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.
Duh–
“Just because a majority of the Representatives support a bill, should it be pushed through if the majority of their constituents don’t support it?
I was referring to the constituents as the “minority”.
***************
Am I correcting in assuming that you believe that only a minority of Americans think we need healthcare reform in this country?
Thanks, FFLEO.
I understand. But let me be clear: I protest when the topic gets diverted or personal attacks take over. I too am guilty of giving in to the dark side by calling 30% intractable. He’s smarter than that.
I could care less about the colour of the banter, as long as it stays at least close to the topic. Derail the thread and piss me off every time.
No, this isn’t HP, which isn’t designed for the top 2.5% – the actual thinking public. Rather, HP is designed for maximum reach and is a commercial enterprise, which means the entire I.Q. bell curve is served. It even slides into fluff at regular intervals, much to my chagrin.
This blog is up there with the great sites – it stands alone. I’d like it to stay that way in character and grow, not be diluted into obscurity.
—
Nope, I’m an artist not a policeman.
—
On topic: I don’t think returning to Majority Rule is a bad thing when it’s the last remaining life-preserver on Ship America. I just don’t see any other alternative when our system has been infiltrated and divided by totalitarian interests, and at the mercy of a right wing SCOTUS majority. Change to me means saving the Republic.
But, I’m all ears if anyone has a different fix on rescuing the Republic while maintaining the Filibuster Rule at this time in history.
You mean Wayne,Scott Rump or Strump, Duh, Bdaman who else am I leaving out. I guess it doesn’t matter to you. If we all sound a like we must all look alike and so we are one. Is that what you are trying to say.
How did your class go, learn anything?
Doh to Bdaman,
Thank you for your perspective in this matter. As always you have Jacked this thread. Hence, the Jacker of Threads nom de plume suits you fine, would you not agree?
Andy: I guess I would like to see the facts to back up your post.
The Stimulus package that supposedly prevented us from returning to the stone-age passed. (I wish the republicans would have filibustered that one). Sotomayor sailed through.
Healthcare was filibustered. But the healthcare bills were also very controversial among the voting public. Maybe the republicans are overusing the filibuster, or maybe the democrats are trying to push through more legislation that is contoversial.
And it wasn’t the filibuster that prevented healthcare reform. The democrats (and for the benefit of TGWB **those that caucus with the democrats**) had 60 votes until two days ago.
Nail: Meet Hammer. Fine stuff, AndyM.
———
Forget wondering how such a totalitarian mindset ever launched in Germany.
It’s already here, and Obama only feeds it.
If Obama fails to respond to the People’s cry, then he not only has failed us, but the Founders and their work of art, as well. He becomes not just redundant but equally as dangerous as the totalitarians he has been appeasing.
Obama needs to grow some sphere’s.. Or simply admit to being a corporatist at heart. Is it a case of too much Chicago School of Economics and too little Constitution? It looks that way.
Mother of pearl.
These are some of the substantive point that I have made in this thread: (1) both major parties have been burned by the tea party activist–the republicans in NY and the democrats in Massachuesetts; (2) the Administration has misinterpretted its election as a mandate to pass sweeping progressive reform when (except for the party faithful) the key issue was withdrawal from Iraq; (3) that the fillibuster is an important counter-majoritarian procedure that prevents the majority from running roughshod over the minority; (4) that “freedom” has nothing to do with the “majority getting to do whatever it wants.”
You may not agree with any of this, but these are all substantive points. In response few of the elightened progressives have bothered to actually engage in debate and instead I get to defend against personal attacks from The Great White Beard, accusations that I am an alter-ego of a bunch of strangers, and then read endless whining posts from you. Seriously, grow up. Boo hoo.
This isn’t the Huffington Post. If you want an echo chamber of like minded moonbats, go ahead and join the circle jerk over there. Otherwise grow some thicker skin, and start showing some tolerance to opposing viewpoints.
Seriously. Stop with the crying.
Mr. Pitt,
I tried for over a year to seek fair moderation herein and I failed. Now, as long as posters do not go overboard with foulmouthed nonsense, I simply ignore them and their message. If someone went beyond the pale, I might consider sending an e-mail to Prof Turley—although I never have and that would take an overwhelming breach of the ‘rules’ by a poster.
Professor Turley is the only moderator and a strong proponent of freedom of speech. Therefore, if you have problems with this blawg’s content, then your problem is with him. I admit that I think he has maintained a fair balance in his hands-off approach unless the discourse becomes too personal/ad hominem.
The simple act of ignoring a poster is the most obvious and best tactic, although one of the hardest to employ. For me, scrolling over the garbage is better than digging within.
HuffPo goes much too far with pre-posting moderation and I quit posting there because of it and I am a rather mild-mannered poster, on average.
I like your cartoon drawings.
The difference here is that when the Democrats were in the minority, they threatened the filibuster sparingly and actually USED it even more sparingly, really only for a handful of votes–and even then they came to an agreement with the Republicans not to do even that much when it came to Bush’s judicial nominees. (This, despite an outrageous plan suggested by the Republicans to have Dick Cheney rule by fiat that using the filibuster on judicial appointees was unconstitutional and thus eliminate it in such cases. I’d say the Democrats were being pretty gracious under the circumstances.) In short, such light use of the filibuster was not causing any undue damage to the legislative process.
On the other hand, as soon as the Republicans became the minority party, they began using the filibuster about TWICE as much as the Democrats had. And since Obama took office, they have been using it even more frequently. Basically, they have been using it for every vote of any substance, literally filibustering (or threatening to filibuster) every last piece of legislation that comes along. Effectively, you cannot pass any bill in the US Senate today with less than 60 votes.
That is not what the filibuster was intended for, and it is doing serious damage to our democracy. Effectively, our government has ground to a halt, totally paralyzed by obstructionism, despite the fact that one party holds a LARGE majority of the seats in Congress. That doesn’t sound right or fair to me, and I don’t see how anyone but the most partisan Republican could think otherwise.
If you are a Republican, think for a moment how you would feel if your party had a vast 59-seat majority in the Senate, but the Democrats nevertheless filibustered every bill that was introduced. Would you still be singing the praises of the filibuster? Or might you instead be pretty angry? Might you even be concerned for the health of our democracy now that passing any legislation at all had become impossible? Joe Biden is right, a perpetual filibuster in the Senate is not just aggravating, it’s actually dangerous to our country. At this point, this is a constitutional crisis.
Off Topic
Maybe they should make you the moderator.
Off topic:
When threads are hijacked by corporate shills who change thread topics midstream, it degrades the thread content and the site itself. I enjoy lively discourse. I’m attracted to intelligent, focused discourse, not hostile acts of sabotage. I welcome all political views until the discourse leaves the tracks.
House Democrats lack enough votes to pass the Senate’s healthcare bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday.
Pelosi threw cold water on the idea that the House could muster enough support to pass the Senate’s health bill, which includes a number of provisions liberals in the House find distasteful.
“I don’t see the votes for it at this time,” Pelosi told reporters during her weekly press conference. “The members have been very clear.”
1 Minute mark
“Are you comfortable with that image of “The Party of No” or will you work with democrats?”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES. JAN. 19, 2010
ELECTION NIGHT
FOXNEWS HANNITY 6,809,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 6,399,000
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 5,228,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,446,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 3,338,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 3,241,000
CNN KING 1,681,000
CNN COOPER 1,508,000
CNN BROWN 1,308,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,274,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,236,000
CNN BLITZER 1,135,000
CNNHN BEHAR 845,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 798,000
Byron,
I think your response is spot-on. I see the same thing take place at conservative blogs. I see the same “paid to disrupt” claims there. I see the same “You all must be one person” claims.
It’s easy to find people that will support one’s point of view. I come here for two reasons: To test my own convictions, and to see the reasons provided by those who do not see things the way I do.
But why is that. Isn’t that their choice to do or not to do. I saw Mike Appleton a few times this past week. Mespo has family issues from what I understand. Vince hasn’t been here for a while but mainly he was here for the birther issue.
Duh:
I don’t think you can label that as just a “progressive” practice. Go to any blog and get a feel for the ideology and make a statement contrary to their views and watch the fur fly.
I comment once in awhile on another blog and I made a statement about how I thought Christians were ok, I barely made it out with my head intact.
So I think your characterization has to do with any group of people with similar view points. Personally I have learned quite a good deal here having ideas bandied back and forth. If I want typical right wing dogma or Objectivist dogma I can go to any number of sights.
But I think Stephen Pitt is right, Mike Appleton, Mespo, Gyges, Mike Spindell, Vince T and others don’t post here very much anymore.