Common Cause Takes a Stand on the Filibuster!

[furt]

@Czarcasm

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

Hypocrisy is much needed. If nobody was a hypocrite, we’d be unable to condemn all sorts of things which we ourselves do, even though we know they’re wrong. Lying is the obvious example, but there are plenty others. The value of a moral claim is not dependant on the speaker’s personal morality; an addict is the person who knows best why you shouldn’t abuse drugs.
Still, Common Cause sucks balls.

[Czarcasm]

@furt

Hypocrisy is much needed. If nobody was a hypocrite, we’d be unable to condemn all sorts of things which we ourselves do, even though we know they’re wrong. Lying is the obvious example, but there are plenty others. The value of a moral claim is not dependant on the speaker’s personal morality; an addict is the person who knows best why you shouldn’t abuse drugs.

Proving once again that there is no such thing as a one-sided debate.
I salute you.

[Procrustus]

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.

Ok, I’ll bite. I too hope that the Rules of the Senate can be modified to make it easier for the Democrats, whether they’re in the minority or majority.

[Simplicio]

@The_Second_Stone

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.

I think the idea is that by actually freezing the Senate in a fairly noticeable way, you end up with the public taking note and in all likelyhood, taking sides. If the minority really has public support behind them, then their stand against the majority will come off as relatively heroic, but if not, they’ll come off as whiners who are freezing the entire legislature because they can’t get their way. The end result would be a filibuster that is only used when the minority is either pretty sure they have the public at their back, or at least, they’re convinced enough that resisting the majority is worth taking a hit in their poll numbers.

Of course, its debatable if it would really work this way, but thats the theory.

@Bricker

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.

Should they beable to vote to change the rules in the middle of the session, or only when the Congress is first seated?

[Tom_Scud]

@Czarcasm

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

I am in favor of hypocrisy.

Except for Republican hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by right-wingers is bad.

[Czarcasm]

@Tom_Scud

I am in favor of hypocrisy.

Except for Republican hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by right-wingers is bad.

Somebody please remind me-did I enter this through the looking glass or through the rabbit hole?

[Giles]

@Czarcasm

Somebody please remind me-did I enter this through the looking glass or through the rabbit hole?

It seems reasonable to me: it’s a variant of “Four legs good, two legs bad!” That (or slight variants, like “Four legs good, two legs better!”) works in most practical political systems.

[godix]

@Czarcasm

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

It’s good when I do it. It’s bad when anyone else does it.

[Skammer]

@The_Second_Stone

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.

It’s better because it retains the ability to filibuster, but makes it more difficult logistically and more costly politically and so, hopefully, it would be used more judiciously.

[Czarcasm]

@godix

It’s good when I do it. It’s bad when anyone else does it.

Is there a political party out there that doesn’t believe this?

[Bricker]

@villa

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.

Awesome post.

But here’s my heartburn, from the bottom of my fetishist heart: the actual argument, then, is precisely as I painted it – bad when Democrats have the majority and good when they don’t. And the explanation for that dichotomy is: from a results viewpoint, Democrats are doing generally good things with the law, so we want Democrats in the majority to have free reign; when the country foolishly denies Democrats the majority, we still want them to have the power to put the brakes on bad Republican ideas.

That is what you said, in essence – right? (That is, that was your theoretical defense).

And that’s in sharp contrast to Czarcasm’s apparent utter disbelief that such an argument could even be made.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Awesome post.

But here’s my heartburn, from the bottom of my fetishist heart: the actual argument, then, is precisely as I painted it – bad when Democrats have the majority and good when they don’t. And the explanation for that dichotomy is: from a results viewpoint, Democrats are doing generally good things with the law, so we want Democrats in the majority to have free reign; when the country foolishly denies Democrats the majority, we still want them to have the power to put the brakes on bad Republican ideas.

That is what you said, in essence – right?

But it is the exact same situation when it comes to the Republicans. Are you pitting the Democrats for doing it and ignoring Republicans when they do it(thus revealing your own hypocrisy), or are you pitting hypocrisy in politics only, and it’s only a total coincidence that your example group just happened to be on the left?

[Nametag]

Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with the exact terms of the proposed ban on filibusters of judicial nominees, nor am I familiar with what CC is proposing now. However, if I just take your quotes at face value, I’m all on board with CC. If Republicans were seriously going to ban – outright – all filibustering on judicial nominees, including legitimate in-person debate, then CC was absolutely right to oppose that. If the topic in the second quote is the end of the current procedural filibuster, in which an up-and-down vote is substituted for legitimate in-person debate, then CC is right to support that.

Not that I’m opposed to liberal hypocrisy. If people won’t believe the truth, then you have to pick your lie.

[villa]

@Bricker

Awesome post.

But here’s my heartburn, from the bottom of my fetishist heart: the actual argument, then, is precisely as I painted it – bad when Democrats have the majority and good when they don’t. And the explanation for that dichotomy is: from a results viewpoint, Democrats are doing generally good things with the law, so we want Democrats in the majority to have free reign; when the country foolishly denies Democrats the majority, we still want them to have the power to put the brakes on bad Republican ideas.

That is what you said, in essence – right? (That is, that was your theoretical defense).

And that’s in sharp contrast to Czarcasm’s apparent utter disbelief that such an argument could even be made.

Well it is a little bit more nuanced than that. It’s that it is good when it is done for good ends, and bad when it is done for bad ends. However, given that the people saying it think that what the Democrats do is good, and what the Republicans do is bad, then yes, that is what it comes down to.

You can even put a slightly more principled slant on it if you look at it from a Legal Realist point of view. The “rules” don’t require a certain outcome - they aren’t a neutral framework within which the game is played, they are part of the game itself. The right likes the rules because it defined them. (And for this you really need a non-party based view of right and left). What rules fetishism is, in effect, isn’t outcome neutral - it is biased in favor of a certain outcome, with the fake neutrality of “the rules” being used to justify a bias to existing power as being in some way fair.

Outcome orientation, on the other hand, is pointing out that the Emporer, in fact, is as bollock naked as the day he was born. It’s a recognition that the right has gamed and manipulated the system, and if we want to ensure that doesn’t happen any more, we can no longer accept the rules as given.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

But it is the exact same situation when it comes to the Republicans. Are you pitting the Democrats for doing it and ignoring Republicans when they do it(thus revealing your own hypocrisy), or are you pitting hypocrisy in politics only, and it’s only a total coincidence that your example group just happened to be on the left?

Since I posted in GD, I really wasn’t pitting anyone. I was proposing that actual principle espoused by Common Cause is that the filibuster is good when Democrats can use it and bad when Republicans can use it.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Since I posted in GD, I really wasn’t pitting anyone. I was proposing that actual principle espoused by Common Cause is that the filibuster is good when Democrats can use it and bad when Republicans can use it.

Is this a view held by any major agencies on the Right?
edited to add: And does it matter the reason for the hypocrisy, if it does indeed exist?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The question remains, who gives a shit?

[Simplicio]

So the OP conveniently neglected to link to the entirety of the press release, despite the fact that it offers Common Causes justification for opposing the filibuster.

The Senate’s filibuster rule was used sparingly throughout most of the 20th century, and until the 1960s was used primarily to block civil rights legislation. But in the past five years, the current Republican minority has abused the rule to the point that 60 votes has become the de facto threshold for any meaningful action. The number of cloture motions required to get a vote has more than doubled since 2006 (see chart, below) and countless “stealth filibusters” – where the minority threatens to filibuster without actually having to do anything – have been used to prevent action on scores of substantive measures.

The drastic increase in the frequency of filibusters is also responsible for much of the widespread public anger at the gridlock in Congress and the belief among much of the general public that the “government no longer works” for average Americans. This widespread anger has generated a loss of public confidence in government, and particularly in Congress.

One can argue whether thats a valid justification or not, or just a cover for hypocrisy, but it seems pretty dick to post a thread about the possible motivations for a group changing their view on the filibuster and then omit the text where they attempt to explain their reasoning.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s true that the use of the filibuster has changed, and not just the party using it.

[Bricker]

@villa

Outcome orientation, on the other hand, is pointing out that the Emporer, in fact, is as bollock naked as the day he was born. It’s a recognition that the right has gamed and manipulated the system, and if we want to ensure that doesn’t happen any more, we can no longer accept the rules as given.

I think that I share a trait with most people that ascribes a fundamental sense of fairness to the concept that fairness results when the rules are agreed upon ahead of time, before knowing who they will benefit.

There’s nothing magical about sixty votes, just as they’re nothing magical about whether the ground can cause a fumble or whether incidental contact is permitted within five yards of the line of scrimmage.

But once the game has begun, you can’t be heard to argue that it should be TEN yards after thr flag is thrown against your guy for holding. When someone argues that a rule “should be” thus-and-so, his implicit, and sometimes his explicit framework is that this is intended neutrally to advance the goals of the process, not to favor one side or the other.

I’m reminded of an old Bill Cosby routine, where he imagines that the same coin toss used to determine which team will kick off at the beginning of a football game was applied to the conduct of troops in the Revolutionary War:

British call heads… it’s tails. Colonists, what will you do? . . . . OK, the colonists say that they get to wear any kind of uniform they want, and hide behind rocks and trees, and the British have to wear red uniforms and march in a straight line.