Common Cause Takes a Stand on the Filibuster!

[Bricker]

@Lightnin

However, it’s argument which goes against their stated reasons for (now) opposing the filibuster, as **Simplicio **cited.

In other words, you’re completely discounting their reasons for opposing the filibuster in favor of your own, arguably biased, interpretation, absent any other evidence. You’re basically calling them liars, because you apparently think you know why they’re doing better than they do. Is that debate? Would you let that argument fly if the thread were on the other foot, so to speak?

I’m saying that their own actions call into doubt their explanation.

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

An excellent defense of Common Cause. I see you searched through each and every idea that might defend them, and went with the best one, the one that really explained their position.

And since THIS was it, I thank you for confirming my analysis.

I blame the 24 hour news cycle and blind partisanship. This weekend, I saw a story on the national news 24 scene about a immigration protest in Arizona that involved maybe 20 people total. This need to grasp hold of the tiny minority of fringe groups (like Westboro Baptist or Common Cause, or whoever got on your radar this week) and play them up for the news or for political “AHA, your side R Dum!” does nothing to forward actual intelligent debate, in fact, it drains it, making it so much harder to talk about real issues that matter.

I wonder why I thought of that after reading yet another of your “great debate” threads?

[Bricker]

@Hamlet

I wonder why I thought of that after reading yet another of your “great debate” threads?

Poor childhood nutrition?

[rooostra]

Bricker, could you please address Simplicio’s post (#38)?

I believe it is the most germane to the debate you are trying to have.

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

Poor childhood nutrition?

We were a Wheaties/Cheerios breakfast, baloney sandwich, apple, graham cracker lunch, meatloaf, potatoes, corn and green beans family. And two Hydrox (Oreos were for those fancy dancy rich kids) if we ate all our vegetables. I was astounded to learn, at about age 10, that there were gasp other cultures that had different foods, like Kung pao chicken, pasta with white sauce, and tacos. But I still sometimes, on cold days, love me some tomato soup and grilled cheese.

Thanks for asking, but I doubt that was it.

[Bricker]

@rooostra

Bricker, could you please address Simplicio’s post (#38)?

I believe it is the most germane to the debate you are trying to have.

@Simplicio in post 38

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.

But their 2005 position doesn’t so much as hint that the filibuster has a downside. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals. That’s abuse of power.” That’s what they said in 2005. They didn’t say, “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned because, after all, we’re only using it sparingly.”

[John_Mace]

never mind

[Bricker]

And Czarcasm you must be stunned that, sure enough, now people are defending the proposition that Common Cause was right then and is right now.

So it’s still “working out for me” just fine!

[SenorBeef]

@Bricker

But their 2005 position doesn’t so much as hint that the filibuster has a downside. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals. That’s abuse of power.” That’s what they said in 2005. They didn’t say, “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned because, after all, we’re only using it sparingly.”

So do you honestly think that the dramatic change in the way and frequency the procedural fillibuster was used pre-2008 and post-2008 does not, and can not, honestly influence their opinion on its use? That it can’t change an intellectually honest person’s view of its utility and downside?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Bush was discussing what was, or was not, torture under the law. An equivalent example migh be someone saying “I was raped” after suffering non-consensual anal sex. The term is perfectly understandable, and the person isn’t lying when they say it. And it’s not “okay.”

But under the common law, and the law of many states, it’s not “rape.”

And that’s the end of this hijack. This thread is about Common Cause and their view of the filibuster rule. There is no relevance to this line of discussion.

So it’s okay when you use tu quoque, but not okay when other people use it?

I can cite this post when you come barging in other threads with tu quoque.

Just to follow your example to it’s conclusions, if the anal rapist said he never raped anyone in his life, is he lying? Since he’s using an obscure meaning of the word knowing how it will lead to misleading conclusions than he’s lying by omission.

Rape has a commonly understood meaning that includes anal rape, just as torture has a commonly understood meaning that includes water boarding. If the war criminal ex-president Bush, had meant the obscure legalistic definition, why didn’t he specify it?

Or are you telling me Bush honestly believed most people would jump to some Justice Department definition, or would they interpret that statement to include things considered to be torture, such as water boarding?

He lied by omission. He’s a torturing hypocrite.

[Lightnin]

@Bricker

I’m saying that their own actions call into doubt their explanation.

In your opinion. Others disagree. Admittedly, I haven’t spent much time reading this thread, but what actions *specifically *cast doubt on their explanation? The fact that they’re now against the filibuster? That would nice and circular, I suppose.

(Personally, I have no dog in this fight. I’d never heard of Common Cause until this very thread, and I think that no matter which party is in power, the filibuster system needs a fairly serious overhaul. If you’re going to filibuster, get yer ass up there and filibuster.)

[SenorBeef]

To elaborate on that.

Let’s say during Period A, the democrats are the minority party (a1) and fillibusters are used judiciously and only for the important stuff(a2). (This is also the historical norm)

During period B, the republicans are the minority party (b1) and fillibusters are used for more or less everything in an attempt to gum up the legislative works (b2).

You are essentially saying that if you support the use of fillibuster in scenario A, but not scenario B, you must be latching on to the republican/democrat issue, and not the different use of the fillibuster issue. Essentially you’re saying that the person’s entire argument is based on a1 and b1, and a2 and b2 play no role.

This is not a viable position to hold. Now, in this particular case, with this particular organization, it very may well be the partisan a1/b1 issue. But a non-hypocrite can very well make an argument based on a2/b2 without being hypocritical.

But as to this particular case - the text that post #38 quotes, which you ignored, suggests they’re attaching themselves to a2/b2.

[Simplicio]

@Bricker

But their 2005 position doesn’t so much as hint that the filibuster has a downside. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals. That’s abuse of power.” That’s what they said in 2005. They didn’t say, “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned because, after all, we’re only using it sparingly.”

Its a nine sentence press release, not a thesis on their complete philosophy of the filibuster and all past, present and future scenarios in which it could be used. That they didn’t say what they think should happen if the filibuster became a defacto requirement for a supermajority doesn’t really mean anything one way or another.

And again, your thesis is that Common Cause is changing their view because it would now be advantageous to Democrats. But its not, eliminating the filibuster wouldn’t do anything for Dems during this session of Congress, and in the most likely scenario would hurt them in the next.

Their stated explanation is completely reasonable, and your theory as to a secret hidden purpose behind their actions is not.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

So it’s okay when you use tu quoque, but not okay when other people use it?

I can cite this post when you come barging in other threads with tu quoque.

Just to follow your example to it’s conclusions, if the anal rapist said he never raped anyone in his life, is he lying? Since he’s using an obscure meaning of the word knowing how it will lead to misleading conclusions than he’s lying by omission.

Rape has a commonly understood meaning that includes anal rape, just as torture has a commonly understood meaning that includes water boarding. If the war criminal ex-president Bush, had meant the obscure legalistic definition, why didn’t he specify it?

Or are you telling me Bush honestly believed most people would jump to some Justice Department definition, or would they interpret that statement to include things considered to be torture, such as water boarding?

He lied by omission. He’s a torturing hypocrite.

Not entertaining any additional discussions of this topic.

[rooostra]

Bricker,

I think this debate needs a lot more context to be honestly evaluated. Links the the entirety of the press conferences would have been appropriate in the OP.
In 2005, Common Cause was opposing the so-called “Nuclear option” of the Vice President declaring the use of the filibuster to be unconstitutional. It would have ended the filibuster entirely. (As an aside, this was being proposed when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate - they had never attempted to ban the filibuster as the minority party.)

Their press release stated: “But this change contrasts sharply with the Senate tradition of deliberative debate. Both parties have vociferously defended use of the filibuster throughout the Senate’s history.”

http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=384721

In contrast, the 2011 press release deals with a proposal to gradually reduce the number of votes required to end a filibuster, over the course of the individual filibuster, thus preserving extended debate while undercutting its ability to serve a complete block to legislation. Furthermore, this proposal was originally introduced when the Democrats were in the minority.

"Common Cause is supporting measures introduced by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) to reform the practice. Sen. Harkin’s bill, S. Res. 416, was originally introduced when the Democrats were in the minority and would gradually reduce the number of votes needed to end debate - from 60, to 57, to 54 and then 51 - over a number of days. "

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5958583
This distinction (banning the filibuster versus reforming its applications), coupled with the unprecedented increase in its use are enough to satisfy me that there is more going on here than mere partisanship.

[Bricker]

@SenorBeef

So do you honestly think that the dramatic change in the way and frequency the procedural fillibuster was used pre-2008 and post-2008 does not, and can not, honestly influence their opinion on its use? That it can’t change an intellectually honest person’s view of its utility and downside?

I don’t think they did. Here is a (PDF) paper from Common Cause analyzing the filibuster and concluding its existence is a “historical accident.”

Now… didn’t all that history they’re offering up now exist in 2005? That paper’s not a reaction to post 2008 use, is it?

Nice try, though.

[Bricker]

@rooostra

This distinction (banning the filibuster versus reforming its applications), coupled with the unprecedented increase in its use are enough to satisfy me that there is more going on here than mere partisanship.

And the “Accident of History” paper? Did that analysis perhaps arise from newly discovered historical documents?

[Kearsen]

The partisanship needs to end. I firmly DO believe that a 60 vote super-majority should be absolutely required to pass major legislation. If it isn’t as popular as that, then it needs to be amended so that the partisan lines become blurred and there is some measure of cooperation in creating, and passing our laws.
Laws need to stop being looked upon as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, period.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Uh… who are Common Cause, and why should anyone care what they think of filibusters?

[rooostra]

@Bricker

And the “Accident of History” paper? Did that analysis perhaps arise from newly discovered historical documents?

Not really relevant to the discussion. That paper is an examination of the historical development of the filibuster; it doesn’t take a position on whether the filibuster should be eliminated. Think of it as the leg history discussion in a court decision.

It is entirely possible to, on the one hand, believe that the filibuster is an “accident of history” and on the other hand still believe that it has some merit.

The OP makes it seem like Common Cause was defending the existence of the filibuster in 2005 while opposing it in 2011. But this debate is more nuanced than that. They opposed its outright elimination in 2005. In 2011, they are supporting restrictions on the filibuster that maintain extended debate while toning down its ability to block legislation.

Furthermore, this change was originally proposed by Democrats while they were in the minority. It is being championed while they are in the majority. I think this fact somewhat innoculates the proposal from the accusation of partisanship.