Do away with the filibuster? Is it that simple?

[Clio the Leo]

I apologize in advance for writing such a long OP because I know I usually skip those myself, but this could be a major turning point.

So the most intriguing thing to watch in all of this has been how last night's election is effecting the health care bill. You have the President scheduling the SOTU in seven days when the prevailing notion seemed to be he wanted a health care bill before then. You have http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x133420">Reid and Pelosi signaling they may try to pass the Senate bill and then fix it later via reconciliation. Of course http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_1_0_t&usg=AFQjCNEO1dkuqpTBAnYgGGXfSV6SqI4hqA&sig2=nqCOKJpnfAPp83R0QgShqg&cid=17593697410243&ei=2gVXS7jkEKmy8gT-wsod&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fblog-briefing-room%2Fnews%2F76753-weiner-health-reform-likely-dead-if-gop-wins-in-mass">Weiner is saying "Hold on!" And you have Lawrence O'Donnell saying that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x137786">reconciliation STILL requires 60 votes.

Yet the party http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x137217">is ready to seat Brown immediately and NOT try to get a bill signed before he drives his truck and double parks it on Capitol Hill.

It's puzzeling.

But then my wheels started turning when I was laying in bed last night and I got to thinking....

There has been chatter in recent days from Sexy Love Beast Vice President Biden about the filibuster.

Biden criticizes use of filibuster: ‘No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.’

Speaking at a fundraiser this Sunday, Vice President Biden warned that the Senate minority’s routine use of the filibuster to obstruct the majority’s agenda is both unprecedented and dangerous:

“As long as I have served, … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they’ve done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators,” Biden said. “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.”

Biden is right about the unprecedented nature of GOP obstructionism. According to a study by UCLA Political Scientist Barbara Sinclair, only 8 percent of major legislation was subjected to the filibuster during the 1960s. That number rose to a staggering 70% during the 110th Congress — the last two years that President Bush was in office — and filibustering has only grown more common since President Obama took office. Biden and his former Senate colleagues are not powerless against this expansion of the filibuster, however. Every two years, when the Senate’s newly-elected members take their seats, a brief window opens up allowing 51 senators (or 50 senators plus the Vice President) to eliminate the filibuster by simple majority vote. If the Vice President is determined to end the era of right-wing obstructionism, all he has to do is whip up 50 votes.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/19/biden-filibuster/

(and I'm VERY excited reading that last part because I wasn't even aware they could do it with only 51 votes until just now)

But was the administration floating a trial balloon?

And then you have part of Barney's weird comments last night....

I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/frank-i-hope-some-gop-senators-will-support-health-care-reform----because-without-them-bill-may-be-t.php

Could Barney be reacting to insider knowledge that he has that the admin may be trying to do away with or change the filibuster in order to pass the HCR bill (which would, in effect, be the Senate bill.)

A reconciliation fix to the bill later wouldn't be a problem If you no longer had to have 60 votes.

Well, as it turns out Tom Harkin came up with a plan to do this 14 years ago... (and my apologies if we've already discussed this and I just missed it)

End the filibuster! An interview with Sen. Tom Harkin

(article heavily snipped but PLEASE read the whole thing!)

You're supposed to filibuster something that is a deep seated issue. But in September, we had an extension on unemployment insurance. We had a filibuster that lasted over three weeks. They held up everything. And in the end, the vote was 97 to one. Filibusters are no longer used to debate something, but to stop everything.

Tell me a bit about your reform bill. When you first introduced this, Joe Lieberman was your co-sponsor, right?

Well, I introduced that first in 1995, when we were in the minority. I'm going to reintroduce that again in January. And people are going to say I only worry about this because I'm in the majority. But I come with clean hands! I started when I was in the minority!

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there's some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you're not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it's 54 votes. And then you'd wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

The traditional objection to these sorts of reform ideas is that you're removing a hallowed Senate rule and fundamentally changing the nature of the institution.

The history of the filibusters is instructive on that point. It was done to allow senators to get back to Washington. In those days, it could take a week or two for senators to get back from different states. The filibuster ensured a small group couldn't go into session before the others could get here.

Also, legislators wanted time to get word out to the populace so they could pressure their representatives. It was a means of protecting the minority who couldn't be here and getting some time for people to know what we're doing. Both of those reasons have gone by the wayside. With travel, people can get here in a few hours, and with television and radio and internet, people know very quickly whats going on here.

Have you tested the waters with your colleagues in general, and your Republican colleagues more specifically?

I haven't yet. I'm going to do that in January. We're going to send a dear colleague letter looking for co-sponsors.

<snip>

It's just a bad situation. In the past, we had Republicans who wanted to do legislation so they were willing to work with you and make compromises. But that's not what were facing right now. In all the debt limit votes we've had before, we always got Republican votes. And Democrats always voted on Republican debt limits. This time, Senator McConnell told Harry Reid that if he wants to pass an increase in the the debt limit, he owns it. "Never before have we required sixty votes to pass a debt limit."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/end_the_filibuster_an_intervie.html

So .... could THIS be the miracle solution? .... Dare we to DREAM!!? .... Thoughts?

[Deep13]

1. The filibuster is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

And as a practical matter, we can't afford it. The RW already has a built-in advantage in that square states out west have the same senate voting power as NY and CA. And the presidency answers to that same advantage since electors of a state equal at least three votes despite small size. We as a nation simply cannot afford to allow the will of a small minority to overrule an election result. There are things that simply have to be fixed and at this rate we will be a 3rd world nation before they are.

The Constitution guarantees equal representation of states in the Senate. Filibusters undo that guarantee.

[Jersey Devil]

19. Maybe, but no court is going to mess with Senate Rules

That's a line no Supreme Court will ever cross in my opinion.

[still_one]

2. there is nothing that indicates to me that they would do that. In fact just the opposite

when the republicans threatened the "nuke" option, a group of Democrats were solidly against it. I do not think they would change now, and I have no doubt the republicans wouldn't want it now

The Democrats have no guts to do it

[Clio the Leo]

4. Do you have a link for that?

.... I'm not arguing with you, I'd really like to see more information on that side of the issue.

[treestar]

15. Guts schmuts

Then neither did the Republicans when they were in power.

[elocs]

3. Well, when the Republicans again control the Senate (and they will)

ending the filibuster will then not be a dream for Democrats, but a nightmare. Of course, not that the Dems ever actually used it to stop any of the Bushco stuff.

[Clio the Leo]

5. Exactly....

.... Dems (according to "Audacity") were only wiling to use it to block judicial appointments who really couldn't be removed. And it's not like what Harkin is suggesting that there be NO filibuster, but that there be limits on it.

And as he said, he came up with this plan WHILE the Dems were in the minority. .... and to make it even more interesting, Lieberman was apparently the co-sponsor.

Biden may make some "gaffes" but he does NOT go off message. Everything he and the President say in public is calculated.

Something's up......

[earthside]

7. The cost of democracy.

If the Democrats don't end this current version of the filibuster rule that kills even votes on legislation, well, the Republicans will probably be back in the majority next year.

Yes, I think the situation is that critical.

But, this hedging on getting rid of the vote killing filibuster because the Repugs might get the majority again someday is an example of the risk aversion attitude that is causing so many voters to have contempt for the Democrats.

Let's have rule of the majority democracy in the U.S. Senate and if the Democrats can then pass good progressive legislation, then they will be rewarded on election day. And in the future if the Repugs regain a majority, then they will have to face the same risk with the voters.

I don't fear that, why do so many Democrats fear rule of the majority?

[Jennicut]

6. The Filibuster used to not debate but to obstruct is utter crap. Jon Stewart is right. We have a

majority. Repubs would not hesitate to change to rules to get what they want. The Senate, led by Harry Reid, is becoming increasingly weak.

And yes, Clio, Biden IS a Sexy Love Beast and I will always stand by that assessment. :)

[treestar]

13. Did the Republicans have a chance to?

I remembered they threatened, but obviously did not go through with it.

[Jennicut]

16. They never needed to. The Dems never obstructed in they way the Rethugs too.

They are constantly ruthless and unfortunately we have to be as clever as they are.

[Puglover]

8. I wish I knew more about

senate procedures. I do know that the Repukes passed alot with 51 votes and we can't seem to do that. I also know that requiring 60 votes to pass legislation is hamstringing our country and it should be done away with.

[Clio the Leo]

9. They were able to do it because Dems weren't abusing the filibuster...

.... like the GOP is now.

[treestar]

14. Right. And they didn't want much more than tax cuts, which apparently fit

the limits for reconciliation.

[nod factor]

10. Circular logic.

Seriously now folks, filibustering a bill that has been properly sold to the public and is popular is politically damaging and even repubs wouldn't do it.

You would think this would be obvious but people in here are too busy rationalizing defeat to see the forest.

If you can't sell it then don't try to rahm it.

Bush sold his agenda and a plurality of the populace either bought it or were still too traumatized from 9/11 to bother.

I am convinced Obama is not a true blue liberal a la Ted Kennedy or my personal favorite Wes Clark.

For one he never describes himself as such and it's always this "pragmatic, progressive, new dem" crap.

For all that political capital and "hitting the ground running" coming off such a historic win to not just fucking nationalize the banks already and just offer a simple, lean, HC bill articulating universal, single-payer coverage proves just how "pragmatic" he really is.

[Clio the Leo]

11. But we're BEYOND that point now....

... and we have no time to look back.

[treestar]

12. God I hope so!

I hope you are right, Clio!

the Repubs have abused the filibuster.

And Harkin's reasoning is great!

It just sucks that we have the majority and the Repukes can still get in the way.

Granted those Blue Dogs would still be a problem, but at least they would be involved and not just say no!

[Clio the Leo]

17. Update: "Democrats Unlikely to Attempt Filibuster Rule Change in Effort to Pass Health Reform"

Poopie....

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/democrats-unlikely-to-attempt-filibuster-rule-change-in-effort-to-pass-health-reform/

[Imajika]

18. I oppose the filibuster...

I think it is undemocratic.

However, are people really so sure they want that?

I seem to remember years upon years of DUers demanding filibusters when Bush was in office and the Republicans controlled congress.

Maybe people really mean "abolish the filibuster when the Republicans are using/abusing it"?

I would bet if the exact opposite political situation held true, ie Republicans in the majority and Democrats blocking everything with the filibuster, this entire forum would be one giant defense of how patriotic and wonderful the filibuster is.