Common Cause Takes a Stand on the Filibuster!

[Bricker]

@Common Cause Press Release

Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.

“The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “That’s abuse of power.”.
.
.
.
Common Cause on Monday launched an online petition in opposition to banning the filibuster and collected about 20,000 signatures in less than 48 hours.

“It’s clear that many Americans believe that the right of the minority party to dissent must be maintained,” Pingree said. “It’s important to the integrity of the Senate.”

In opposition to this view, we have the following statement from an apparently rival organization:

A filibuster is the use of unlimited debate not to inform or persuade, but to obstruct the proceedings of a legislative body and prevent the majority from taking action opposed by the minority.
.
.
.
The filibuster was clearly not an original part of the Founding Fathers’ vision of our government. If they had intended a 60-vote supermajority requirement to pass bills, they would have included it in the Constitution, just like they explicitly required a supermajority to override a presidential veto.

That rival organization sure is nutty, huh?

Of course, the rival organization is… (no surprise here)… Common Cause.

The first press release dates back to when the Democrats were in the minority. The latter is more recent, released now, when the Republicans are the minority.

This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t.

[Czarcasm]

Damn fine gotcha.
What’s the debate, again?

[elucidator]

It is good that we have such a watchdog as yourself, Counselor, to expose the rampant hypocrisy of the left regarding the insitution and use of the filibuster. I am, of course, crushed by this horrific development, and can only hope to see through my hot tears well enough to fill out this Republican Party registration form.

But wait! Is it possible…just possible, mind you!..that there is such hypocrisy regarding the use of the filibuster on the right? Perhaps I need not make so drastic a change…but no. No, even handed and fair as you are, utterly devoted to non-partisan truth, if there were such a thing, you would have mentioned it. Alas. I despair. Woe is me.

[Giles]

@Czarcasm

Damn fine gotcha.
What’s the debate, again?

Yes – what would interest me more would be Bricker’s view on the filibuster.

(I believe in majority rule, myself, so I don’t really care for the filibuster. What I’d do, if I had the power, is to reduce the power of the Senate, and move things like confirming judicial nominees to the more democratic House.)

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Damn fine gotcha.
What’s the debate, again?

The debate proposition: This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t.

I helpfully italicized it in the OP. Are you having trouble with your display?

[The_Second_Stone]

I’ve been in favor of removing the filibuster for 30 years, and the past 10 haven’t changed that at all. The Senate seems to love it, with only a handful of Senators wanting to eliminate it. Bricker seems to think that Common Cause changed its reasons solely because of who was getting their ox gored. That may be the case, or it could have a different board of directors, or they can have changed their mind. Hypocrisy might be the reason, nay, the sole reason for the change of their position, but then again, it may not. It might require an investigation into the facts. But wouldn’t once again redefining hypocrisy be so much easier? Be it resolved: hypocrisy is when someone you disagree with does something different that you still disagree with.

[Giles]

@Bricker

The debate proposition: This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t.

I helpfully italicized it in the OP. Are you having trouble with your display?

It helps to have two sides in a debate. Are you expecting the other side to show up soon?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

It is good that we have such a watchdog as yourself, Counselor, to expose the rampant hypocrisy of the left regarding the insitution and use of the filibuster. I am, of course, crushed by this horrific development, and can only hope to see through my hot tears well enough to fill out this Republican Party registration form.

But wait! Is it possible…just possible, mind you!..that there is such hypocrisy regarding the use of the filibuster on the right? Perhaps I need not make so drastic a change…but no. No, even handed and fair as you are, utterly devoted to non-partisan truth, if there were such a thing, you would have mentioned it. Alas. I despair. Woe is me.

No, no, the Right is, as I have so often said, utterly above such petty concerns. The Right takes a position and sticks to it. You won’t find any such position-switching on the part of the Right as relates to filibusters. Ever. Never ever.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

The debate proposition: This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t.

I helpfully italicized it in the OP. Are you having trouble with your display?

And your stand on filibusters is…?

[Bricker]

@Giles

It helps to have two sides in a debate. Are you expecting the other side to show up soon?

Yes, I am. I fully expect that there will be people in this thread who take the position that Common Cause was justified than and is justified now.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Yes, I am. I fully expect that there will be people in this thread who take the position that Common Cause was justified than and is justified now.

And how is that working out for you so far?

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

And your stand on filibusters is…?

My position is in favor of each Senate making their own rules, as they are entitled to do. As a general principle, I favor the filibuster, but I wouldn’t call it a gross abuse of the democracy if a particular Senate voted to do away with 'em.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

And how is that working out for you so far?

“So far” meaning the 20 minutes or so that have passed since I posted the OP?

While I expect that someone will defend Common Cause as justified then and justified now, I never had an expectation that such defense would arrive inside 20 minutes. So… I guess it’s working out fine for me.

[Skammer]

A better rule, other than banning filibusters, would to be to institute a rule that requires the party that wishes to conduct a filibuster to actually go up to the podium and hold it for as long as it takes to delay the vote. Make 'em do the actual work of standing there and reading from the phone book or whatever.

[Czarcasm]

In support of the OP, I too believe that hypocrisy is bad.
We now await those that think hypocrisy is good.

[Simplicio]

@Bricker

The debate proposition: This shows that Common Cause’s actual point of view is: we should have a filibuster when it helps the Democrats, and remove it when we don’t.

I don’t think getting rid of the filibuster now really helps Dems. Any bill that can’t get 60 votes in Congress is never going to make it through the GOP controlled House anyways. And the Dems are favored to loose the majority in the next election. Thats why its a good time for filibuster reform, its not really obvious that it will help either party in the short-term.

I don’t know anything about the group you cite, but I imagine their change of heart has more to do with the increase in the use of the filibuster over the last 6 years then it does with gaining a partisan advantage that will likely never materialize.

I’ve never heard of Common Cause, and I doubt most other Dopers have either, so I think your idea that people are going to rally to either decry or defend them is probably not going to pan out.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Skammer

A better rule, other than banning filibusters, would to be to institute a rule that requires the party that wishes to conduct a filibuster to actually go up to the podium and hold it for as long as it takes to delay the vote. Make 'em do the actual work of standing there and reading from the phone book or whatever.

How would that be any better? People who don’t like filibusters keep saying this and I don’t get it. How is some old idiot reading the telephone book on the floor of the Senate better than not reading it and getting something else done? In what universe is this better? Torture is not better.

[villa]

@Bricker

Yes, I am. I fully expect that there will be people in this thread who take the position that Common Cause was justified than and is justified now.

OK, I’ll give it a shot. I don’t promise it will be a good shot, but I will take a stab at it.

You, Bricker, are credibly rules oriented. It’s a lawyer thing. You like a world with firm structured rules, and accept them whatever outcome they bring. Certainly you would like to write the rules such that they lead generally to the outcome you support, but you accept that, even then, there will be moments when the “wrong” outcome comes from the “right” process.

But not everyone is rules oriented. Some are outcome oriented, and are outcome oriented for absolutely legitimate reasons. Their feeling is that the method of getting from A to B isn’t of critical importance, but the arrival at B is. Or, in this case, the importance of not arriving at point C.

I think we all have an element of outcome orientation in us. We cannot all be Rorshach, and say “No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.” Sometimes people view the outcome as of critical importance enough to tolerate inconsistency. And if the filibuster is the only way to stop gay rights being rolled back, to ensure funding for welfare services, to guarantee the poor has access to health care, then the filibuster, in a consequentialist calculation, not only becomes defensible, but is actively a good thing. Similarly, where the filibuster was used to prevent advances in gay rights, prevent welfare being funded, or prevent the poor receiving medical coverage, it was a bad thing from a consequentialist viewpoint.

Dressing it up in flowery language is silly, but again, from a consequentialist point of view, being blatantly end oriented doesn’t lead to the same success. Even if everyone knows you are talking from both side of your mouth, it may still be justified.

Bottom line - I don’t believe this. But I can see how it can be justified from a consequentialist viewpoint. It just requires a person not to have a lawyer’s fetish for process.

[The_Second_Stone]

I’ve heard of Common Cause. They are the conservative wing of the liberal lobbyist organizations that exist mainly so that the wealthy elites ne’er do well children can have some jobs there. Rather than just lobby for one issue or industry, they take on whatever they fancy that week.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Why are we supposed to give a shit what this group we’ve never heard of thinks about anything? I’m sure if anyone could be arsed, they could find some random fuck conservative group bitching about filibusters when Republicans had the majority and championing it now. What is your point?