# Common Cause Takes a Stand on the Filibuster! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549 "2011-02-07T18:15:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/141 "2011-02-08T21:32:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **villa** , to be fair, I’ve heard of them, but I know very little about them, and if someone asked me to name a dozen liberal groups, I’m sure Common Cause wouldn’t have been one I’d’ve thought of. I’m not sure it would have come up in a list of a dozen for me either, thinking about it. I know them, but I guess they slip out of my mind pretty successfully… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/142 "2011-02-08T22:28:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The issue can go either way – what’s important is that the rules are acknowledged by both sides ahead of time and then respected, as opposed to seeking a change whenever the advantage might turn your way. That’s only true if the rules are seen as ends in themselves, as in having a nicely-formatted and beautifully caligraphed rulebook is the goal, regardless of what the rules actually say or what the people ostensibly subject to those rules are supposed to be accomplishing. It’s my understanding that the rules currently in place for the U.S. Senate allow legislation to be blocked by a minority, without that minority actually having to explain why or make a public display of their disapproval. If they want to block the other party, they can do so with minimal effort and risk. Considering these people are your elected officials, essentially your employees (spare me any legal definition that argues otherwise), I’m frankly surprised at the tolerance for these employees finding and using an excuse to only work when it suits them and not be held accountable for it. > [@](#): > > Should a governor appoint a replacement to fill a Senate seat until the next general election? There are arguments either way – it’s best to replace based on the will of the voters, but special elections are expensive. I don’t have a hard and fast opinion either way. Really? I do. Regardless of party affiliation, I figure it’s the governor’s responsibility (and indeed it should be a major priority) to make sure his or her state is fairly represented at the Federal level, including appointing replacement senators as needed. See? I can be nonpartisan and still raise objections to your arguments. You’re essentially criticizing someone for wanting the change the rules, when you don’t seem to care too much about what purpose the rules serve. Heck, if it’s that academic to you, you may as well be complaining about people who want to change the dimensions of baseball parks to accomodate a particular player on their favoured team who would put more dingers over the right-field fence if it was closer. At the very least, concentrating on such trivialities might help you avoid more oh-so-distracting invocations of unpopular Republican policies like, y’know, torture and shit. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/143 "2011-02-08T23:22:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And my response is: you seem to be making an excellent argument. But I don’t see any evidence it’s the argument Common Cause was making. I believe, in other words, that you have fashioned an admittedly solid _post hoc_ rationalization for Common Cause, but you cannot point to any key substantiation. For example, if Common Cause had said, when they first inveighed against eliminating the filibuster, something like, “We oppose this abrupt and instant solution, but agree that the filibuster has to be softened. We support the amendment Senator Harkin offered back in January 1995 to gradually reduce the number of votes necessary…” then you’d have a much more solid case. As it is, you’ve made a fine, and principled distinction, and I have no trouble believing you can simultaneously hold both positions consistently. > > I just don’t impute your solid reasoning to Common Cause, because they never said anything to make me think that’s what they meant. Perhaps Common Cause (has anyone yet explained who the fuck these people are?) simply didn’t anticipate that the filibuster could or would be abused in this manner? From my understanding, the number of filibusters being used by the Republicans is unprecedented in US history. It seems a rather steep expectation that someone should be required to predict that this behavior was going to happen before they can offer an opinion on the problem, or propose a remedy to the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/144 "2011-02-08T23:34:05Z")
If I may be so bold: Best case scenario: Bricker has, through conscientious research and a deep love of the democratic process and rule of law, brought to our attention a 100% accurate assessment of the hypocritical attitudes of Common Cause. Yay, Bricker! But, seriously, big fucking deal. Worst case scenario: Bricker has, for reasons rather less noble, brought to our attention a cherry-picked and misleading description of the attitudes of Common Cause. Boo, Bricker! But, seriously, big fucking deal. ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/145 "2011-02-08T23:35:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ve never read that blog in my life. I’m guessing Volokh Conspiracy - crazy-sounding title, and certainly right wing/libertarian leaning, but pretty reasonable signal-to-noise ratio as far as legal discussions go. > **[Common Cause's Filibuster Flip - The Volokh Conspiracy](https://volokh.com/2011/02/06/common-causes-filibuster-flip/)** > > In 2005, Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed invoking the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster of judicial nominees.  From a 2005 press release: Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/146 "2011-02-08T23:39:17Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I’m not sure it would have come up in a list of a dozen for me either, thinking about it. I know them, but I guess they slip out of my mind pretty successfully… 🙂 Actually, a slightly embarrassing admission: up until this evening, I was confusing [commondreams.org](http://commondreams.org) and [commoncause.org](http://commoncause.org). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/147 "2011-02-08T23:53:27Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > I’m guessing Volokh Conspiracy - crazy-sounding title, and certainly right wing/libertarian leaning, but pretty reasonable signal-to-noise ratio as far as legal discussions go. > > [Common Cause's Filibuster Flip - The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy](http://volokh.com/2011/02/06/common-causes-filibuster-flip/) That is what started me my inquiries, yes. However, I did go to the Common Cause site and review the material independently. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/148 "2011-02-08T23:55:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > (has anyone yet explained who the fuck these people are?) . So, yeah, I saw “Common Cause” and thought “Common Dreams.” However, Google finds at least a page worth of hits where [commoncause.org](http://commoncause.org) has been used as a link or cite here before. So it’s not completely mysterious. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/149 "2011-02-09T00:01:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The strongest evidence for this argument appears to be excerpts from two disparate statements of theirs (presumably gathered from a right-wing blog, [probably this one](http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/02/06/common-cause-and-the-oldest-profession/)); at least one excerpt it taken out of context. … > > I know it’s bad form to link to a blog post and make that your argument, but I think this is a poor-form corollary: if you read an argument on a blog, it’s probably bad form to repeat that argument here without at least a link. Even then, when the link is coming from somewhere as biased as Red State, it’s probably a good idea to do some independent investigation before CCing it to your straight dope buddies. Bricker may never have read THAT blog, but that blog actually cites the **The Volokh Conspiracy** , a legal blog with a libertarian/conservative bent. I’m an occasional reader of Volokh, and have noticed a distinct trend of a piece being on there, and within a day or two, Bricker starting a thread here about it. This thread. His Majority of States Challenge Health Care thread. Public Housing and Constitutional Rights thread. Ransom v. FIA. And on and on. I think it’s kinda like people who read something on Huffpo or ThinkProgress and come over here and start a thread. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/150 "2011-02-09T00:28:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Anyone is entitled to ignore hijacks and stick to the thread topic, yes. I tu quoqued you, and your politics, and you say it’s a hijack. So either: a) You admit to intentionally hijacking threads with tu quoues. Which I believe is frowned upon. b) Tu quouoing is bad when mean old **Tao** s do it, but good when **Bricker** s do it. Which is the same hypocrisy you’re trying to decry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/151 "2011-02-09T00:35:49Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I tu quoqued you, and your politics, and you say it’s a hijack. > > So either: > > a) You admit to intentionally hijacking threads with tu quoues. Which I believe is frowned upon. > > b) Tu quouoing is bad when mean old **Tao** s do it, but good when **Bricker** s do it. Which is the same hypocrisy you’re trying to decry. Start a new thread if it’s important to you to discuss this. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/152 "2011-02-09T03:44:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, a slightly embarrassing admission: up until this evening, I was confusing [commondreams.org](http://commondreams.org) and [commoncause.org](http://commoncause.org). Well, that changes _everything_. Here I was, prepared to jump to the defense of people I’d never heard of, but now I find out it’s someone else entirely who I’d never heard of? Fuck that! ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/153 "2011-02-09T04:03:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that changes _everything_. Here I was, prepared to jump to the defense of people I’d never heard of, but now I find out it’s someone else entirely who I’d never heard of? Fuck that! Hell, I thought Common Courtesy, The Common Cold, and Common GetIt were going to be hypocrites too. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/154 "2011-02-09T04:31:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **septimus** ’ post … does not explore the differences between the two cases, but simply forthrightly says that yes, of the two parties, he approves of which rules benefit one over the other? Not willing to unbend to admit that yeah, ok, someone was either honest enough, or foolish enough, to admit it? Perhaps I should apologize to rationalists who feel my post did them a disservice. However, if **Bricker** ’s recourse now is to set the views of an eccentric expat up as a strawman to help him make his case, I think he’s losing the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/155 "2011-02-09T10:56:07Z")
[quote=“Lightnin, post:73, topic:570549”] First off: Who the heck is Common Cause? Man, I swear, there are so many Democratic organizations and “leaders” I would’ve never heard of if it weren’t for Republicans scouring their history for comments and actions to take offense to. Do you have a chart, or something? > [@](#): > > Common Cause is a liberal nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens’ lobby and advocacy organization. The organization was founded in 1970 by Republican former cabinet secretary under Lyndon Johnson John W. Gardner with a mission focused on making U.S. political institutions more open and accountable. From Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/156 "2011-02-09T11:06:51Z")
**Bricker** , would you care to respond to my [post #33](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13440305&postcount=33)? I believe I set out a credible case, taking your snippets at face value. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/157 "2011-02-09T12:37:15Z")
> [@](#): > > … 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**. … > [@](#): > > … 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. Is it really hypocrisy to suggest that the Senate’s “Advise and Consent” role maybe shouldn’t have exactly the same set of rules that the Senate uses in it’s “Shall we pass this Bill” role? Article II, Section 2 establishes a “treaty vote has different rules” rule. I’m not sure I have any problem with the Senate recognizing it’s AIIS2 powers need different rules than it’s Article I powers do. (And maybe even it’s AI rules need to be a little different from power to power, like S8C11 “To declare War …” maybe?). CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/158 "2011-02-09T12:41:34Z")
I don’t think anyone can seriously dispute that the current Republican minority has used the threat of a filibuster more than any minority in Senate history. Rather than save the actual use of a filibuster for that legislation that they deem to be absolutely critical to stop, they use the threat of a filibuster to stop all legislation proposed by the Democrats and thus every single bill now requires 60 votes to pass. I think one can be objective and still say that the current Republican minority abuses the filibuster and that past Democratic minorities did not. If the Democrats had been outnumbered 60-40 and behaved as the Republicans had the past two years, I’d be ashamed of them, and I wouldn’t spend my days searching left-leaning blogs for word of any Republican group that displayed a hint of hypocrisy just so I could go “neener neener neener”. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/159 "2011-02-09T13:45:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > … every single bill now requires 60 votes to pass. Not really. 41 votes are enough as long as they’re Republican votes. The 41 simply announce that they’ll let the U.S.A. go bankrupt unless the majority caves in to every Republican whim. It is at most a slight exaggeration to claim that this “Republican” Party would be rooting for the Axis if Pearl Harbor were attacked with a Democrat in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549/160 "2011-02-09T20:13:24Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > It is at most a slight exaggeration to claim that this “Republican” Party would be rooting for the Axis if Pearl Harbor were attacked with a Democrat in the White House. C’mon. Seriously? You’re gonna go there? I don’t doubt that Republicans would’ve criticized the WH for being insufficiently prepared, but what you said is just grotesque and completely unsupported by the facts. The current Republican leadership is many unpleasant things, but accusing them of opposing our military in such a manner isn’t among their sins. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/common-cause-takes-a-stand-on-the-filibuster/570549.md?page=9)