supermajority for a whole year.”
This shows why you should limit your TV watching and actually do some thinking on your own. There are 58 Democrats in the Senate, not 60. Sanders and Lieberman are independents. when you count the “flipping” of the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania it goes down to 57. Most of the commentators on TV blissfully ignored this trenchant fact. Trust me though, I understand, you like news sources that agree with your own pre-judgments and would never do something so hard as actually thinking for yourself. Besides you think this is a victory for your team and your knowledge of government and politics really can be reduced to a superficial rooting interest.
Two Senator per State
Mike Spindell said; “It was put into the Constitution by Southern States that feared the Norths growing population and industrial success.”
I disagree. Two Senators per State was established to prevent the larger States from having too much power over the smaller states. A per capita representation would have resulted in an unfair advantage for states like South Carolina, and a severe disadvantage for states like Rhode Island. This permitted all states in the Union to have an equal check vote.
I don’t remember “industrial success” even being a topic of discussion at the Constitutional Convention.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm
There is little doubt in my mind that governments can drive people crazy, and that they did so to the voters of Massachusetts.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/01/yes-they-can.html
Wayen
On the contrary, reforming health care through dramatic change was a major priority for candidate Obama and a significant reason we was elected. He was elected to ram health care reform down the throats of the health care insurance industry. Instead, we got the insurance company protection bill. Unfortuneately, President Obama was complicit in this catastrophe by doing not too much, but far too little.