The senate does not keep track of the number of times the filibuster is invoked. (CITE)
All we have is the indirect method in the chart.
From the article the chart came from:
It’s wrong because the trend is up across the board, and not just when Democrats are in the majority. You might argue that the rate of change is greater when Democrats are in power, but it’s wrong to suggest that Democrats maintain the same level as the Republicans did before them.
If anyone has the actual numbers, it might be easier to just do averages than to eyeball the chart.
I want to know which bars he’s using because, depending on what he’s looking at, I can tell him where his analysis is wrong even if the data isn’t what he thinks it is.
If the Republicans take the Senate and presidency, I predict right now that the Democrats will filibuster as many things as the Republicans do now (an appropriate, proportional response to Republican filibuster malfeasance).
If the Democrats then take the Senate and presidency back, I predict that the Republicans will, as they have done every time this has happened since the 1960s, approximately double the average number of filibusters per legislative session–for no reason, other than raw obstructionism. An “obstructionism” motive can be inferred by the number of times the Republicans have blocked or attempted to block policies they have supported in previous legislative sessions.
You honestly don’t see ANY difference between those two behaviors?
Also, let me guess: Ron Paul fan?
Do you honestly believe that the dems count filibusters and then get together and say
Okay, they did this 12 times, that is all we can do… :rolleyes:
Not really. I agree with him there needs to be big changes, but I think his ideas are wacked.
Day is going to come when the Republicans take back the Senate. I hope not in November, but it’ll happen eventually. Then, if something like the Ryan plan makes it through the house, I pray it gets filibustered. That’s why I say keep the filibuster.
I think, at that point, the “nuclear option” would be invoked against them.
These are not the kinds of people who can take what they dish out…
I was using the tallest (orange) ones thinking those meant the number of times a filibuster was initiated.
Now I am not so sure (I came across the bit that the senate does not record filibusters only this afternoon).
Not sure what the author of the article was looking at.
Yes, it does have a purpose, in cases extreme enough to be worth reading the phone book for a week, getting the resulting press attention, and swaying public opinion against the steamrolling majority. But it certainly does need to be that rare. Ending Medicare (and I’ll even drop the “as we know it” crap) would certainly be worth it.
OK. Let’s forget about whether or not that’s the right metric for a moment.
From '77 to '94, there’s just a general trend upwards. Take away the lines showing who was in control, and all you don’t see any natural groupings-- just an upward trend. The anomalies are just the last two majorities.
I think this is a recent change we’re seeing, not something that the GOP has been leading the charge on for decades. More of a general trend to increase, a long leveling off with minority Dems (for whatever reason), and a big spike when the GOP most recently became the minority party.
Of course not.
It is more like when you get in a heated battle with your SO. Perhaps you want to say some hurtful things but restrain yourself. Then your SO lands one below the belt. So you figure to respond in kind. Then your SO hits way below the belt so you figure the gloves are off and do something similar.
There used to be a sense of collegial harmony in the senate. Sure they would get into fights and occasionally bruising ones but they were there to do the work of the people and, by hook or crook, they generally did. They also used to have respect for the office of the president even if they didn’t particularly like the guy who was sitting in the seat.
Republicans have been moving the bar over what is worth being recalcitrant on. As they do dems figure the reps have demolished some unwritten taboo and figure they are free to go there now too.
Most recently they have dropped even the pretense of respect for the office of the president and are unremittingly hostile to Obama. I forget which one but one senator actually voted against a bill that the senator sponsored after Obama came out and said he liked the bill too.
Congress, especially the senate, is no longer working for the people. They are special interests who rebuke any notion of compromise which is so essential to a democracy. The dems are certainly nothing to be proud of (frankly they suck too) but the republicans are truly off the rails crazy.
So far, whether or not they count like that, it’s held true for multiple changeovers. Roll your eyes all you want, the historical record is what it is.
I think we have just established that either a) we don’t have the data to prove this or b) it isn’t true for “multiple change overs”.
The bulk of the Democrats followed Reid’s request and voted against it. Reid now admits he had overrated the GOP’s basic sense of responsibility and should have supported it. You can’t make a “gentlemen’s agreement” with non-gentlemen.
Hmmm. From the Senate data on that, we see a pattern of basically nothing (0-2) until 1961 with an anomalous spike in '25-26 (Coolidge, R controls both houses).
It jumps up a little with JFK (under D controlling both houses). to around 5-10.
It jumps up more than double in 71-72 under Nixon (under D controlling both houses) and again in 73-74 (same conditions). Then it stays in that 25-50 range for a while.
A new record high of 54 in 87-88 (control of both houses shifted to D).
A new record high of 60 in 91-92 (D in control of both).
A new record high of 80 to welcome Mr. Clinton in 93-94 (D in control of both). It stays in that 60-80ish range until 2008.
It jumps to 139 in 07-08, which also marks the first time since 1995 the Dems had control of both houses, and stays there to welcome Mr. Obama.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that there isn’t serious data on the number of filibusters actually performed. However, the inferred data from the pattern of changes in the data about cloture motions being filed is pretty damning by itself.
I see nothing in the link to change my belief that you can not eliminate the “procedural filibuster” while keeping the “talking filibuster”. Here’s the quote:
Again we face the reality that there is no incentive to schedule debate on a question the Minority is filibustering. Unless they were proposing additional rule changes they didn’t describe this is just a pretend solution since bringing up filibustered questions as pending business would simply be a waste of time. Nor can I imagine what sort of additional rule changes Senators would find palatable that would address the situation. I don’t see how it can be done without abandoning the fiction that debate itself has any value. Then you could allow individual Senators to yak away to a (nearly) empty chamber and the filibuster is now more burdensome on the Minority than the Majority.
But once you admit that Senators are not actually seeking to change the minds of their fellows but are shaping their remarks for public consumption, what then is the point of allowing unlimited debate? So I was exaggerating before. You can eliminate the procedural filibuster and still have the talking filibuster. But only by undermining the very foundation of that tradition.
Only if you think they can keep it up forever, and will have enough net public support to encourage them to continue, *and *are willing to set everything else aside in their cause. But that hasn’t often happened historically, has it? Your approach to countering filibustering isn’t even to negotiate with terrorists; it’s to simply surrender to them.
Just to be clear, I think you’re saying that the “nuclear option” is available at any time.
Then, if Ravenman (or rather, my interpretation of his comment) is correct, why not go nuclear now?
BTW, I don’t think a simple count of filibusters is key to quantifying obstructionism. Democrats filibustered particularly incompetent right-wing judicial appointments, and acquiesced when respected right-wingers were proposed. The GOP filibusters all “liberal” judges.
So as long as Dems filibustered at least once, they’re just as bad?
Yes, the nuclear option is available any time, as there is no special significance of the first day of a new Senate session.
But don’t infer that I think the nuclear option is a good thing. I am merely saying that a thug could punch you in the nards and take your lunch money on New Years Day, Flag Day, or your birthday, and the timing of his action is not significant.
ETA: By the way, it would be exceptionally stupid for the Democrats to try to pull the nuclear option now. It’s a presidential election year, so no big legislation gets passed anyway, and there’s a better than decent chance that Republicans could retake the Senate in 2012. Do Democrats really want to risk going into the minority after just having abolished the filibuster? As has been pointed out many times, one’s view of the filibuster tends to shift depending on which party is in power.