Debate: Should the Senate filibuster rule be abolished?

[mortimer]

On one side of the debate, we have President Obama, who wants to do away with the filibuster.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...ibuster-reform

Quote:

There are a couple of things that have changed in our politics that are gonna have to be fixed. One is the way the filibuster operates. As I said, that's just not in the Constitution.

Quote:

I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it’s used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented...

On the other side of the debate, we have, um, Senator Obama.

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010...he-filibuster/

Quote:

Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. Now I understand that Republicans are getting alot of pressure to do this from factions outside of the chamber, but we need to rise above the ends justify the means mentality.

Quote:

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, then millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice if fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will get be poisoned to the point that we will not be able to agree on anything and doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest and it certainly isn’t what the Patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

So what say you? Is Obama correct? Or is Obama correct?

[Giggywig]

Seems to me the party in power wants to end the filibuster, right up until they are no longer in power. Then they love it. Remember 2004?
GOP May Target Use of Filibuster

Quote:

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."

If the GOP recaptures the Senate, I'm guessing the Dems will learn to love the filibuster again.

[EatatJoes]

I think they should require those filibustering to actually filibuster. I want to hear Sen. Lindsey Graham read from the dictionary.

[DavidJames]

Get rid of it and I don't like it regardless of who's in power. If you're looking at a party that flip flops on something, think Republicans and term limits.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I am a fan of having them actually fillibutster.

[Thunder]

I prefer filibusters require 45 votes, not 41.

I'm not a fan of the tyranny of the majority, but still...majority does rule.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congress has the right to establish most of its own procedural rules, so there's no Constitutional issue against the filibuster.

In practical terms, I think it would shift things a bit too much to the side of getting things done. As polarized as political ideology (and policy) is these days, I think we'd rather it more difficult to get things done than making it too easy. (Look at the troubles this has led to in California where it's pretty easy to amend the state constitution, too easy to get a recall vote, etc.)

I think at present we've got just about the right balance between rewarding the majority but not leaving the minority powerless. And every time this comes up, the majority has the power to do away with the filibuster (the "nuclear option").

However I am opposed to letting a single anonymous senator hold up confirmation hearings. That goes too far.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also think if they lose the majority in both houses, Democrats should learn a lesson from Republican strategy when *they* were in the minority. Even though the GOP was relying on the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to attempt to block legislation, they were able to turn public attention to the equally unsavory details of the legislative process (various kinds of deal-making, use of reconciliation, etc.)--all things the Republicans used themselves to push through extremely large and controversial legislation when they were in the majority. So even though people generally dislike the filibuster, public attention was on the negative view of the normal legislative process.

So if the GOP attempts to fulfill its promise to repeal the health insurance reform law, the Democratic party should make sure that process is as transparent as possible as they try to block repeal efforts.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

(One could make the argument that the new Republican method of reguiring 60 votes for everything that comes to the floor makes the flip-flop justified. I don't know about that and I don't really care.)

I think it should be. We usually try to have some rational reason for creating obstructions in the legislative process. This one was just formed ad hoc and has evolved to the point that it is now.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

However I am opposed to letting a single anonymous senator hold up confirmation hearings. That goes too far.

But that is my problem, how do we justify arbitrarily calling something "too far" if we can't justify the thing in the first place?

(I'm referring to the fillibuster in particular, not the vague principles of "inefficient democracy")

What, something getting passed with 59 votes?! Absurd!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

But that is my problem, how do we justify arbitrarily calling something "too far" if we can't justify the thing in the first place?

(I'm referring to the fillibuster in particular, not the vague principles of "inefficient democracy")

I think we can justify the filibuster. First, as I mentioned the houses of Congress have the authority to make their own rules. Second, making it more difficult to get big changes done isn't such a bad idea. Without such measures, any time we did get a big law enacted, the law would never survive long enough to be given a fair shake. There would be very little stability in our government--it would keep shifting with the political winds.

And of course it is purely a question of degree. We want our government to shift with the winds, but not too much or too quickly.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by mortimer

So what say you? Is Obama correct? Or is Obama correct?

1. I believe Obama was correct in his April 13, 2005 senate speech in which he opposed Republican attempts to eliminate the filibuster. (The link I have provided gives the complete text of the speech.)

I am basically very conservative. I do not like a system in which changes can be imposed quickly and easily. One of the things I like about US system of government is that it sets up many hurdles which those attempting to accomplish things must get over before major changes can be made.

Even though the filibuster has often been used to slow down or prevent the implementation of things I personally find desirable, I believe that is a price worth paying in order to prevent a rash majority from imposing popular but horribly misguided policies. I therefore believe the filibuster is a good thing to have as part of the system and that it should not be eliminated. I agree with what Barack Obama said in 2005.

2. I believe Obama is correct in his October 27, 2010 remarks in which he says that use of the filibuster has gotten out of hand and needs to be reformed.

The excerpt you quoted comes from a conversation Obama had with a group of liberal bloggers. (The link I have provided gives the complete text of what Obama said.)

In his remarks Obama notes that when the Republicans were in power many of these same bloggers urged Democrats to filibuster; and he points out that, while eliminating the filibuster might make it easier for Democrats to pass things which they support now, it would also make it easier for Republicans to pass things in the future which Democrats are strongly opposed to.

At no point does Obama say he wants to eliminate the filibuster. He does indicate he would like to get back to the filibuster being an exceptional action rather than a routine one. I think that makes good sense.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama, speaking to liberal bloggers

And the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. The filibuster ... may have arisen purely by accident because somebody didn’t properly apply Robert’s Rules of Procedure and forgot to get a provision in there about what was required to close debate. And folks figured out very early, this could be a powerful tool. It was used as a limited tool throughout its history. Sadly, the primary way it was used was to prevent African Americans from achieving civil rights.

But setting aside that sordid aspect of its history, it was used in a very limited fashion. The big debates, the big changes that we had historically around everything from establishing public schools to the moon launch to Social Security, they weren’t subject to the filibuster.

And I’m sympathetic to why the minority wants to keep it. And in fairness, Democrats, when we were in the minority, used it on occasion to blunt actions that we didn’t think were appropriate by the Bush administration.

And in fairness, there were a whole bunch of folks here who were already writing blogs at the time who were saying, filibuster, block them, do anything you can to stop them.

And so if we’re going to call for reform, it’s got to be with open eyes and an understanding that that also means that if Republicans are in power, it’s easier for them to move their agendas forward.

But my general view is, what that does at least is it opens it up to serious public debate. Things don’t get bogged down in the kinds of procedural nonsense that makes it just hard for us to do business...

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

In both of the speeches you quoted, Obama is speaking sensibly. He is correct on both occasions.

Quote:

On one side of the debate, we have President Obama, who wants to do away with the filibuster...

Ah! There's the problem. Even though the Daily Kos diary you used as a source is entitled President Obama endorses filibuster reform, and even though in that excerpt Obama clearly talks about fixing how the filibuster is used, you apparently misread his remarks as saying he wanted to eliminate it. If you take the time to read his remarks more carefully, perhaps you'll see that is not what he's calling for and that there is no contradiction between his stance in 2005 and his stance in 2010.

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

Originally Posted by Nova Land

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that you sort of contradict yourself. The two bits I bolded really mean the same thing. I think the valid point you're making is the one I made--it really is a matter of degree or balance, and not a matter of something that is unjustifiable in principle.

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much.

ETA: And I think the biggest thing that checks that "too much" is knowing that although you're in the minority now, you hope to be the majority soon. Similarly, the majority always has the "nuclear option" but is reluctant to use it knowing they'll be in the minority again.

I do think if the Republicans carried it much further than they did, Democrats would have had to use that option. As it turns out, they were still able to pass a LOT of legislation and some of it of the kind called "historic".

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

My bolding:

Originally Posted by Nova Land

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that you sort of contradict yourself. The two bits I bolded really mean the same thing...

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much...

No, I mean two distinct things. My apologies for not expressing this more clearly in my post (and my thanks for your giving me the chance to try to clarify this point).

I support the use of the filibuster to block passage of policies which the majority favors but which a minority strongly feels are ill-considered. In doing so, the minority is thwarting the wishes of the majority -- who may or may not be their political opponents. It is quite possible that the majority is composed both of Democrats and Republicans -- and the minority may be as well.

If a completely Republican minority thwarts a completely Democratic majority (or vice versa) because the minority strongly opposes the policy the majority is proposing, that's one thing. If a completely Republican minority thwarts a completely Democratic majority (or vice versa) because they see partisan advantage in doing so, that's another.

In the past, as Obama notes, the filibuster was used on a limited basis -- and on matters for which there genuinely was strong feeling regarding the policy at issue. Increasingly in recent years, though, various obstructionist tactics are used to block even things which the obstructors do not strongly object to (and, in many cases, even admit to supporting).

It is one thing to use procedural maneuvers to block policy or a presidential appointment because one thinks the policy or the nominee is extraordinarily bad. I support the use of tactics such as the filibuster to do so, even if these tactics are used against policies I support or nominees I approve of. Those engaging in such efforts are acting in what they think is the best interest of the nation.

It is another thing entirely to use procedural maneuvers to block policies or presidential appointments with the aim of hamstringing the administration, in order to increase the likelihood the administration will not be able to solve the problems facing the nation and will thus be voted out in the next elections. Those engaging in such efforts are acting in what they think is the best interest of their party. I do not support the use of procedural maneuvers in this way, regardless of which party is doing so.

In the 1950s and early 1960s -- when there were still many liberal Republicans and many conservative Democrats, and when votes did not come down so often along party lines -- this was perhaps an easier distinction to grasp. Today, when the voting is so often on party lines, it may be harder for politicians to see the distinction between doing something because they think it is good for the country and doing something because they think it will be good for their party. But I think it's an important distinction to maintain.

I may be misreading Obama's remarks to the bloggers, but that to me is the point he is making when he talks about the votes on many key programs of the past not being subject to the filibusters. In the past, politicians were more able to work together across party lines and agree on programs which would help the country. But in recent years, politicians seem much more inclined to use procedural maneuvers against a program or nominee simply because doing so will hinder the opposing party -- not because the program or nominee is intolerably bad.

It would be one thing to tolerate the once-in-a-blue-moon use of procedural maneuvers for partisan advantage as the price of having these maneuvers available to use when genuine matters of concern came up. But when genuine matters of concern are the exceptional cases and partisan advantage uses have become daily occurrences, then it's time to think about reform.

That took me quite a few more words to express than I'd intended, for which I apologize. But I hope the distinction I was trying to draw between keeping things from being passed and obstructing one's political opponents is a little clearer now.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much.

I'm not convinced either way, but I'll take a devil's advocate position here. Why should the minority be able to obstruct the majority on legislation. It is not that way on anything else, even in the Senate. For example, votes in committee are by majority rules.

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well? After all, they now work on a simple majority. What political principle would advocate for minority obstruction rights in one body but not in the other?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Nova Land

In doing so, the minority is thwarting the wishes of the majority -- who may or may not be their political opponents.

I disagree with you here. If they disagree on matters of politics, such as policy and legislation, then they are in fact political opponents. Another way of looking at it is that if politicians are opposed to one another, they are by definition political opponents.

I think you're trying to make "political" carry a more restrictive meaning that it conventionally does. It generally refers to anything to do with government. Using Merriam Webster's definitions, you're using only definition number 2 and ignoring the primary definition.

But even so, if you're using "political" to refer only to partisan politics, I would say that alone is not a reason to oppose the use of the filibuster. It really could be that the party invoking it is right and the majority party is wrong. Party allegiance is often what leads to the "strong" feelings of opposition you are OK with.

If there are basically 2 positions on an issue and 2 parties, it makes sense to me that the positions will line up pretty well with party affiliation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'm not convinced either way, but I'll take a devil's advocate position here. Why should the minority be able to obstruct the majority on legislation. It is not that way on anything else, even in the Senate. For example, votes in committee are by majority rules.

I've already answered this. It's basically the idea of slowing down radical changes in law. Think of how silly it would be if every time the majority of Congress changed from one party to another we completely changed our tax code, our approach to health care, etc.

The health insurance reform law has measures that go into effect over the next several years. It seems wrong to me that a simple majority could repeal it right away. People would never be able to make any sort of long term plans, and no project that extended beyond a fiscal year would be practical.

Quote:

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well? After all, they now work on a simple majority. What political principle would advocate for minority obstruction rights in one body but not in the other?

I already answered this one too. The authority to set the rules is given to the houses of Congress. I would not want, for example, the judiciary to decide that the House should have the filibuster rule or that the Senate should not. That would be unconstitutional, IMO.

As I said, I'm in favor of the majority in the Senate having the authority to choose the "nuclear option". I think this means that if the filibuster is abused too much, that it will have to go away.

I do think right now it's about the right balance. Despite the GOP's frequent use and threat of use of the filibuster during the last two years, the Democratic Party accomplished a great deal legislatively. I think the fact that they enjoyed a supermajority for part of the time is partly why the GOP used the filibuster--basically to go on record as voicing strong objection knowing that they were actually impotent to block things. (Of course, I would have preferred it if they'd actually participated rather than almost exclusively just voicing their objections!) But I think that's about what you get when one party has at or near a supermajority.

I suspect we'll see more compromise and less filibustering (or threat of filibustering) in the next Congress.

Also remember the majority has similar "undemocratic" rules at its disposal--such as reconciliation. These are the rules that both sides have agreed to abide by. They have the authority to change them.

ETA:

Quote:

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well?

This isn't an accurate description of the filibuster rule. Remember, the majority can change the rules (get rid of the filibuster) by a simple majority. It just means when they are in the minority, they too will have to abide by the new rules.

[Cain]

The solution is rather simple: We should either abolish the senate or reform it along democratic lines. It's an insanely antiquated, unrepresentative institution, and before the sheeple come along to say the Holy Founding Fathers never intended for it to be democratic, I agree. The Constitution is a political document borne out of compromises made at the time. States also negotiated over how to count slaves (as three-fifths of a person for census purposes), when to end the slave trade (1808), and what to do with fugitive slaves. The Founding Fathers also did not want the direct election of senators, or anyone other than property owning white males to vote. **** the Founding Fathers.

Too bad it's almost impossible for people today, right now, to generate free-standing arguments for this ridiculous maldistribution of power. The same goes for the Electoral College. We need "important" people to make a serious move for radical change, at least shift the debate to a respectable point -- like democratic theory at the beginning of the 20th century.

We can make reasonable arguments on behalf of keeping super-majorities for certain issues. But you are going to struggle if you say Wyoming's fewer-than-one-million-people should be able to cancel-out California's 36 million.

[MattusMaximus]

No, it shouldn't be demolished.

When the GOP controlled Congress and there was talk of getting rid of the filibuster, it was a stupid idea.

Now with the Dems in control, it is still a stupid idea. And I say that as a Democrat.

Keep the filibuster, and start insisting that the Senators act like adults for a change. Getting rid of the filibuster would only make the partisanship in Congress worse, in my opinion.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I also think if they lose the majority in both houses, Democrats should learn a lesson from Republican strategy when *they* were in the minority. Even though the GOP was relying on the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to attempt to block legislation, they were able to turn public attention to the equally unsavory details of the legislative process (various kinds of deal-making, use of reconciliation, etc.)--all things the Republicans used themselves to push through extremely large and controversial legislation when they were in the majority. So even though people generally dislike the filibuster, public attention was on the negative view of the normal legislative process.

So if the GOP attempts to fulfill its promise to repeal the health insurance reform law, the Democratic party should make sure that process is as transparent as possible as they try to block repeal efforts.

QFT

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Keep the filibuster, and start insisting that the Senators act like adults for a change.

Regrettably, I fear there is a fatal flaw in that plan

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Originally Posted by Nova Land

In doing so, the minority is thwarting the wishes of the majority -- who may or may not be their political opponents.

I disagree with you here. If they disagree on matters of politics, such as policy and legislation, then they are in fact political opponents.

Note the s at the end of matters. I would agree that two politicians who disagree on a large number of matters of politics are political opponents. And, in today's polarized political landscape, people who disagree on one matter often do disagree on many matters. But that is not always true.

There is no reason why people have to agree on every single issue in order to be political allies. There were a number of Democrats who disagreed with Obama on key features of legislation he wanted passed. Even so, they are essentially on Obama's side, and he's essentially on theirs.

Quote:

Another way of looking at it is that if politicians are opposed to one another, they are by definition political opponents.

I can't think of any two politicians who agree 100% on every issue. Therefore by your definition every politician is the political opponent of every other politician. You can define the term "political opponent" in that way if you wish, but that's not what I was talking about when I used the term.

By political opponents I mean people who wish to see each other defeated in elections. Harry Reid is by my definition a political ally rather than a political opponent of Barack Obama (even though the two disagree on some policy issues, and are thus political opponents by your definition); John McCain is a political ally rather than a political opponent of John Boehner (even though the two disagree on some policy issues, and are thus political opponents by your definition).

Quote:

I think you're trying to make "political" carry a more restrictive meaning that it conventionally does. It generally refers to anything to do with government.

Yes, I am using a more restrictive meaning of "political" than you are. If that's causing confusion, I'd be happy to substitute in the phrase "opposing party" for "political opponents".

Let me try again, avoiding the term political opponent it means something different to you than it does to me. How's this:

I am drawing a distinction between politicians who obstruct something because they feel the policy is bad for the nation and politicians who obstruct something because they believe doing this will weaken the opposing party's chances of re-election. I believe the former is a proper use of the filibuster (even if the filibuster is being used to obstruct something I personally happen to agree with). I believe the latter is an improper use of the filibuster (even if the filibuster is being used to obstruct something I personally happen to disagree with).

Quote:

But even so, if you're using "political" to refer only to partisan politics, I would say that alone is not a reason to oppose the use of the filibuster. It really could be that the party invoking it is right and the majority party is wrong.

Then this is something we are in significant disagreement over. My feeling on whether someone should be permitted to filibuster is independent of whether I agree or disagree with the policy they are trying to block.

Quote:

If there are basically 2 positions on an issue and 2 parties, it makes sense to me that the positions will line up pretty well with party affiliation.

Not to me. But then, I grew up in a world where there were Republicans who supported the civil rights movement as well as Republicans who opposed it; Democrats who supported the Vietnam War as well as Democrats who opposed it; Republicans who supported separation of church and state as well as Republicans who opposed it; Democrats who supported capital punishment as well as Democrats who opposed it.

To me it makes sense that politicians should expect to be able to find agreement with those in the opposing party as well as to find disagreement with those in their own party. Their aim should be to work together to craft the policies which are best for the nation rather than to craft the policies which are most likely to get their party re-elected.

The idea that, on any issue, there could be only 2 positions astounds me. The idea that, given 10 major issues, every Democratic legislator would happen to fall on one side and every Republican legislator would happen to fall on the other, astounds me even more. It may make sense to you, but it does not make sense to me.

[Puppycow]

Get rid of the filibuster. Get rid of personal holds too.
Of course, as long as these rules are the rules, I think that democrats should use them to their full partisan advantage because the republicans surely will. But I would prefer to change the rules.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Keep the filibuster, and start insisting that the Senators act like adults for a change.

I have absolutely no idea what this means either theoretically or practically. Theoretically, the only way to "insist" is through the ballot box. But the Teabaggers, for example, either ignore or endorse behavior that is anything but adult. Practically speaking, acting as an adult has no descriptive value since Senator are adults. You (and I) may not like certain behaviors but saying they are not adult-like gets us nowhere.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I already answered this one too. The authority to set the rules is given to the houses of Congress. I would not want, for example, the judiciary to decide that the House should have the filibuster rule or that the Senate should not. That would be unconstitutional, IMO.

You missed my point entirely so I'll try again. Maybe I wasn't clear.

You are arguing that having a 60% filibuster rule in the Senate is a good thing. In light of that, do you believe that the House itself should also decide to have such a rule? Please provide your reasoning behind whatever stand you take.

[thaiboxerken]

The filibuster rule seemed to be good thing, until the GOP absolutely abused it since Obama took office. It's time to change the rules. Of course, the GOP and it's fans won't care until it's the Dem's in minority using it on them.

[geni]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I've already answered this. It's basically the idea of slowing down radical changes in law. Think of how silly it would be if every time the majority of Congress changed from one party to another we completely changed our tax code, our approach to health care, etc.

Thats entirely possible in the UK. It doesn't normaly happen. The barrier to complete changes to the tax code is not checks and blances but that fact that over the centuries a tax code has developed that gets the core issues right. Its not in politican's interests to mess with the tax code to that extent.

Quote:

The health insurance reform law has measures that go into effect over the next several years. It seems wrong to me that a simple majority could repeal it right away. People would never be able to make any sort of long term plans, and no project that extended beyond a fiscal year would be practical.

Thats where you rely on goverments being smart enough to realise what will happen if they start using lawmaking powers to break contracts.

Quote:

As I said, I'm in favor of the majority in the Senate having the authority to choose the "nuclear option". I think this means that if the filibuster is abused too much, that it will have to go away.

The current evidence suggests it results in an endless game of chicken.

Which is a problem. It's reducing your ability to pass timely legislation, it ups the insentive to use pork to bribe senators to pass things. It means it's effectively impossible for voters to hold people to account.

Quote:

I suspect we'll see more compromise and less filibustering (or threat of filibustering) in the next Congress.

So even more pork barreling and backroom deals.

[geni]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Getting rid of the filibuster would only make the partisanship in Congress worse, in my opinion.

Why do you think that is a bad thing? Strong partisanship simple means that representatives have a high degree of collective responcibility for the parties actions. As a result they have a very strong interest in seeing it doesn't do anything supid.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I suspect we'll see more compromise and less filibustering (or threat of filibustering) in the next Congress.

I don't think so. Mitch has already said that defeating Obama is their main goal in the next congressional session. DeMint and others have expressed supporting sentiments. The teabaggers who get in have no incentive to compromise at all because doing so will piss off their base.

If the Reps take the house and get about 48 in the Senate, Congress is basically going to come to a halt.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by geni

Thats entirely possible in the UK. It doesn't normaly happen. The barrier to complete changes to the tax code is not checks and blances but that fact that over the centuries a tax code has developed that gets the core issues right. Its not in politican's interests to mess with the tax code to that extent.

Thats where you rely on goverments being smart enough to realise what will happen if they start using lawmaking powers to break contracts.

The current evidence suggests it results in an endless game of chicken.

Which is a problem. It's reducing your ability to pass timely legislation, it ups the insentive to use pork to bribe senators to pass things. It means it's effectively impossible for voters to hold people to account.

I entirely agree with this post.

The advantages of supermajority, and of executive veto etc tend to normally get expressed as "making change difficult" because "Americans prefer the status quo and the lack of radical changes". That's valid up to a point, but checks and balances may be a poor structure for dealing with required long term structural changes.

IMO the health reform act and the recovery act are testimony to the idea that legislation ends up riddled with kickbacks and perversities.

[Nova Land]

Originally Posted by geni

Why do you think that is a bad thing? Strong partisanship simple means that representatives have a high degree of collective responsibility for the parties actions. As a result they have a very strong interest in seeing it doesn't do anything stupid.

Unfortunately they don't. It isn't doing something stupid which they have an incentive to avoid; it's looking bad to the electorate.

Doing and saying stupid things is not necessarily harmful to one's election prospects. On the contrary, doing and saying intelligent things is often much more damaging. A politician who speaks in slogans and sound bites is likely to do much better -- even if those slogans and sound bites don't stand up to sensible scrutiny -- than a politician who tries to present facts, figures, and rational analysis.

So strong partisanship has not led to an avoidance of doing stupid things. It has led to increased attention to how to spin things to make whatever one's own side does look good and to make whatever the other side does look bad -- regardless of the actual merits or demerits of those actions.

[willhaven]

Get rid of it entirely. If you get 51 votes, your legislation passes.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The filibuster rule seemed to be good thing, until the GOP absolutely abused it since Obama took office. It's time to change the rules. Of course, the GOP and it's [sic] fans won't care until it's the Dem's in minority using it on them.

Even though the GOP abused it, Democrats passed a LOT of really big and important legislation. I do think we came close to the point where the should have used the "nuclear option".

Remember too that the GOP hardly participated in crafting the health insurance reform law. The compromises and concessions took place, for the most part, between mainstream and the Blue Dog Democrats (and Lieberman--however you categorize that guy). The GOP made itself irrelevant and only set itself up as feeling strongly opposed to the law.

Now they want to repeal and replace it, and now I'm glad that the filibuster exists, because it may well be the only way to prevent that from happening. (And the GOP won't have anywhere near a supermajority in the Senate.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

IMO the health reform act and the recovery act are testimony to the idea that legislation ends up riddled with kickbacks and perversities.

See above. The concessions were largely within the Democratic Party. This started even when they had a supermajority.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I don't think so. Mitch has already said that defeating Obama is their main goal in the next congressional session. DeMint and others have expressed supporting sentiments. The teabaggers who get in have no incentive to compromise at all because doing so will piss off their base.

If the Reps take the house and get about 48 in the Senate, Congress is basically going to come to a halt.

I don't think you mean that.

I think government will continue to function.

Congress will pass annual budgets that will have to have bipartisan support. [ETA: And by that I mean they will pass a budget each year that absolutely no one is completely happy with.] They will probably even pass a tax cut of some sort to replace the expiring Bush tax cuts.

If they pass any kind of immigration reform it will be very modest.

Repeal and replace of the health insurance reform law will fail.

They might get bipartisan support for some limited medical tort reform. (Though, sadly, it will probably simply be caps on damages, which I've always argued doesn't discourage frivolous cases since damage awards only go to cases with merit--the ones that win a judgement.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by geni

Thats entirely possible in the UK. It doesn't normaly happen. The barrier to complete changes to the tax code is not checks and blances but that fact that over the centuries a tax code has developed that gets the core issues right. Its not in politican's interests to mess with the tax code to that extent.




Thats where you rely on goverments being smart enough to realise what will happen if they start using lawmaking powers to break contracts.

Sadly, I don't think I could ever rely on politicians not wanting to mess with something that's functional or depend on them being smart enough for anything.

Consider again the Tea Party movement in the U.S. They've got some really wacky and dangerous ideas. They are likely to get a lot of their candidates voted into office (for one term). I would hate it if they could actually pass their full agenda with just a simple majority.

And these kinds of movements happen with some regularity. A lot of people have a lot of misinformation and really bad ideas.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Sadly, I don't think I could ever rely on politicians not wanting to mess with something that's functional or depend on them being smart enough for anything.

Consider again the Tea Party movement in the U.S. They've got some really wacky and dangerous ideas.

The movement as a whole is simply about smaller government, which is in no way "wacky" and is "dangerous" only if you depend on government spending for your livelihood.

As individuals, sure. But they are hardly alone there.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Consider again the Tea Party movement in the U.S. They've got some really wacky and dangerous ideas. They are likely to get a lot of their candidates voted into office (for one term). I would hate it if they could actually pass their full agenda with just a simple majority.

Considering this thread is about the Senate, not the house, there is little danger of that. Remeber, only about 33 seats are up for election in any one given cycle. Therefore the most senate seats the TP can get in their first election is nowhere near a majority. Since they are not even running as a separate party, the number of TP candidates for senate is much less, because they did not win the Republican Primary for every open seat. That said, even with amazing success, the TP will not seat more than 10 senators.

The danger is that such a success can bring the rest of the Republican party to the right to pass some of their extreme agenda, not that one election will give the TP a senate majority to unilaterally pass an agenda were it not for the filibuster standing in their way.

[Random]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The movement as a whole is simply about smaller government, which is in no way "wacky" and is "dangerous" only if you depend on government spending for your livelihood.

As individuals, sure. But they are hardly alone there.

The Tea Party movement as a whole isn't about anything really. It is merely a blank sheet of paper upon which individual conservatives can project their beliefs. It's sole purpose is to get conservatives energized about their beliefs (even if they are mutually contradictory) and get out to vote Republican.

There is no "there" there. They are the conservative equivelent hippies from the 1960's.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Remember too that the GOP hardly participated in crafting the health insurance reform law.

There is a view that Obama didn't participate much either . . .

Quote:

The compromises and concessions took place, for the most part, between mainstream and the Blue Dog Democrats

. . . quite.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

See above. The concessions were largely within the Democratic Party. This started even when they had a supermajority.

Yes, you're correct (after all no Republican in Congress or the Senate voted for it at any time). So I suppose I'd correct myself in respect of the PPAHCA to say that its myriad inefficiencies and oddities reflect selling it to Democrats rather than anything else.

What I said previously still applies to the recovery act, I think.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Thunder

I prefer filibusters require 45 votes, not 41.

I'm not a fan of the tyranny of the majority, but still...majority does rule.

Who said slim majorities implementing massive changes was good, or had anything to do with the way the US government was designed?

"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slim majorities." -- Thomas Jefferson


Sure as hell not the founding fathers. If an idea is good, most people should think so, not just a transient majority. And they should think so 10 and 20 years down the road, too.

Too many people have a childlike mentality, and think, "Gawrsh! If'n only we could barely sqeak by a 50.01% majority, we can do anything, and I mean anything that we like! Golly! Don't thwart the Will of the Majority!"

This is an asinine attitude not in accordance with staving the grave problems of human history, most of which revolve around demagogues and the transient masses.