“I think it has been working,” he said.

It is working for Dems who want to pretend to support working people while actually allowing the continued predation by the rich.

Painful as it is, I pretty much have to agree with you.

If they lower the number to 55 they might need 4 or 5 rotating villains instead of just one.

I’m willing to bet that the only reason they got 59 votes for “Disclose” was because they needed 60.

My only question about reforming the filibuster is what happens if/when the Rethugs regain control of the Senate and the WH? We saw how the Dems used the filibuster under Bush, what the hell would they do if they needed even more votes to stop legislation?

I’m no fan of Republican obstructionism and it would be nice to have a filibuster that isn’t abused like this.

But you are being far too short-sighted here. Do you really want there to be no filibuster when Republicans take control of Congress.

I think filibuster rules should be set on the basis of what makes the most sense institutionally, not based on what the political impact will be. But if you insist on looking at the politics of it, what is your response to that?

What we need is classier Senators. There’s nothing sacred about the filibuster, but there’s nothing especially problematic about it either.

Time for another CA Democratic Party censure motion for DiFi.

I bet Courage Campaign would get aboard for this, pronto.

Why does she keep getting reelected?

Republicans argue that it would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to change what they call the standing rules of the body.

Democrats pushing filibuster reform argue the rules could be changed at the beginning of the 112th Congress through a ruling of the presiding chair that would then be ratified by a simple majority vote.

Under such a scenario, the chamber’s presiding officer, presumably the Senate president, Vice President Joe Biden, would recognize a motion to adopt new rules for the 112th Congress. Republicans would object, but Biden would overrule them and his ruling would be sustained by a majority vote.

That Senator Nelson’s got a real purdy mouth. Dunno if it’s from his daddy’s side, or his daddy’s sister’s side, though.

I watched a documentary last week on LBJ. Say what you want about him–I totally agree on the Vietnam War escalation–the man got things done. When he was speaker, he would cajole, persuade and actually get in the opposing side’s face (literally) and say, “You remember that bridge/ highway (or whatever it happened to be) that you wanted in your district? Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll see that you get it if you give me the votes I need now.” And, guess what? Most of the time he got what he wanted.

Fast forward to today, and we’ve got a dishrag in a suit as Senate leader and he couldn’t get a majority to come in out of the rain. I’m really tired of hearing this baloney about not having enough votes and can’t break the filibuster. Never heard this talk when chimpy was around. It all boils down to leadership and, unfortunately, there isn’t any starting from the top down.

Stacking the democratic party with blue dog republicans wasn’t such a good idea was it?

Ouch

Rape Gurney Joe had to attend a funeral, something which probably happens with depressing frequency to all these old codgers. And something Reid could certainly schedule around if he had any sense at all or wanted to.

Don’t let this bother you. These Dems know what goes ’round comes ’round.

The Senate is populated by 100 flaming hypocrites who continually muster up their phony outrage and object to what the other side has just done, even though their side did the exact same thing a couple years ago and will do the exact same thing again in a couple more years. They all do it, and they always will. Don’t waste your energy on this. It’s not worth it.

The filibuster is anti-Constitutional, un-American, and undemocratic in the extreme. America is alone among advanced countries (?!) that permit a small minority of purchased wackadoos to obstruct critically important progress on the planet’s woes.

Or, if it’s not that big a deal as you allege, why not try getting rid of it just to see what happens?

She is widely respected as a trans-partisan conservative Democrat who is pro-choice. Also, rich as Croesus. I cannot provide any additional ideas, except of course for her continued fame from the Moscone/Milk assassination videos.

She discovered Harvey’s body. While she’ll hardly ever talk about it, she’s got plenty of surrogates who won’t let it lie.

Thanks to Clinton and Rahm.

Bingo!

this little dfh wants to know why we are talking about Republican Obstructionism in a year when the Dem Majority voluntarily removed the power of Reconciliation from their arsenal by failing to pass a budget

I know I’m one of the slower kids, but wtf’ing f ??

No surprise here. You mean to tell me that the Blue Dogs won’t vote for a measure that would effectively strip them of power?!? Ya don’t say. i would support the measure because it is closer to true democracy, no matter if the Repubs would do with it once in power. This party of nowhere fast is getting us – nowhere.

Ah, so. Thanks. Finding a body seems kind of a hollow sort of fame.

I understand, and share, your concern. I’ve been watching politics for a long time (as many here have) and I’ve never seen the filibuster (or, more accurately, threat of filibuster) used with anywhere near the frequency that the rethugs use it now. If we want to have change at all then it appears that something must give.

Bottom line is that I believe in democracy and don’t like seeing it thwarted. (Not saying you or anyone who disagrees on the filibuster doesn’t believe in democracy, I just see that as the overriding issue here and understand that others may not see it that way.)

Edit: I realize that calling our corrupt system “democracy” may not be entirely accurate, I suppose you could say it is a theoretical argument. ;)

LBJ wasn’t ever speaker, he was Minority and then Majority Leader.

Interesting factoid: LBJ was Minority Leader during a time when Democrats were actually in the minority. Enough GOPs died off and were replaced by appointed Democratic Senators that the GOP was no longer the Majority, but the organizing resolution fixed the leadership and couldn’t be repaired. Just like RGJoe’s committee chairmanship is fixed in the current Senate’s organizing resolution.

Which simply goes to show how powerful the first order of any Senate business, the Organizing Resolution, actually is: it’s where the filibuster, among many other things, is enshrined at the session’s start.

And when it can be got rid of.

Just wrote this in a different thread:

Ending the filibuster is in the interests of the country. The reason these Senators oppose it is because it is not in their interests. If you a corrupt conservative like Landrieu, you lose your leverage. If you are a chairman of a powerful commitee like Levin, you lose some of your power. If you are from a small state like Akaka, you lose some influence. Everyone has an angle. Ultimately, they all need the filibuster intact. It is such a convenient excuse for doing nothing and taking responsibility for nothing

This just proves what we’ve been saying for some time now. It is the choice of Democrats to keep real progressive change from occurring.

And please, you can say it’s just 5 Democrats, but I’ll bet you dollars to donut holes that if it weren’t those 5 it would be 5 others. Rotating villians has proven to be effective.

And so November fast approaches and the one and only reason we’re given to vote for Democrats is that they aren’t as bad as the Republicans.

I’d like to imagine a world where the Democratic Party came back to it’s progressive, New Deal roots. A Democratic Party that enthusiastically and proudly promotes such policies instead of the corporate first agenda. And IMHO the ONLY way we’ll ever get there is to stop rewarding them with our votes when they don’t act progressively.

Sure, you can whip up all the fear you want to by yelling “But withholding our votes from Democrats means the Republicans win” but I’ll just respond with two simple statements.

1) I don’t support the President having the authority to assassinate American citizens, the health care industry being locked into the for profit insurance model, or the failure to pass meaningful climate and/or financial regulation legislation as is desperately needed. So, since I don’t support those efforts, and those are the policies of the Democratic Party, why should I (or anyone) vote for a party that promotes policies that he/she doesn’t support?

2) If the day ever did come where the Democrats took a beating at the polls and learned the lesson that they can’t take our votes for granted any longer and thus began to move back to their base, I would gladly and patiently be willing to put up with a 2 or 4 year period of Republican rule if that meant the Democrats returned to being real Democrats when they did regain power. That would be a tradeoff well worth it in the long run IMO. It’s just too bad that so many progressives are no better at looking at the long term than the corporate CEO’s we properly chastise for not doing so.

Yeah, all those Democratic filibusters sure denied George W Bush his wants and urges throughout the six years of GOP control, didn’t they?

Get your facts right, dude, you embarrass yourself.

Why must you always bring facts? *g*

Rainin’ there?

Forever enshrined here

progressives are no better at looking at the long term than the corporate CEO’s we properly chastise for not doing so.

I wouldn’t say only progressives. The entire political establishment is the same way. Corporations see to the next earnings statement, politicians see to the next election. That’s only one of the mindsets we’re up against and need to change.

But you are being far too short-sighted here. Do you really want there to be no filibuster when Republicans take control of Congress

When did Democrats use the filibuster against the Republicans during the Bush years?

Ah, I see Teddy said the same at #26. Owe you a drink.

Back to work.

Namaste

Yeah, good points.

Because she was relatively liberal before. Especially compared to the people the Rs were running. (I doubt she’ll run in 2012. She’s getting old.)

no rain, but wind is really strong

p.s. you HAVE to see Teddy’s opposum diary

two corporate lying war criminal parties: the corporate Democrat war party and the REpub war party. Any war party you want, as long as it supports endless US wars of imperial aggression. These five Demo turncoats are pure evil.

Without the filibuster, the Democrats could pass good legislation and they’d never lose control of the Senate.

They are just so damn afraid they will poop in their own nest and when the Republicans get back into power, the Republicans will turn the tables on them. Remember the Senate is a rich old boys club and they want to be able to continue to operate that way. Why is it when the Republicans are in power they act powerful and when the Democrats are in power they lack cojones? And the Democrats wonder why we progressives are so mad at them? A pox on both their parties and I am not a “tea bagger”.

Have some stones, Democrats! Make the Republicans filibuster on the floor rather than just threaten and you back down! Make them drag out the cots and have the American people see them for what they are..the NoGOP!

Teddy, apologies for the error and thanks for the clarification.

DiFi is revolting, a major-league hypocrite and double-talker. When is she up for renewal, anyway? Progressives need to run a real candidate against her, unless, of course, she opts not to run again, in which case a suitable candidate still needs to be found.

“… why should I (or anyone) vote for a party that promotes policies that he/she doesn’t support?”

Exactly right.

Rather than republican rule we are likely to get a divided government that produces real gridlock. Probably an improvement over the status quo that continually passes watered down legislation that looks good on the surface but changes nothing.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The filibuster is anti-Constitutional, un-American, and undemocratic in the extreme.

What is your working definition of “the filibuster,” Teddy, in that sentence?

Joe has the stones but the Democratic leadership? No, I don’t even think enough votes could be mustered to pass this!

Got link?

It’s not the rules that suck and need to be changed ,it’s the bozos we call Senators !

I can’t speak for Teddy, but I agree with that sentence so I’ll tell you what I mean by a working definition of the “the filibuster.”

The filibuster equals requring a super majority to pass legislation. And the Constitution lays out in clear terms the votes that require super majorities and passing legislation is NOT one of them.

I’m under the impression that cap and trade is another corporate / Wall Street legislative scam. If so, then maybe the GOP is doing us a favor, at least on that one.

That’s a pretty impressive non sequitur there, Ted.

Sheesh.

There are no progressives among the 535 members of Congress. The votes on healthcare showed us that. Feinstein is dreadful, but the inept Boxer is too. Boxer it will be remembered supported Lieberman in his re-election bid. So much for liberal values. As for job skills, Reid took away management of the climate change bill and gave it to Kerry because she was such a ditz, not that he did any better with it.

Well, to be fair, you were trying to promote a false equivalency when you claimed “both sides do it.”

The filibuster has NEVER, EVER been used as often and in the way the Republicans have used it over the last few years. Never by either party. It is unprecendented, and as such, there is no equivalency that you and the right wing media always like to portend.

“Do you really want there to be no filibuster when Republicans take control of Congress.”

Who cares if there’s no filibuster “if/when” the repubs take control of congress. Let them pass their agenda. The electorate is not frozen in time. There’s not a new generation of young social conservatives rising up to replace those dying off as time passes, at least not in large numbers. It’s becoming more and more a regional party each day. The next generation of voters is much more progressive on domestic issues. If the Repubs grab power for a while, let them kill themselves with rotten governing. It’s not like their foreign and fiscal policy will be much different than the dems. They both serve the same masters.

You’re right. The only senator that comes even close (at least in my tiny little pea brain) is Franken, although I haven’t studied his positions closely. I do like what I’ve seen in some of the hearings, however.

I wasn’t referring to the filibuster in particular, but to Senate behavior in general.

Without the filibuster, the Democrats could pass good legislation and they’d never lose control of the Senate.

Without the filibuster, the Democrats would be forced to invent some other reason for not passing good legislation.

That was sharpened to crystal clarity when they failed to pass a budget resolution this year.

Oh, ok, my bad.

Sorry.

Bmaz has a fresh cross-post up for our perusal: Judge Bolton Enjoins Arizona Immigration Law

What happened? Where is everyone from the NN10 thing? Where are all those people that supported Van Jones and Franken’s comments? Where are all you guys with your “It’s the progressives fault that Congress isn’t progressive enough!” We need to keep trying. Only if we give them 2 to 6 more years and a ton more in contributions, just maybe they’ll do what they were charged with via their election.

Where are all those people? All I’m hearing are crickets.

GG OldFatGuy.. I’m with ya all the way.

Thanks for replying, OldFatGuy:

The filibuster equals requring a super majority to pass legislation. And the Constitution lays out in clear terms the votes that require super majorities and passing legislation is NOT one of them.

Next question: If, as you say, “the filibuster equals requiring a super majority to pass legislation,” which existing Senate rule requires that a supermajority pass legislation?

I have written before that getting rid of the filibuster would make our system more parlementarian, which is not a bad thing. When as now a party controls the Congress and the White House, it could not use the filibuster as an excuse to renege on its campaign promises. And being able to enact the legislation they wanted would mean they could not duck responsibility for it.

Is Nelson the worst Democrat in the Senate? I think so.

Without reading the comments, I have to add a related note that Obama, Pelosi, and the Obamabots claim that the Senate is holding back all this wonderful progressive legislation that Obama and Pelosi would love to pass is shot to hell by the fact that Obama has done everything to support those Senators that have done the most to block progressive legistlation.

Not only were those Senators not called out, in any way shape or form by Obama, but he actively and aggressively campaigned for Blanche Lincoln, and had his little flunky bash progressives for funding a challenge to her. They handed Nelson $500k for no goddamn reason, and Obama went out and praised him at a public event in his state while Nelson was doing the most damage to the public option/hcr. Obama insisted Leiberman keep his chairmanship, and has likewise not said one public word in criticism of him.

The Senate is doing exactly what Obama and Rahm want them to do. And the worst thing you can say about those two is that they are cowards, to hide behind all of these games instead of standing up for what they truly believe in. Progressives aren’t fooled anymore though.

In this DFH’s opinion, arguments that Dems should keep the filibuster around in case they themselves may possibly want to use it one day are akin to people whose retirement plans consist of buying lottery tickets opposing the inheritance tax because they themselves one day might possibly be filthy rich.

They are just so damn afraid they will poop in their own nest and when the Republicans get back into power, the Republicans will turn the tables on them.

Republicans don’t need the filibuster. If it gets tight, there are always some Democrats who will go along with what they want done. Shit is rigged.

You sure? Looking at some of the comments of folks on the heels of the NN10 thing, I’d think they are poor saps who eat up the party line and are blaming themselves for being the reason why progressive policies are being pursued.

Worthless sacs of shit, the whole lot of them.

The country’s in a death spiral right now. We might as well drive it full throttle into the ground and welcome the impending crash so we can get it over with and start over. Give the rat-bastard republicans control and watch the rat-bastard president bitch and moan about not being able to change anything he never had any intention of changing anyway.

I’m going to hate watching the moronic, stuffed-shirt republican displays of arrogance and righteousness, but we’re already suffering with no end in sight. Quit drawing it out. It’s heartbreaking. Suck a big one democrats. Maybe a Pheonix will rise from the ashes of the country you worked so hard to burn.

It appears that you may be intent on playing some sort of word game, and I’d rather not play that and allow you and Teddy to play, if he so chooses.

But the cloture rule effectively requires a super majority before allowing legislation to even be voted on, thus effectively requiring a super majority to pass legislation. I do believe every, or nearly every bill that’s passed the Senate in this Congress has had to do so by first meeting that super majority, thus, as I said, effectively requiring a super majority to pass legislation.

Now if you want to maintain that the Democrats could use some of the rules available to them to remove the requirement, such as the no more than 1 speech per issue per Congressional day and such, then I’ll agree it’s a possibility. But, if one argues that the rules already allow for getting around the filibuster requirement then one should also agree that getting rid of the filibuster altogether then would be no big deal.

I’ll not respond further and hope that Teddy returns to respond. Sorry for jumping into the conversation to begin with.

Hope you have a great day.

The Senate is broken. Not to be fixed?
“Democrats Abandon Comprehensive Energy Bill”
And this bill had already been watered down, severely limiting its effectiveness. This is bad not only for our country but also for the world.

Can we somehow disband this Senate and start over? There are now many pieces of legislation passed by the House and stalled in the Senate. This, after a year-long spectacle of dithering, posturing, and negotiating over health care reform. I think that we could pick 100 people off the street and have them work better for our national interest, rather than the self interests that now prevail.

In our republic’s early days, many thought that the intelligent elite should run the country. We now have those who consider themselves elite and work on preserving their positions rather than what’s good for the country.

While I consider President Obama a special person and continue to support him, he has let us down in some respects. Where are the inspiring speeches and words that might have led to public support for strong action? He did get us a stimulous legislation and health care and financial reform, but in each case less than needed because he didn’t provide the specific demands, the political clout, the leadership and inspiration called for in these times.

homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

You sure? Looking at some of the comments of folks on the heels of the NN10 thing, I’d think they are poor saps who eat up the party line and are blaming themselves for being the reason why progressive policies are being pursued.

That whole “you have to make me” thing from Obama and Co. There is no doubt a large, depressing number of partisans on the left who value party over principle. But look at the voting intensity numbers. Every poll I see has the GOP with a 30-35 point advantage. Unmotivated people who don’t get what they were promised, in fact they got the opposite (Bush III), aren’t motivated to go out and vote for more of the same.

The GOP have their death panels, and seizure of 401k’s, and lack of long form birth certificates, and whatever else talk radio is telling all the angry white guys in service trucks. They are motivated to get the black guy out of the white house. Don’t need much more than that.

While I consider President Obama a special person and continue to support him, he has let us down in some respects. Where are the inspiring speeches and words that might have led to public support for strong action?

Yeah. And more beer summits too.

*crashes into bridge embankment*

Not a single sitting Senator looks at Strom Thurmond’s or Robert Byrd’s senescent Senate careers and sees cautionary tales: every single one of them sees a challenge to be overcome.

I’m quite sure she’s identified her successor, who will be parked in the Lite-Gov slot until she makes up her mind about 2012: Gavin Newsom.

Work to fire those 5. Bring out the cots and keep the obstructionist talking and standing. Filibuster away.

The current Senate rule that permits endless debate and requires 60 votes to close off debate and proceed to actual debate and a vote.

To be fair, Barbara Boxer supported her friend Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont. She then went silent until pressed — by a persistent caller to her son, Doug Boxer, who tends her political affairs — to issue a one-sentence statement that she supported the nominee of the Democratic party for the United States Senate in Connecticut. iirc, the statement did not mention Ned Lamont’s name, but I could misremember, I was so excited that my pestering Doug paid off.

That was, I do know, the extent of her involvement in the Senate race in Connecticut that year. She did nothing to discourage her good friend from pursuing his sore-loser CFL bid. I know that, because I insisted she should and could.

And despite the continued ridiculous excuses for inaction still many dummies here will continue to vote for the D marketing arm of the Republicrats. Thanks a lot, [edited by mod].

Really?

To what did this refer, then?

even though their side did the exact same thing a couple years ago and will do the exact same thing again in a couple more years

No name-calling of other commenters, please.

Sorry, I guess that last sentence isn’t really a terribly articulate call to action.

She’s up in two years, but there’s noise she wants to run for Gov, yikes. I seem to recall her rolling over anyway whenever the Ds wanted to use the filibuster against Bush, so WTF does she care?

Bear with me, OFG. I’m not the one trying to play a “word game” by asking which Senate rule “requires” a supermajority vote to pass legislation, as you understand “the filibuster” to do. A Senate rule that, correct me if I’m wrong, is apparently the primary basis for the cries to end “the filibuster,” as you’ve just defined it.

I’m instead asking questions (using a technique that selise noted at one point she wished she’d adopted early in the confused discussion about this topic) to try to get people to examine their assumptions about what they call “the filibuster.”

For example:

But the cloture rule effectively requires a super majority before allowing legislation to even be voted on, thus effectively requiring a super majority to pass legislation. I do believe every, or nearly every bill that’s passed the Senate in this Congress has had to do so by first meeting that super majority, thus, as I said, effectively requiring a super majority to pass legislation.

Yes, absolutely correct, OFG. The cloture rule (part of Rule 22, FYI), absolutely does “require a supermajority before allowing legislation to even be voted on, thus effectively requiring a supermajority to pass legislation.”

But please don’t stop there, OFG (or Teddy).

How does the cloture rule come into play in the Senate?

Automatically? Is it the default rule or order of the Senate?

Or is the cloture rule merely an optional alternative to the regular Senate order (a regular order where no supermajority to pass legislation is “required”)?

The answer directly impacts on the following assumption of yours, that the majority Party must somehow “remove” a “requirement” before it can get back to simple-majority regular order in the Senate:

Now if you want to maintain that the Democrats could use some of the rules available to them to remove the requirement, such as [...], then I’ll agree it’s a possibility.

In that sentence you reveal, I think, that you believe that the cloture rule is the default regular order of the present Senate. Except…it.is.not.

The Democrats don’t need to use (or change, or violate) any of the rules before they can end supermajority passage of legislation and get back to simple-majority order in the Senate. Why?

Because Rule 22′s cloture process is, in fact, voluntary, and invoked only by the majority, these days in response to mere threats to filibuster (debate…) by a Senate minority. [It might make it easier to understand or remember this point, and to see why this isn't some mere "word game," if you realize that this use of cloture (deployment in response to mere threats) was not its intended use when the rule was originally adopted in 1917, or amended since. Senate practices have fallen so far, so fast, that people don't even recognize now that cloture was always intended to be deployed only in the midst of a real filibuster (that is, uninterrupted floor debate) that the majority no longer felt there was any merit in waiting out.]

Regular, daily, Senate order in fact provides for (Constitutional) simple-majority passage of legislation. A regular, daily order which is only changed if and when 16 majority (Democratic, these days) Senators file a “cloture motion” [Harry Reid, on an almost-weekly basis, to the Presiding Officer: "I have a cloture motion at the desk"] – and, by the filing of that cloture motion, thus choose to replace regular simple-majority Senate order with Rule 22′s supermajority requirements.

But, if one argues that the rules already allow for getting around the filibuster requirement then one should also agree that getting rid of the filibuster altogether then would be no big deal.

Before we can understand what would happen if we got “rid of the filibuster altogether” (that language shows such contempt for the legislative process and democratic debate, I have to say…), it is essential that we all understand exactly what a “filibuster” is, and what the existing rules are, and what they do and don’t “require.” That’s why I’m asking these questions of commenters who I know have commented in threads where I’ve repeatedly made these points about the existing Senate rules, apparently to little effect.

It is a very big deal, indeed to further limit already-scarce public debate in our federal Congress. So I couldn’t disagree more with the cavalier attitude that we should just “get rid of” the right to extended debate in the Senate, and then “see what happens” [we don't have to guess about that, by the way - it's already painfully obvious by observing present House operations (partisans, please think back to the Gingrich or Hastert-run House), where today no meaningful floor debate takes place, and almost no floor amending, except for the very few amendments personally approved for floor action by the Speaker].

Do people understand how seriously they are being misinformed by the Party (for obvious, self-serving reasons) about this issue, and why it’s puzzling when they defensively react, when someone tries to point this out, by desperately trying to cover for Party powerbrokers and otherwise not rocking the Party boat, at the expense of our non-partisan federal legislature, which is obviously unable to defend itself?

Okay, here’s just one example, which involves the hypocrisy that runs rampant when a Senator switches parties. When one side does it, the other side calls it unfair, duplicitous, blah blah blah, and they call for a special election and more blah blah blah. But when a guy jumps to their side, it’s no problem, and it’s the other party’s turn to go all blah blah blah.

Both parties do this. Come on, Teddy, you know this very well. Don’t play dumb.

She keeps getting re-elected because there is never anyone challenging her because the Dem party comes out in full force for the incumbents and prevents any progressive challengers. It is either her or a conservative Republican.

That is why we should all stop voting for the least objectionable candidate and start voting Republican to get some of the old wood cut out of the Democratic party so we have a chance to get some new blood and some progressive blood into the party.

By voting for the least objectionable candidate, we are dooming ourselves to corporate governance but every time I bring up trying to vote them out by voting Republican, people get all hysterical and think I’m some sort of deranged monster. The facts speak for themselves. If you vote Democratic in November, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Here is a new idea – take something popular… and ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FILLY-BUSTER! Get out the COTS.

The DEMS are not really trying… at all!

Getting rid of the filibuster in my opinion is stupid beyond belief. What happens when people use the same/new/worse tactics based on the new rule?

….meaning, now it only takes 50 stupid corrupt senators to pass a stupid corrupt law.

and the Senate is 99.5% stupid (or less charitably corrupt to the core).

or the media could report something.

or the greedy could give back a shiny penny.

or the wars could end.

Bingo on 59 votes because they needed 60. But I think wrong on the other end – that it would expose more villians.

BINGO!

And I like your point that the Dem’s could have stopped a few things – they did not even try.

The Dems will lose in NOV, and if they change the rule it fits right into their (edit: I mean Repub theme on Dems) theme (Government takeover, a few elites making rules for the common man).

Dem’s don’t do shit, and don’t have a goal for people anyway.

… re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You said:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is up for reelection in 2012

Thanks for the forewarning – wonder if anybody is willing to primary the bastard?

Thank you, powwwow, for this clear and cogent explanation of something a lot of us misunderstand.

The Dem establishment will block any primary candidates to Nelson just like they did to Blanch Lincoln. Primaries to blue dogs are a futile strategy. The Dem establishment has much more money than we do and can get people like Bill Clinton to kill any progressive challengers. The times we live in require much stronger measures but I doubt the public will wake up to this fact until it is too late.

Because Rule 22’s cloture process is, in fact, voluntary,

It is a very big deal, indeed to further limit already-scarce public debate in our federal Congress. So I couldn’t disagree more with the cavalier attitude that we should just “get rid of” the right to extended debate in the Senate,

OK, I admit that I’m nothing more than an ignorant hillbilly and nowhere near the intellectual match of, say, a lawyer; so perhaps you could explain it to me in hillbilly terms how something can be voluntary and a right at the same time??

How can moving to a supermajority to cut off debate be voluntary at the same time that unending debate by the minority is a right?

As far as the whole thing being voluntary, I agree. I’ve been saying for some time that the Democrats have the power, right now, to pass legislation with a simple majority vote and that the fact that they don’t is a CHOICE for which they should be held accountable.

However, I still fail to see how one can argue that the majority can at any time pass legislation with a simple majority while simultaneously arguing that getting rid of the filibuster rule altogether would somehow be a big deal. As for debate itself, I also don’t see how getting rid of the filibuster rule altogether limits debate in any way, as once again the majority party can voluntarily allow a week, a month, or three months of debate before moving to vote on the bill itself.

The bottom line is the filibuster either provides the minority party with some rights to prevent legislation from becoming law (in which case I would argue as I did above that it’s basically going against the spirit of the Constitution) OR the filibuster is merely a procedural tool that allows the minority party to block legislation from becoming law ONLY IF the majority allows that to happen (in which case I would argue as above then that removing the filibuster altogether would be no big deal since the majority can already circumvent it easily enough.

What am I missing?

I am not for getting rid of the filibuster entirely, although I definitely do favor lowering the number of Senators voting to invoke cloture. As OldFatGuy says below:

The filibuster has NEVER, EVER been used as often and in the way the Republicans have used it over the last few years. Never by either party.

I believe that is because they are using and abusing the process of filibuster in ways it was never meant to be used. They have adopted the Star Trek episode “A Tale of Armageddon” as a model for their modern version of filibuster instead of doing it the old fashioned way. And it should be abandoned for the same reason that Captain Kirk decided to change the way Eminiar and Vendikar engaged in war instead of just allowing them to continue to submit their citizens to a disintegration chamber mandated by computer.

Some of our most important legislation is being lost because there is no cost to filibuster. Senators that invoke have no “skin in the game.” All the participants have to do is say they are filibustering, and time goes by but no one experiences any sore throat, any exhaustion, any boredom, any angst, any discomfort at all for having invoked the filibuster. It could go on for the entire term of the Congress and we would probably all remember the filibuster in the Congress of West Wing’s President Jed Bartlett better than we would the filibuster that ended up defeating our most important legislation in the real Congress. I believe TEHelms is right when s/he says:

Have some stones, Democrats! Make the Republicans filibuster on the floor rather than just threaten and you back down! Make them drag out the cots and have the American people see them for what they are..the NoGOP!

Eggs Ackley what powwow wrote. The filibuster is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Let them talk to their hearts’ content; really the only thing stopping them is that lengthy debate lessens the number of ways the senate can roll over for their contributors. It ultimately diminishes their effectiveness in collecting bribes.

I spent a bit of time looking for an article I read recently which talked about some of the proposals under consideration for fixing the filibuster rules. Didn’t find it, but did read something Ruth Marcus wrote in April where she mentioned a few good ideas. One was to do away with the ability to filibuster executive branch nominations, but leave it in place in the case of judicial nominations. Another was to do away with the ability to filibuster a motion to proceed. There were a couple others including Harkin’s “gradually lowering threshold to end debate.” There are quite a few options out there, but the Senators who really want to see a change should realize that they’re going to have to do it with a simple majority and resign themselves to the inevitable shitstorm. I think it would be worth it.

The current Senate rule that permits endless debate and requires 60 votes to close off debate and proceed to actual debate and a vote.

Thanks for the reply.

In addition to what I spelled out in Comment 79 about this, two points:

1. There is no “current Senate rule that permits endless debate.” Rather:

In general, the Senate operates on the foundation of unlimited debate. This principle is fundamental to the right to filibuster. Senate rules do not specifically permit filibusters; rather, extended debate is possible in the absence of debate restrictions.

- Martin Gold, in his book Senate Procedure and Practice

2. There is, instead, an optional Senate rule (part of Rule 22; please see Comment 79 for details) that may be invoked, by the filing of a cloture motion by the majority, to “require 60 votes to [bring actual (or, these days, merely threatened)] debate [to a close in order to] proceed to…a [simple-majority] vote” on final passage. The majority may invoke Rule 22′s supermajority process, to bring debate to a close (in lieu of waiting out any extended debate that develops), on both motions to proceed to legislation, and on the legislation itself once it’s the pending business before the Senate.

Which part(s) of that do you consider to be “anti-Constitutional, un-American, and undemocratic in the extreme”?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/politics/29bai.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Read this article and tell me how our current administration is not Republican to its core.

As much as anyone, Mr. Orszag has promoted and carried out an effort by the White House to pry away from Congress some of the responsibility for making hard decisions, especially when it comes to the budget. In the process, he has signaled that an administration populated from the top down by Capitol Hill alumni is intent on altering the balance of power between the branches of government. Mr. Orszag also helped broker the creation of an 18-member debt commission that will offer specific alternatives for re-ordering the federal budget. White House aides say the president has told them that he is serious about getting the long-term budget under control, even if Congress won’t act on its own.

….as long as the military budget and tax cuts for the rich aren’t effected.

Which part(s) of that do you consider to be “anti-Constitutional, un-American, and undemocratic in the extreme”?

I took that more as a shorthand pointing out the difference between the letter of the law–all these rules, and the fact that they seem to be working exactly counter to majority rule as the Constitution seems to have intended. Had the current use of the filibuster been foreseen I expect the rules would have been much different.

The Dems will be lucky if they have a simple majority next year. Why would you want to change the rules NOW? It should have been done LAST year if at all. When Obama loses in 2012 and the repugs once again control it all, you will be screaming of all the crap passed by that congress.

The time to act on any progressive agenda is LONG past. And don’t worry, Obama’s catfood commission WILL have bipartisan support!

OK, I admit that I’m nothing more than an ignorant hillbilly and nowhere near the intellectual match of, say, a lawyer; so perhaps you could explain it to me in hillbilly terms how something can be voluntary and a right at the same time??

Ugh, boy that was pretty smarmy. My frustration at being unable to follow powwow’s logic shows in an ugly way. Wish the edit function remained an option a little longer here.

As I understand it, all they need is fifty Senators and Biden and they could fix it at the beginning of the next Congress. Some media pundits actively pushing for reform would help. I don’t think most people are aware of how much the use of the filibuster has changed in recent years.

I wonder how much money is to be made from soothsaying. Lot of it going around these days.

I was kinda looking forward to the hillbilly explanation.

Well, something has to give or Progressives are well and truly screwed. We can’t get any decent legislation out of the Senate and now California passes a law saying that only the top 2 vote-getters in the primaries get on the general election ballot. Washington state has the same setup, and apparently Michigan is being targeted next. So much for getting any third party candidate on the ballot if too many states follow suit.

California Enshrines the Duopoly

Not a problem, OFG.

I had my response mostly drafted, only to lose it courtesy of a cranky browser, while in search of the link to a related comment I made about this yesterday.

So it’ll take a bit more time for me to post my response to your questions at 90, but I’m working on it, and will try to incorporate dick c’s suggestion @ 101 to further “hillbilly” it (though far be it from me to bad mouth real, independent-thinking “hillbillys,” with their admirable common sense…).

I also wrote a comment recently addressing this related (and, in my view, truly misguided) statement from dick c @ 99, which I’ll try to find the link for too: “As I understand it, all they need is fifty Senators and Biden and they could fix it at the beginning of the next Congress.”

What a link-filled example you have provided!
Thanks.

I’m sorry, but Ruth Marcus is the worst conventional wisdom purveyor on the editorial staff at the Washington Post. If she’s got ideas, I don’t really need to read them to know they are bad.

If that makes me closed-minded, I’m sorry, but I’ve been reading that paper since long before she went to work there, and she’s a large part of what’s wrong with it now.

Powwow is being rather condescending in an attempt to be clever; it’s a rhetorical device best left unremarked.

What the hell does that mean, Teddy? My lengthy, laborious explanation to OFG and you, @ 79, is somehow just “an attempt to be clever”?

Everyone is confused by this issue, and no one should think less of themselves – or others, unless they happen to be in a position to know better, as Senators are – because they don’t grasp some part of it (or perhaps you didn’t notice selise and I openly struggling with the details of this topic for months here at FDL).

Talk about trying to converse and reason with a brick wall. Don’t mind me – just keep on your Party-boosting ways. But people should at least realize where you’re coming from when you make similarly-inaccurate claims about Senate rules in future.

How can moving to a supermajority to cut off debate be voluntary at the same time that unending debate by the minority is a right?

Good question. Here’s my attempt at a “hillbilly” answer:

First, I’ll repeat what I said to Teddy @ 94 (cause this here’s the truth, even though it’s spoken by a helpmate of Senator Frist, and a one-time proponent of the “nuclear option”…):

In general, the Senate operates on the foundation of unlimited debate. This principle is fundamental to the right to filibuster. Senate rules do not specifically permit filibusters; rather, extended debate is possible in the absence of debate restrictions.

- Martin Gold, in his book Senate Procedure and Practice

Second, we have to remember, though it’s difficult to do because real filibusters have basically become extinct in the modern Senate (so most people don’t have personal experience with them, though Mr. Smith Goes To Washington remains a good stand-in), that waiting out a real filibuster eventually (probably sooner than later) leads directly to a simple-majority final passage vote on legislation.

When thinking about this, we should try not to assign to (the idea of) a real filibuster the power of a permanent obstruction to something passing in the Senate, when in fact – here’s a dirty little secret – real filibusters, in my opinion, don’t amount to very serious obstruction of the regular order and business of the Senate at all. Because real filibusters rely on human endurance and commitment. Especially in this day and age, how many Senators are going to volunteer for that duty, even for a day, never mind for a week?

[And thus I basically agree with your conclusion that a real filibuster may be "no big deal" as far as blocking legislation is concerned, in the face of a determined majority, but I think it may be crucial for getting the truth out to the country and for its ability to impact future legislation. Also, it's important to note that because of the way the Senate is designed - see the quote above - "removing the filibuster altogether" also removes or threatens the right to debate at will in all other circumstances in the Senate, and that is a "big deal."]

So I think the underlying assumption in your question is that “unending debate by the minority” really would be “unending” on any particular bill or nomination. But it wouldn’t be, in practice, would it? Because that minority would eventually need to get to their scheduled fundraisers, or to their family picnics, or just to their beds, etc. [Either way, what would be the harm in finding out?]

Thus “unending debate” is actually temporary debate, that inconviences the majority Party for a time. For that, we should throw the right to meaningful debate in the Senate out the window, or impose some form of supermajority rule on the Senate, as the Democrats are now doing?

And if the right to unending debate is actually temporary in practice, it doesn’t force the majority into an “involuntary” use of the cloture motion and supermajority rule, does it? Unless the majority can’t even handle that much real debate while conducting the people’s business in public office.

As for debate itself, I also don’t see how getting rid of the filibuster rule [you mean the right to extended debate (rather than lowering the cloture motion threshold to 51), I assume] altogether limits debate in any way, as once again the majority party can voluntarily allow a week, a month, or three months of debate before moving to vote on the bill itself.

I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you of this, OFG, if you don’t already see it for yourself, but there’s no way in the world that I, as a Senator, would entrust to inherently power-seeking Parties my right to debate a bill that I – and possibly only I (think Feingold on the PATRIOT Act) – consider to be of great importance, or a grave threat to the nation. What if I embarrass the majority Party with my comments? Once they have the power to shut me up (while claiming, of course, that “the press of business” reluctantly forces them to do so), aren’t they going to use it? That’s basically what the Democrats are now often using the cloture motion for – to cut off debate and amending as soon as a measure hits the floor, while pointing fingers at the Party of No for “requiring” 60 votes to pass the bill. Again, if you pay attention to how the House operates today, you can see how the power to shut off debate is aggressively utilized by the majority Party at every opportunity.

Part of this exercise involves trying to put yourself in the shoes of a federal legislator (which is clearly far different from the mock “debates” between talking heads we see on TV, for example). [Thinking from that perspective may be a key ingredient that you're leaving out of your analysis.]

Pretend that you just got elected to the House or the Senate, along with a bunch of “right-wing wackos,” or whatever the mockery of the moment is – who just happen to be the federal representatives of millions of your fellow citizens. And with whom you somehow have to work out the great issues of public policy of the day, about which people have passionately different views, even without the complications of Party. What do you do to make the case that you care so deeply about? Would the ability to have access to the House or Senate floor for meaningful debate help you make your case? If so, you’re in luck in the Senate, and out of luck in the House (except for the 1 to 5 minutes during “debate” on substantive legislation that you might get as one of the minority of members ever heard from on the floor while the business of the House is underway).

In short, I would reword your closing this way:

The bottom line is the filibuster provides the minority party [or any Senate minority] with some rights to slow the progress of legislation into law.

To my mind, the benefits of that far outweigh any drawbacks. But, either way, until we see for ourselves that real filibusters are seriously derailing the work of the Senate, what’s our rush to further limit our ability to publicly hear for ourselves what our federal legislators are thinking and saying?

The second republic won’t have a house of lords. And it’s overdue. The first republic has been functionally dead since Appomattox. The constitution without federalism is already not the constitution. The rule of law? The bill of rights? All that is now history. Our Capital is the seat of imperial power. Our citizens have become subjects. The coming election will change nothing. The country is over.

I need another drink.
Here’s looking up your old ancestors.

You’re very welcome, msmolly.

Aside from the issue of lowering the level of the cloture vote threshold, the only quibble I have with your comment, Ann, is that you seem to assume that the power to force a change from mere threats to filibuster to real filibusters lies in the hands of the minority Party.

As I’ve pointed out above, that power actually lies in the hands of the majority Party – which simply needs to cease filing cloture motions unless and until a real filibuster (actual, taxing physical debate, as you describe) is underway on the floor, and the Senate majority feels it can’t wait it out for a simple-majority vote any longer.

In other words, no rule changes are needed for the Senate to return to real filibusters, but only a change in practice, which the Senate majority has the ability to implement, any time it wants.

One of the key modern practices that the Senate majority would need to set aside to do that is the fake quorum call (Harry Reid, on his own, has the power to turn it into a real, live quorum call at any time). Without the fake quorum call suspending Senate action, the only way to stop a vote from proceeding is to debate. That’s because the Presiding Officer is required to put the pending question to a vote if no Senator seeks recognition to speak (provided no one requests a real quorum call, which may be requested only a limited number of times, unlike the fake quorum call).

As I understand it, all they need is fifty Senators and Biden and they could fix it at the beginning of the next Congress.

[preceded @ 91 by:]

There are quite a few options out there, but the Senators who really want to see a change should realize that they’re going to have to do it with a simple majority and resign themselves to the inevitable shitstorm. I think it would be worth it.

Here’s some information that I hope helps to demonstrate why it would not “be worth it” to gravely injure parliamentary procedure in our Senate to try to further empower the Parties, by way of the “Constitutional” or “nuclear” options you reference.

This comment has the longer, more-detailed version.

This is the short version (from another recent comment):

The reckless proposals being spun of late by certain Democratic Party members, and their fans, to “reform the filibuster” amount, as far as I can tell, to violating Senate rules in order to “change” them without debate, with the aim of eventually empowering future Senate majorities to stifle debate at will, as the House majority Party (in the person of the Speaker) is now empowered to choke off (prevent almost all) floor debate there.

When existing Senate rules (as opposed to the misunderstandings about them peddled by Party leadership) are compared to the various proposals for “changing” them – at least the few that I’ve seen spelled out – that’s what the Democratic Party’s primary motive seems to be: Further hide the Senate’s actions from the public, while preventing a minority from publicly complaining about it.

I agree with you, Oldfatguy! As long as we keep sending these turncoat Dems back to office, they have no reason to ever listen to the electorate. While living under Republican rule for a few years would be horrible, there isn’t a lot of difference now with the weak Dems in office who let the Repubs set the agenda and block all progress. I’m personally sick of the asshats like Dorgan, Lincoln, Landrieu, Conrad, DiFi, Rethug Joe and their ilk subverting the will of the people who put Dems in charge of the Whitehouse, Senate, and the House TO GET THINGS DONE! These jerks need to be retired and now, and in the meantime, we need to get rid of the filibuster because it’s not democracy.

Where are the serious checks on the President’s power that a real Parliament has – particularly the power to take the Prime Minister’s job away, at any time, at will (no proven “high crimes and misdemeanors” necessary) – in that scenario, Hugh?

If we’re going to abandon the separation of powers that was built into our Constitutional system for a very good reason, we should do it all the way, instead of just enough to empower a King-like presidency (which would only reward the presidential overreaching that has been increasing for years with impunity – see jakegittes’s red flag of an article excerpt @ 95).

powwow, I have been reading (much of it more than once) the volumes of material you have published on the filibuster, in diaries and comments at The Seminal, and at News. I can only say that I am very glad you had/took the chance to air this at the Mothership.

It has been an astoundingly thorough and informative series. Thank you so much for what must have been months of raw research, and your clear presentation of the issue.

i can’t believe this argument still continues… denial of the evidence on the order of creationists.

please folks — read powwow. i still owe a powwow a diary, but all you need to do is read what powwow has already written.

I’ve read powwow.

What is the denial of evidence you’re talking about??

The filibuster should be done away with.

There are only two possibiliities:

1) The filibuster results in a requirement of a supermajority to pass legislation

2) The filibuster DOES NOT result in a requirement of a supermajority to pass legislation.

If it’s 1, then it should be done away with as it is IMO, as Teddy said above, anti-Consitutional in that the Constitution is clear on what votes require supermajorities and passing legislation is NOT one of them.

It it’s 2, then it should be done away with to get rid of the excuse for politicians to use and if it is 2, then those defending it need to explain why it’s such a big deal to get rid of if it doesn’t in effect make it impossible for the majority to pass legislation.

Powwow seems to making a cogent argument about why the filibuster may result in requiring a super majorit, but that there are weapons for the majority to use in response. And he seems to make the second best argument that if they’re going to use filibusters then the majority should actually make them filibuster (I agree with that as the 2nd choice).

But he’s provided no evidence as to why getting rid of it is somehow a terrible thing.

None.

And as stated above, the bottom line is the filibuster HAS TO BE ONE OR TWO ABOVE. WHich is it? Whichever you choose it is, I’ve responded with why it should still be gotten rid of.

You can disagree, but I take issue with “denial of evidendce on the order of creationists.” That shit stinks.

Oh, and if this is, as my very first response to powwow feared some sort of “word game” because the word “filibuster” doesn’t appear in any Senate rule, then as stated above all those interested in playing word games can continue to play, but I’m not.

Per wiki:

A filibuster (also known as speaking, talking out a bill or killdrivel) is a type of parliamentary procedure. Specifically, it is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby a lone member can elect to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal.

I know wiki is not a rock solid source, but it does explain what those of us supporting getting rid of the filibuster are talking about. Basically the cloture rules need to be changed to allow a simple majority to end debate.

You can disagree, but I take issue with “denial of evidendce on the order of creationists.” That shit stinks

Ugh. Even when I’m not bitter, I sound bitter. That shit stinks could’ve been worded better. Or maybe I am just an old bitter man.

Sorry selise. Totally my bad on that last sentence.

OFG, i’m not referring to differences of opinion on issues of preference, but on issues of fact. powwow has done the research and analysis– i know because i was here for some of it and i learned a hell of a lot from powwow. we’ve known the answer to your question is #2 for months now — and the only reason the dems keep getting away with using it as an excuse is that too many people, even here at fdl, keep believing and repeating the D partisan/politician lies in the face of all the evidence that has been repeatedly posted here.

“Powwow is being rather condescending in an attempt to be clever…” is just the kind of anti-evidence anti-fact anti-clever comment, totally refusing to engage on the merits of the actual evidence (jon and dday have done this too), that i’ve gotten from creationists.

it’s out of date now, but here is a link to some of the info/research and debate references: Senate Filibuster Reference List. i’ll have to try to update it at some point if i get the chance (and i do owe powwow a diary or two on her/his analysis). anyway, even as the reference list is, there are lots of good sources, the parts of riddicks that apply, congressional research reports (including 2 not available on-line that my congressional rep’s office got for me and one that i got from the senate historian), even a critical reference from the congressional record not on-line that i had to go to the library to read (i made a photo copy of the microfiche and posted the scanned pdf. and i even ended up typing most of it up because the original was not clear enough for ocr). oh, and multiple calls to the senate parliamentarian’s office too.

isn’t that what we’re supposed to do with what politicians tell us? be skeptical, go to original sources and fact check their asses?

thanks OFG, but you’ve got nothing to apologize for. i don’t think you sounded bitter — just a little colorful language to make the reading of your comment more interesting. :)

Thank you so much for those kind words, newtonusr (and for all your reading).

Though it may be hard to believe, most of that research (much of which was accomplished by the dogged legwork of selise) and detailed presentation essentially amounts to an effort to defuse myths and to establish the basic facts in advance of the real debate in which we all need to engage, in my opinion (while on the same page of facts about the Senate’s rules). That is, a debate about some version of this:

What do we want and expect of our federal Congress, and do we, or don’t we, value genuine public debate in the legislature of this self-governing Republic enough to insist upon its return?

[I'll use this reply to elaborate on that, if I may, while incorporating my responses to related points in OldFatGuy's comments @ 117 & 118.]

I can guarantee that lots of Americans do not now, and never will, give a damn about “genuine public debate” in their federal legislature – and some of those Americans are sitting as comfortable incumbents in our federal legislature today (see the photograph amidst the post above). [We should not overlook, by the way, how the need to routinely engage in actual, challenging debate in public on the Senate floor would help weed out the invisible, coasting and corrupt incumbents who are now shielded by the idling, empty "in session" Senate Chamber, even as they find it a struggle just to competently read a speech script a staffer handed them, in front of the C-SPAN2 camera.]

Judging by the conclusions and obvious frustration expressed in OFG’s comments @ 117 & 118, he may well be another who just can’t be bothered with the means to the legislative end, and wants only to see the ends he desires forced through by any means possible (since I’m confident from his other comments @ FDL that OFG is not knowingly trying to further empower the Party at the expense of the people). By the way, and not to equate the two, but that mindset, from my observation, is very much the mindset of Harry Reid in his present Democratic Party-serving role as Senate Majority Leader.

I, on the other hand, want to see self-directed, independent-thinking federal legislators, representing their constituents in good faith on a level legislative playing field, in public (which is obviously a process or a means, not an end in itself; it’s a process, though, that democratically takes care of the ends on its own, in my view). That is obviously not a description of the behavior of our current Congress or its incumbents. But in the Senate, at least, the rules are not preventing that process (as they now really do to a significant extent in the House). Rather, the current practices of the incumbents and their Parties now intentionally avoid such genuine, democratic public legislating in the Senate, as I noted with a bit more detail here.

My goal in this thread was to clarify what “the filibuster” is and is not (which I hope highlights how those using that term to describe current Senate practice are the ones engaging in “word play”), and to accurately define who and what is responsible for the “requirement of a supermajority to pass legislation” that the majority Democrats are constantly blaming on the minority Republicans.

Because if we cannot accurately identify the causes of the problem, how in the world are we going to be able to identify and implement the needed, most-effective solutions? [Which is, of course, one key reason why legislative bodies need serious, deliberative debate to produce worthwhile legislation...]

Thus, OFG, in this thread I didn’t even scratch the surface of the reasons why “getting rid of extended debate” [which is what "getting rid of the filibuster" means to me] in the U.S. Senate would be a profound mistake. [That, by the way, is the idea behind the future diary that selise referenced.] When OFG asserts, in so many words, that “extended debate in the Senate should be done away with,” my immediate reaction is: What extended debate? There is no extended debate (or much of any kind of debate) these days in the Senate, to the detriment of us all.

So I will be disappointed if OFG continues to use the term “the filibuster” in future, to describe current Senate practice, when he actually means either “the right to extended/unlimited debate” in the Senate or “the 60-vote cloture rule.” Because, OFG, you cannot possibly describe what passes for “the filibuster” in today’s Senate as what you quote from wiki – A filibuster (also known as speaking, talking out a bill or killdrivel) – can you?

One major symptom of the problem with the modern Senate is that the Senate voluntarily (both Parties, no rules involved) does not practice the reality of the filibuster (that is, extended debate), as defined by wiki, or otherwise engage in meaningful public debate. Is that the sort of self-governing legislature those calling for an end to “the filibuster” want to see maintained and continued in future? Because it’s the reality they’d be helping to make more or less permanent by forcing a fundamental change to the basic structure of the Senate, through rule, not practice, that would allow a lockstep simple majority to shut up a minority during real filibusters, or at any other time that the minority’s debate (and amending) was considered an inconvenience, or unwelcome.

Thus I’ve been trying to point out (which is made difficult when people misunderstand the existing Senate rules), in this thread and elsewhere, that the actual use of the filibuster is not at issue in the current debate about “the filibuster” in the Senate – because the filibuster has made no appearance in the Senate in decades now. And, thus, the deplorable, dangerous practice of abandoning the practice of genuine public debate has continued apace by the Senate incumbents of both Parties.

But does that mean, as OFG infers, that, therefore, we don’t now and won’t in future need that right to, and practice of, extended debate, particularly once, we all hope, we have managed to kick the corrupt incumbents out, and regained some control over our federal Congress? HELL NO.

In the world of what once was, and can be again (no rule changes needed), OFG, this is the truth:

2) The filibuster DOES NOT result in a requirement of a supermajority to pass legislation [absent the filing of a cloture motion by the majority].

And I am not about to throw away the right to extended debate in our Senate because a bunch of corrupt, fearful, or incompetent incumbents today refuse to engage in good-faith public debate, and instead hide behind swirling illusions and myths too-readily accepted as fact about how the Senate works, in order to make their lives easier, and to gain partisan advantage on the other Party.

As for what the “big deal” is about the right to extended debate, and why, in my opinion, getting “rid of it (if it doesn’t in effect make it impossible for the majority to pass legislation)” is profoundly unwise and self-defeating… See my opening about valuing genuine public debate, note the absence of it in our current Congress, and then look around at the present state of the nation and our “political discourse.” See a problem? Jeff Kaye does, commenting in his Omar Khadr diary thread today:

There is something I think meant to be demoralizing when you see the suppression of truth in front of your eyes, something horrifying. The blowback of U.S. war crimes domestically is the stultification of the society, a smothering of the senses, and a deadening of the mind and of political discourse. Only trivia is left, masquerading as importance.

Or to quote Senator Byrd, who put it very well in 1992 [10/2, Item 45] when speaking about a new edition of Riddick’s Senate Procedure, as he related a portion of Vice President Stevenson’s 1897 farewell address to the Senate over which he had presided (a farewell warning which, I think, itself gets to the heart of the matter):

Now, Vice President Adlai Stevenson spoke [in 1897] as follows:

It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body are founded deep in human experience; that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort in legislative hall, to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict. By its rules the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own power. Of those who clamor against the Senate, and its methods of procedure, it may be truly said: `They know not what they do.’ In this Chamber alone are preserved, without restraint, two essentials of wise legislation and of good government–the right of amendment and of debate.

Parenthetically, let me state that therein for the most part, not entirely but for the most part, lies the uniqueness of this legislative body, the greatest Senate in the history of the world, the American Senate: The ability to amend and, more particularly, to debate at length.

Great evils often result from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation. In my humble judgment, the historic Senate–preserving the unrestricted right of amendment and of debate, maintaining intact the time-honored parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure action after deliberation–possesses in our scheme of government a value which can not be measured by words.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

– Senator Robert Byrd, 10/2/1992

This, I think, is a truism which those who want to strangle the right (which still exists) and practice (which has fallen into disuse) of extended debate in our Senate, and thus further entrench the undemocratic practices of today’s Party leadership-dominated Congress, must not be allowed to ignore, as they campaign for a profound change to a legislative body that has served our nation for over 200 years, essentially unchanged:

Great evils often result from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows full discussion and deliberation.

The attempt to do away with the filibuster reminds me of the folks who think that term limits are a good idea. Seems they haven’t really thought it through.

And with the last powwow comment selise if you don’t see some condescending language in there then you’re not looking.

And Mary, I love you too, but disagree. You can disagree with me, but to accuse me of not thinking it through is IMO arrogant to think you know what’ I’ve thought about and what I haven’t.

First of all, it’s asserted by seleise and powwow that the effective result of the filibuster is NOT to require 60 votes to pass legislation. I can find no evidence that that is true. Each congressional session is of a finite length (it is not indefinite) as a new Congress must be sworn in every two years. If the minority party is serious enough, what’s to prevent them from extending debate all the way through an entire Congress? And if there is nothing to stop them, then all the word games in the world aren’t going to change the fact that that means it effectively requires a super majority to pass legislation as no legislation would be able to pass.

Did you find something in the rules that limited the filibuster to a certain number of hours if they go through with it? The only limiting language I could find (but admittedly not as knowledgable as folks here) is the limite of one speech per Congressional day per issue. And the majority could use the strategy of not adjourning so that a Congressional day extends to several. ANd then they can stop the minority from getting multiple chances at filibustering the same issue.

However, that does NOT mean that the majority WILL end the filibuster. It merely means it’s possible, if the minority screws up and all of it’s members use up their one speech per issue.

What other methods did you find for the majority to end the filibuster?? Are you saying the Republicans, that IMO have proven time and time again that they would do ANYTHING do get their way, were uninformed when they threatened the nuclear option because the nuclear option wasn’t necessary?? Do you really believe if there were other methods to end debate that they weren’t aware of them and would use them to pass tax cuts for the rich??

Powwow’s arrogance doesn’t stop there. He insists that his idea of debate is the only “good” one when he ridicules me and others for wanting to limit debate.

There hasn’t been real debate IN THE SENATE for decades. the real debate takes place in the public now, thanks to our electronic media. Back in the beginning, real debate did occur in the Senate, and it was essential as that was the ONLY debate available.

Today, both sides go into the Senate building in the morning WELL AWARE of the stance the other side takes on whatever issue of the day is important, as well as being aware of their arguments for why. The same result of a real debate.

Until you prove there is a failsafe, no way to get around, method for the majority to end debate if the minority is united and motivated to carry out all of it’s available means to extend debate, then the END RESULT IS THAT A SUPER MAJORITY is required to pass legislation. You haven’t provided the evidence yet that there is a method for the majority to end debate and pass legislation in the face of a united and motivated minority willing to run out the clock on the entire Congressional session if that’s what it takes.

And until someone does provide that evidence, I will continue to advocate for the end of the filibuster. Because if there is no such method (and I believe there isn’t), then the net effect is, as stated, a requirement for a supermajority to pass legislation. And IMO that is undemocratic and anti-Constitutional.

And Mary, I have thought it through. IMO, it’s the ones on the other side that are “scared” of the result if the Republicans regain power in DC that haven’t thought it through. Because you see, if that happens, then there is NOTHING to stop them from ending the filibuster too. Nothing.

How many people here realy believe that if things were reversed it would be the same?? If the Republicans had just won the White House, House, and Senate, by the largest margins in a generation that seems like a pretty clear mandate from the voting public, do you really believe they wouldn’t end the filibuster if the Democrats did the exact same thing they’re doing and filibustered everything? Come on, you know better.

Today’s issues are debated over the airwaves and over this very thing we’re using now, and both sides are well aware of the stance and arguments of the other. There is no need for unlimited debate IN THE SENATE.

You can accuse me of whatever you want powwow, but IMO the filibuster should be ended, the effective requirement of 60 votes to pass legislation or confirm appointments done away with, and let the party that wins elections have the power they need to govern in the way they want. If they don’t govern well, our system has a check for that. It’s called elections and we can throw them out.

Now I’ll say something possibly inflamatory and see if it doesn’t get under your skin the way many of powwows comments in that last piece got under mine.

Those who advocte for keeping the filibuster merely want the status quo and want to make change as hard as possible. Because that’s the net result of the filibuster as used today, so advocating for it is advocating for the status quo and making change as hard as possible. IMO, this country needs so much changing that we need to look at making it easier.

There, like that?? I basically just called you.. what?? I dunno, but I’ll bet that last paragraph got under your skin too.

Peace out to all, I won’t respond further to powwow again and in this thread anymore.

But as an American with right, I too have the right to advocate for that which I believe. And I believe the filibuster is being used to maintain the status quo in a time when anything but that is needed. So I’ll continue to make the call for the end of the filibuster. You can continue to call me crazy for doing so, I don’t give a shit.

First of all, it’s asserted by seleise and powwow that the effective result of the filibuster is NOT to require 60 votes to pass legislation. I can find no evidence that that is true

you can find no evidence? did you call the senate parliamentarian’s office, read riddicks or read the working threads in the link i gave you? i mean, how hard did you really look? the dem leadership is lying to us (about this and about other stuff — economic policy is the worst i’ve found) and if we don’t hold them accountable then who will?

selise, if it’s there, point me to it.

If I had evidence of something you were asking about, I’d not just list an index with hundreds (thousands??) of pages to read. I’d link you to the exact page, paragraph, and sentence that was required.

Do you not want to link it for me?? Why??? Did I do something wrong??

p.s. “But as an American with right, I too have the right to advocate for that which I believe. And I believe the filibuster is being used to maintain the status quo in a time when anything but that is needed.”

yup. you can believe what you want. evolution, creationism or whatever. you can advocate for it too. but if you are going to ignore the evidence that is available to counter what you believe, then how is this not analogous to the creationism/evolution arguments?

p.s. not all change is for the good — please don’t forget that gutting ss and medicare is on the table.

And to you selise, for the massive and painstaking contributions to the series, hat is off.

For anyone wanting to know the root of this argument, rereading the entire series would flip your impression of what a filibuster really is. It was by far the most complex reading I have done at FDL, but it is a monument. Very satisfying.

Oh, and I know the dem leadership is lying to us. There was never a need for 60 votes to begin with. The reason they claimed that was because they didn’t want the public option, drug reimportation, single payer, etc. etc. etc.

This is another reason why I want the filibuster ended. So it can no longer be used as an excuse.

And please link me to the evidence. I’ve been wrong so many times in my life that I’m quite used to it and have learned to change my mind where necessary. When I see the evidence that a filibuster can be broken without a supermajority, then I WILL STOP CALLING FOR IT’s END. Because then it’s not necessary to end it.

Peace out selise.

I hope you have a wonderful day tomorrow and every day after that. You’re one of the good ones, and I know that.

i’m sorry i don’t have the time or energy to walk you through it tonight. but when i did (have the time/energy) i tried to make a compilation of the arguments and the applicable references to provide a list of source material for others. please note that i included key passages so you mostly (working threads excepted) don’t have to read beyond what is in the reference list. also, most all of it has already been posted previously at fdl.

thanks reading newt. lots of weeds to go through.

peace out OFG, thanks and good days to you too. i hope i can find the time/energy to reply in a more helpful (and condensed) way at some point. but even if i can, it is unlikely to be soon. until then, all i have to offer is the link above to the reference list.

Read a lot and already found one mistake of mine. It’s TWO speeches per issue per legislative day. It had been a long time and my old memory was insisting one.

so far, one major area I’m wrong on. Although to be fair, that only gives the minority more weapons.

As soon as I find the evidence that there is no way for the minority to run the clock out and effectively block legislation, I will post it here. (Or somewhere else if this is closed).

Now have read more and scanned more, and am coming to the conclusion that it is THE OPINION of some here that filibuster can be stopped without a supermajority by making them filibuster and trying to take advantage of the rules available.

Again, however, where’s the evidence that the filibuster can be ended if the minority is united and committed and doesn’t make any mistakes??

It seems to me now (although I’m going to read more) that these folks here simply disagree with getting rid of the filibuster (which is fine) and are merely trying to CLAIM it can be ended without a super majority.

Also, I think it’s fair for all reading to note that if the evidence were clear and unmistakeable, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal to link to it. After all, I can link to the method available to end the filibuster in session with only a majority (and the Vice President) on board.

Ok, I’ve been reading for over two hours and I’m still too big of an idiot to find it there.

Could powwow or selise PLEASE PLEASE do a diary at The Seminal listing the step by step procedure that a simple majority can take to end a filibuster. Once it’s there then we can all link to it and call BULLSHIT when the Democrats try to claim they can’t.

Thank you.

Boy, stayed up until all hours of the night reading because I was upset that I had been accused of ignoring the evidence on the level of creationists.

Then of course the morning arrives and along with my functioning brain.

selise, talk about ignoring evidence.

Perhaps you should re-read my initial post that you responded to.

I said there was only one of two possibilities. And then I said, and I do mean it, that IMO the filibuster should be done away with IN EITHER CASE. EVEN IF IT’s NUMBER TWO. Remember??? I said even if it’s NOT in effect a requirement for a super majority to pass legislation it should still be gotten rid of SO THE POLS CAN NO LONGER USE IT AS AN EXCUSE.

Now, you can disagree with that. We can all always disagree.

But to say I’m “ignoring evidence” on a scale with creationists???

I could say the same thing selise. “Geez, you really are ignoring the evidence like someone with their head buried in the sand if you don’t see that the pols use it as an excuse to not pass legislation. Boy, talk about ignoring evidence.”

How does that feel? No, I’m sure you see that the pols use it as an excuse but still support keeping the filibuster. OK. There’s nothing wrong with that. that’s your opinion, and it doesn’t mean you’re a deniar on the level of creationists or global warming deniars.

Yet when I say I STILL wish for the filibuster to be done away with EVEN IF IT CAN BE DEFEATED, I’m ignoring evidence??????

Come on selise, you’re better than that.

I swear to all, mods, selise, everyone, this will be my last post. I don’t know why it got to me the way it did, but I suspect it was because of the language selise used because she is someone that I will ALWAYS respect, even if I disagree with her. I suppose you could say it hurt. I’m terribly sorry for all of the posts and to keep beating the issue. I promise I’m done now.

Hope everyone has a great day, and a wonderful, safe, and prosperous future.

Peace.

Joe Weakley, Jr.
OldFatGuy

Joe -

I am not ridiculing you, by asking you to think twice about what appears to me to be your too-hasty desire to do away with the future possibility of genuine debate in our Senate. [There are people, as I said, who are too impatient to be bothered with debate once they've made up their own minds ("move the question!" being perhaps their motto), and I may not think much of that approach to legislating or democratic self-government, but I recognize that such personalities do exist (unfortunately even in our Congress). The opinions you've expressed here do seem to trend in that direction, but if I unfairly lumped you into that category, I apologize.] Call it “arrogance” if you like, but my opinion about this is instinctive and profoundly held, and thus I absolutely disagree that we should simply settle for the disgraceful status quo:

There hasn’t been real debate IN THE SENATE for decades. The real debate takes place in the public now, thanks to our electronic media. Back in the beginning, real debate did occur in the Senate, and it was essential as that was the ONLY debate available.

Today, both sides go into the Senate building in the morning WELL AWARE of the stance the other side takes on whatever issue of the day is important, as well as being aware of their arguments for why. The same result of a real debate.

If that’s all the “debate” we can or should expect in our federal Congress, then what’s the point of a legislative body, at all? Why don’t we have the “debate” on CNN or MSNBC, let the White House write the legislation in its back rooms, and then give it to Pelosi and Reid to shove through the “Congress” any way they can (as basically seems to be happening now)?

The results of that form of “debate” are all around us, and they are not a pretty sight. Obviously, too, they had newspapers back in the day, in which publishers and editors, at least, were able to engage in debate about the issues before Congress, even as Congress itself conducted its own debates.

Moreover, that form of “public (media-hosted) debate” is not conducted on a level playing field, please note. Our representatives do not all have an equal voice on TV, or equal access to the airwaves or national newspapers. The Parties may have equal access, but as I’ve indicated, that is not my concern. I do not believe that a few Party spokesmen can or should purport to speak for every Member of Congress who happens to belong to that Party. Our Congress is not a Parliament, despite the fact that most Members of Congress seem to behave today as though they think it is.

Could powwow or selise PLEASE PLEASE do a diary at The Seminal listing the step by step procedure that a simple majority can take to end a filibuster. Once it’s there then we can all link to it and call BULLSHIT when the Democrats try to claim they can’t.

Thank you.

I’m sorry I didn’t see that request sooner, OFG (you seem to be advancing from issue to issue, as you read more, and I obviously can’t foresee your questions, although I’m trying to discern what you find confusing or unclear about my explanations). I believe what you’re looking for is my comment here in our third working thread. That comment was the culmination of our deconstruction of the myth (promoted by the Senate Majority Leader’s office, no less) that the Democrats can no longer force a real filibuster.

The fact that the Democrats can still force a filibuster, however, does not mean that there’s a “failsafe” way to guarantee that every filibuster can be speedily brought to an end or always waited out. But please note that the longest one-man filibuster in Senate history lasted 24 hours. [I don't want to go off on another tangent here, but I'll note, for comparison, that the optional cloture rule itself forces a minimum of two days delay before a cloture vote is held, and possibly more than a week of delay, for every motion filed. All, these days, in the absence of actual floor debate, which a real filibuster would entail.]

Since you indicate that you want to “get rid of the excuse for politicians to use” with regard to the filibuster, I hope you see now how helping to maintain the pretense that actual filibusters are taking place in the Senate does just that. If we go along with calling non-filibusters (the lack of extended debate) “filibusters,” then we provide cover for the Democrats to keep filing all their (voluntary) cloture motions, which impose supermajority rule on the Senate in the absence of actual filibusters (that is, in the absence of actual debate).

I’ll leave it there for the moment, but this comment thread should remain open until after midnight, at least, and I’ll return to read OFG’s responses (which I’ve so far just scanned) more carefully later on.

What’s with the inability to directly address me, OFG? I don’t know to whom your comment @ 124, and most of the questions in it, are addressed, but apparently you don’t want answers from me, and would rather discuss my preceding comment(s) without directly replying to them? Or has Teddy’s petty, gratuitous insult about my first substantive comment of the thread cast a hex that all Good People must avoid?

I won’t respond in kind to your unfriendly characterization of my attempted factual explanations as a form of personal attack on you. Instead, I commend you for taking the time to tackle and debate this issue in this thread, when others have fled the field. It’s a challenge, to be sure – unfortunately one that has apparently not been pleasant for either of us. You did sort of walk into an ambush, because I assumed you’d been reading at least some of my earlier comments on this issue, and weren’t going to be so (seemingly) caught off-guard. And (assuming you were addressing me) I certainly don’t think, and didn’t say, and therefore won’t continue to say, that you are “crazy” for having an opinion that differs from mine (though I don’t understand the reluctance to call things by their real names).

Filibuster/cloture aside, you and I appear to have irreconcilable views about how the United States Congress should function. Which does not mean, I hope it’s clear, that either of us is “arrogant’ for holding the view that we do, or for simply trying to be precise in our language when discussing this complex, confusing issue.

I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but I interpret your latest comments to mean that you heartily approve of the way that the U.S. House now conducts its business (along rigid, completely-partisan, top-down Party lines, where members of the minority Party have almost no input into legislation, unless a democratic-minded majority Party – particularly its leadership – lets them, and floor debate is a bunch of time-squeezed Party talking points of no real substance).

Because of the way that Senate terms are staggered, is it accurate to say that we can “vote out” a Party en masse, as you state? We can occasionally flip the balance of Party power in the House (despite its 90% incumbent re-election rates), if campaigns and candidates nationwide successfully make the election primarily about control of the House in every individual House district at the same time. But – at the moment – the Democratic Party is openly violating key tenets of its Party platform. So what would we be voting for or against, exactly? The fact that we scorn Sarah Palin and John Boehner, and that means “Democrats,” no matter their individual actions or worth in office, must win at all costs, even if a Republican opponent – like the six who just voted with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to get covert U.S. forces out of Pakistan – clearly has views that better match our own?

I think this argument – including the claim that Republicans will inevitably “get rid of” extended debate next time they are the Senate majority – gives too much credence to the finger-pointing of TV talking heads and partisan blog coverage, and too little to the actual realities inside Congress. [For one thing, as everyone keeps pointing out, the current crop of Democrats rarely ever objected, never mind filibustered, when they were in the minority - so what's not to like for the Republicans, whether in the minority or the majority?] It seems to assume that House realities are the same as Senate realities, and accepts what I consider to be a deplorably-undemocratic House as the best we can and should do for ourselves, in our one and only federal legislature.

As for assuming that some of us want “the status quo” (of non-filibusters?) “to make change as hard as possible” because it [meaning, I guess, supermajority cloture motions (which I've been explaining are unnecessary in the absence of unbreakable filibusters)] keeps things from passing quickly…. Ummmm – 2002 Iraq AUMF? AIPAC-drafted Israel Loyalty Oaths? Iran sanctions? “Emergency” supplemental war funding bills? “Revised” Military Commissions Act? Defunding the closing of Guantanamo? Revising FOIA to hide evidence of torture by the American Armed Forces? PATRIOT Act revisions expanding domestic surveillance? UnConstitutional ACORN defunding bans? Etc., etc. (including possible future Catfood Commission recommendations defaulting on Social Security’s bonds). How much “genuine public debate” did any of those get before they sped through Congress, most through a Democratic-majority Congress, including the supposedly “filibuster”-strangled Senate? Do we really “need to look at making it easier” to do all that, and more?

You can keep calling what’s going on in the Senate today “a filibuster,” but saying so won’t make it so. It will just provide cover for the Democrats to maintain their supermajority operation of the Senate, without anyone pointedly asking them why they don’t at least force filibusters to begin before filing their cloture motions. [And, again, this is not a personal attack. It's just pointing out that if we don't call things by their real names, we cannot speak about the issue in a clearcut way, or hope to be understood. A "cloture motion" is not "a filibuster." (The drafters of the 1917 cloture rule could not have foreseen a Senate where cloture motions were filed in the absence of debate, I'm sure.) And the option of "cloture" didn't exist before 1917 in the Senate, so what qualifed as "a filibuster" before then? The Republicans are (apparently) quietly saying "No" in private to unanimous consent requests from Harry Reid that would waive the rules and regular order, and allow things to speed through the Senate with a minimum of floor debate and amending. That too is not "a filibuster."]

In closing, you don’t seem to value as much as I do the power of public debate (on a level playing field, without artificial time limits or TV commercial interruptions preventing follow-up) to hold elected officials accountable. That public accountability, along with the ease and ability to avoid accountability to which they’ve all become accustomed by abandoning floor debate in the Senate, is a key reason why of course the Republican Party under Frist didn’t want to force the real filibuster back into existence, rather than searching high and low for a “nuclear” option to threaten the Democrats with instead. The Republican Party leadership’s logic back then was pretty much the same, I imagine, as the Democratic Party leadership’s logic now, which is keeping them from forcing the real filibuster back into existence now that they’re in the Senate majority.

Is that okay? Should we let the Parties get away with that? Or should we just assume it’s too difficult and entrenched to change? My answers are No, No, and No, though “difficult” it no doubt will be.