As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Busting the Filibuster
galenblade
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
On the heels of the MA Senate election and the growing discontent focused on the Senate, this op-ed in the NYT seems relevant.
Lots more at the link. In essence, the argument is thus: rule by supermajority was viewed by the founders (or at least Hamilton in the Federalist Papers) as foolish. “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” Supermajority rule slows the legislative process, and in effect gives too much power to an intractable minority.
The chief enforcer of the de facto supermajority rule is the filibuster, or more specifically Rule 22 of the Senate, which was adopted in 1975. It makes the filibuster easier to invoke and maintain. It's been the cause of much consternation, to say the least.
The article posits a few ways to overturn Rule 22. They are:
1. Condemnation by the House.
2. An opinion from the sitting VP/President of the Senate questioning the constitutionality of the filibuster. (More likely than you think. He even paraphrases the Federalist Papers.)
3. Grassroots action to turn support of filibusters into a political wedge issue.
4. Supreme Court ruling.
I've heard it floated that there be an expiration date put on Rule 22, say 15 years out so that no one knows which party will reap the benefits.
What do you think about the filibuster? Useful legislative tool for the minority, or overpowered? And if the latter, what would be the most expedient way to resolve the filibuster/supermajority deadlock?
ABOUT the Senate, a college professor of mine used to say, “One day, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.” He was joking, I think.
But the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional: as we saw during the recent health care debacle, a 60-vote majority is required to overcome a filibuster and pass any contested bill. The founders, though, were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.
Lots more at the link. In essence, the argument is thus: rule by supermajority was viewed by the founders (or at least Hamilton in the Federalist Papers) as foolish. “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” Supermajority rule slows the legislative process, and in effect gives too much power to an intractable minority.
The chief enforcer of the de facto supermajority rule is the filibuster, or more specifically Rule 22 of the Senate, which was adopted in 1975. It makes the filibuster easier to invoke and maintain. It's been the cause of much consternation, to say the least.
The article posits a few ways to overturn Rule 22. They are:
1. Condemnation by the House.
2. An opinion from the sitting VP/President of the Senate questioning the constitutionality of the filibuster. (More likely than you think. He even paraphrases the Federalist Papers.)
3. Grassroots action to turn support of filibusters into a political wedge issue.
4. Supreme Court ruling.
I've heard it floated that there be an expiration date put on Rule 22, say 15 years out so that no one knows which party will reap the benefits.
What do you think about the filibuster? Useful legislative tool for the minority, or overpowered? And if the latter, what would be the most expedient way to resolve the filibuster/supermajority deadlock?
galenblade on
0
Posts
Its next most famous accomplishment is miring the current healthcare debate in a seemingly interminable process of crippling compromise and procedural gamesmanship.
It is time to get rid of the filibuster. It was never a particularly good idea and has now become a serious threat to the health of the republic.
However, I can't help but notice how markedly different the general opinion was on this matter when the Republicans offered to get rid of the filibuster back in 2005.
I cannot speak to the motivations of anyone else, but I was actually super eager for the Republicans to invoke the "nuclear option" because I knew that some time in the future the Republicans would want to filibuster something.
Sometimes looking ahead can be good strategy.
I don't think so. It hasn't really become a wedge issue yet, for some reason. I suppose with the supermajority, the Dem grassroots hasn't really seen it as an issue worth tackling. With 59 votes now, it may gain more prominence.
There was some talk about it becoming a political issue once Congress pivots from health care to financial reform, as there may be more public support to removing the filibuster if it's used to derail economic issues - something that has a tremendous amount of public support. The two would dovetail. I'm not sure if that was more than speculation, though.
I don't think this one will take a movement. It's a question of parliamentary procedure. Once the "nuclear option" has been invoked (which only takes a simple majority), precedent is set and the filibuster would be unconstitutional.
*twitch*
That's not how constitutional law works.
What about a statement that outlines not only the current practical political problems with that requirement, but also makes a constitutional case using the will of the framers as an argument? And a historical demonstration of the sharp growth of its use over the last couple decades?
We wouldn't even be all alone in this. Biden has spoken on record against the 60-vote requirement.
From what I understand (and I could be quite incorrect), there's no real negative consequence to filibustering for the folks doing the filibuster. It doesn't prevent the Senate from voting on other bills, and the folks doing the filibustering don't have to pull a Mr. Smith and stay awake and speaking for days on end.
I suspect the answer is that he is afraid of his corporate contributors.
Biden is one of the few individuals who could claim standing that rule 22 is unconstitutional. He is one of the only individuals who could bring a case against Reid, eventually to be taken to SCOTUS, to find that the supermajority requirements of the new filibuster are unconstitutional.
Of course, never in a million years would he do this.
Citing Wikipedia, the source of all human knowledge:
Emphasis mine. It is my understanding that the nuclear option is a Senate finding declaring the filibuster unconstitutional. Please correct me.
http://www.breitbart.tv/barney-frank-god-didnt-create-the-filibuster/
Yeah. And if there's anything to go nuclear over, it's this.
Oh... god... those comments. They're so horrible. Here's one example:
"G-d didn’t create homo’s either, but we have put up with you."
Edit: My god, the level of anti-gay hate in those comments is maddening. I really would love to meet one of those people in person, so I could punch them right in the face.
We should get right on this
A minority party shouldn't be allowed to continuously block legislation, especially since it is obvious that the current Republicans, and those that inspired this New York Times 1995 editorial, have no intention of allowing the Democrats to do any sort of actual governance.
On the other hand, the Senate is given a great responsibility in vetting judicial and other nominees. I believe parties of either side should be able to filibuster nominees since a candidate's impact will be far beyond a simple up-down vote.
It's amazing how the sides have switched over the past 5 years.
Apparently it only takes a simple majority to remove it. Also, this kind of thinking is really bad. How can we ever improve anything if nothing ever gets done? We will just stagnate. In other democracies they can actually see the results of the legislation by the people they elected and act accordingly. In the US we don't see any results, then we get pissed and vote for the other side, in which we either don't see any results and get pissed again, or see wildly reactionary results. Our system is set up so that only short sighted populism prevails.
but they're listening to every word I say
Everything is terrible when it the other side doing it to you, fucking hypocrites.
Actually if you read the article you'll find that the Democrats have a good reason to be allowed to block legislation, as they represent states which have the majority of the US population.
Honestly what we need is two fold.
i) The idea from the first article. Every time you block a bill, it will be harder to block it next time. Decreasing votes required to pass it by x.
ii) Remove the idea of two senators per state. Instead assign each state one senator per 3 million people, rounded up. So California gets 13, Texas gets 7, Virginia 3, Missisipi 1 etc. It's absurd to have it nowadays when the senate is so powerful. Both houses should be representative of population, since they both have a defined job.
Everyone can agree that the filibuster is an incredibly broken rule. It forces the requirement for a supermajority for any highly 'controversial' (not really controversial considering the massive public support for a public option) bill.
So, instead of having the filibuster just stop the senatorial process dead in its tracks, why not modify the rule such that if 40 Senators wish to block the passing of a contentious bill, they are forced to draft an alternative bill, and the majority and minority bills are compared and brought into alignment through an impartial binding arbitration team?
EVERYBODY GETS ONE.
You get one filibuster per term. It may work, it may not work. Pick your issue wisely.
Or more than likely, always be saving it just incase, and then no one ever uses it, which is fine by me.
Wow, that is an unbelievably arcane process.
Nevertheless I am pretty sure that no matter what the Senate votes about it, the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide constitutionality. None of the Senate procedures are described in the Constitution, but judicial review is. The "nuclear option" is essentially a binding vote declaring that the Senate will go along with the president of the Senate's opinion of the filibuster's constitutionality; this vote would still be subject to judicial review if anyone with standing to bring a suit did so.
It's thinking like that that has me beat games with so many temporary boost items in my inventory!
I like it.
Want to block a major bill? You'd better be doing so with the support of your electorate.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
To up the ante, invoking the filibuster should also strip the Senator of all their seniority, which will provide a real and tangible cost. To make things interesting, only the 5 most senior members of a party may invoke the filibuster or something like that, to stop the freshman Senators getting routinely assigned bitch duty.
Right now all I hear is name calling, disgust, misinformation, delusion, and willful ignorance.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
All this said, have the Republicans actually invoked a filibuster on anything other than the HC bill? I'm Canadian, so I'm not paying all that much attention to it, but if it's just one (very wide-ranging) bill then this seems like the perfectly logical place for a filibuster, as they're supposed to force a compromise on extremely controversial bills. If they filibuster every single bill they don't like, then yeah, something has to be done, though.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Yes and No. The Canadian Senate has routinely gone against the wishes of the sitting government, despite who was in the government at the time, to temper bills and generally act as a damper on contentious issues. They're a real 'conservative' body in that they conserve the current state of the law, acting as "Sober, Second Sight".
The problem is more one of institutional philosophy, the Senate is as politically charged as the Congress in America, which means that effectively you just have two Congresses, except one grants much more power to individual members.
What would be the point of the senate if you did that? At that point why not just move to a unicameral system...I mean aside from the fact that either change would first require convincing the bulk of the midwest that California and New York really do have their best interests at heart.
- John Stuart Mill
I've heard a lot of arguments that California is a good predictor of what other states will pass into law within 5-10 years. Things like emission caps on cars, legalization of the mary-J etc.
Regardless, it won't happen. That would require a constitutional amendment which requires 2/3rds of the senate.
So it won't happen.
Bankruptcy levels of debt