Harry Reid’s filibuster rage

[greenforest32]

For those who are anxious to see the filibuster die, this week has produced some very hopeful developments.

The biggest news came late yesterday afternoon, when what Harry Reid thought was going to be a routine exercise – approving a bill already passed by the Republican-controlled House to reauthorize the Export-Import bank – was ruined by surprise Republican objections, forcing the majority leader to file a cloture motion and delaying action on the bill at least until next Monday.

This is the 84th time in the current Congress that Reid has formally sought to bypass a Republican filibuster or filibuster threat, a continuation of a trend toward Senate obstructionism that has been building for decades – but that really took off when Republicans returned to minority status in 2007. In the Congress that began that year, Reid filed 139 cloture motions, and in the next one there were 137, numbers that dwarf anything seen since the procedure for cloture was developed in 1917.

And if anything, this understates the degree to which filibustering has become an everyday tool; how often have Reid and Democrats not even bothered to file cloture on bills, knowing they lacked the necessary 60 votes and not wanting to waste precious days of precious Senate time?

Faced with yesterday’s Republican maneuver, an exasperated Reid took to the Senate floor and said, “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rules, because it’s been abused, abused, abused.”

He also invoked the names of two of his Democratic colleagues, Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley, who attempted before the current Congress convened in January 2011 to sell their party on what they called the “Constitution option” – under which Democrats would exploit a technicality to change Senate rules on the first day of the new session with a simple majority vote, not the two-thirds supermajority normally required. Merkley and Udall weren’t actually proposing to get rid of the filibuster; the new rules they envisioned would just have stopped the mere threat of a filibuster from killing a bill and forced senators to engage in “real” filibustering. But the ultimate ability of the minority party to kill legislation it doesn’t like by forcing proponents to secure 60 votes would have stood.

As benign as their plan was, it still prompted an outcry from the right and was regarded as too extreme even by some Democratic senators. In the end, Reid struck an agreement with Mitch McConnell, his Republican counterpart, that made some very modest and superficial reforms – an agreement that, as Reid’s frustration yesterday demonstrated, didn’t change much.

Read more at http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/harry_reid%E2%80%99s_filibuster_rage/singleton/

[Comrade Shmoo]

I think that Harry's going to be all over the filibuster if and when the GOP takes the Senate back.

But yes, it'll probably be lessened in the future.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats are too pathetic to use it. It's time to go nuclear, not much to lose.

[I left.]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Republicans reneged on their agreement?
Next thing you know we'll learn that Lindsay Graham lives in a closet.

[Vosem]

Well, we don't want 50 votes + VP to be able to pass radical changes. But a 60% supermajority requirement is also insane. I've long called for lessening the cloture requirement to 55 (in the 1970s, it was lessened to 60 from its previous total of 67 -- imagine how crazy that would be today).

[True Federalist]

Well, we don't want 50 votes + VP to be able to pass radical changes. But a 60% supermajority requirement is also insane. I've long called for lessening the cloture requirement to 55 (in the 1970s, it was lessened to 60 from its previous total of 67 -- imagine how crazy that would be today).

The three class system and long terms are supposed to make the Senate less influenced by the political whims of the day, and to some extent that is the case. I would like to see an increase in the size of the Senate to 150 by having each state elect a Senator each election so as to smooth out the changes, but I don't see the need for additional supermajority requirements beyond those in the constitution.

[Senator Ben]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

[ChairmanSanchez]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

I don't think a backlash would occur. In fact, if someone is so willing to hold the floor for days on end, they may be seen as a hero. Of course, it depends on whats being filibustered.

[memphis]

I'm fine with the filibuster, but let's have a real filibuster!  Let's get back to the days of this:

You couldn't pull it off with C-SPAN and news networks, the backlash would be overwhelming.

Not technically a filibuster, but last year Bernie Sanders gave an 8 and a half hour speech protesting the extention of the Bush tax cuts.

[shua]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

[Senator Ben]

I don't think a backlash would occur. In fact, if someone is so willing to hold the floor for days on end, they may be seen as a hero. Of course, it depends on whats being filibustered.

Once, yes.  But Reid has had to file 84 cloture petitions; after a few true filibusters, on issues of little importance, the public would get angry; quite angry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

[shua]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

Not really. You can have a group of 41 senators who represent more people than the other 59.   But the point of the US Senate isn't majoritarian democracy. It's constituent representation, which requires allowing some influence to the minority.

[I left.]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

The filibuster makes the US Senate even more undemocratic.

Not really. You can have a group of 41 senators who represent more people than the other 59.   But the point of the US Senate isn't majoritarian democracy. It's constituent representation, which requires allowing some influence to the minority.

I don't particularly care what the point of the U.S. Senate is. Doesn't make it any better.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

Yes, it is.

And wouldn't that favour Republicans rather than Democrats.

[shua]

Hopefully abolished. It's undemocratic, unnecessary and just plain stupid. Elections lead to majorities in Congress, Parliament, whatever you want to call it. Majorities should be able to pass their agenda as they see fit.

A majority in the U.S. Senate isn't a democratic majority.

Yes, it is.

And wouldn't that favour Republicans rather than Democrats.

Note I was not speaking of a political party.