Who’s currently filibustering the climate bill, just out of curiosity?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s good to see that you partisan bickering idiots turned another discussion from something potentially interesting into “Your side did this” “Oh yeah, well your side did this!” “Yeah well it’s not as bad as your side doing this!” etc.
Government is the entity writing the laws. If government didn’t have the power to write such overreaching laws, then the influence of the rich and powerful would not have the force of law.
Big business and the rich will always act in their own interest. Unfortunately, their money gives them much influence over government and law. The answer to this is the constitutional form of government with limited powers that we gave up on a century (+/-) ago.
This whole thing sucks. Ethanol sucks across the board - as a crop, as an energy efficient use of land, as a subsidy. It’s big government socialism for the rich aggro businesses and we all end up poorer. A law saying essentially “hey, we’re banned from talking about its implications as we discuss its implications here” is evil and stupid.
I think that this point is exactly the one made by the amendment’s proponents…i.e., that these indirect calculations are on fairly shaky ground. There may be a certain amount of truth to this although my guess would be that the estimates including them are likely more accurate than those that completely ignore them.
Two points:
-
This statement is not appropriate for Great Debates. Do not do this again.
-
Omitting the offending pejoratives, Senor Beef’s observation is 100% correct.
The bickering over which party carries the “most” blame belongs in some other thread. Stick to the discussion of government, (regardless who is in power), either undercutting science or actually behaving properly.
[ /Moderating ]
I’d like to remind everyone that during the campaign, John McCain campaigned against ethanol subsidies. In Iowa.
On days when Sens. Byrd and Kennedy can drag themselves from their sickbeds to the Senate floor.
How many such days have there been since Franken was sworn in?
I believe the correct answer is ‘zero’.
So do the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Only in a theoretical sense.
There has yet to have been a single day when a united Senate Democratic caucus could have defeated a filibuster by a united Senate GOP caucus. This is presumably what is meant in practical terms by a ‘filibuster-proof majority,’ and the Dems don’t have one yet.
You know the answer to this. One has to wonder whether there’s a reason for your question.
The point I’d make is that there is a question of agency here. It resides with people, not groups.
There is no unified “the Democrats,” with a hive mind, as Will Rogers pointed out ages ago. Particular members of the House of Representatives are responsible for blocking the study of the climate consequences of growing corn for ethanol production. Most of those Congresscritters are Republicans; some are Democrats.
I don’t see how that translates into “House Democrats Ban Science in Climate Bill.” I think that interpretation is dependent on a hive-mind theory of party loyalty, but that theory is false, especially in the case of the Democratic party.
Hey, I’ll sign on to this one, believe it or not. I think Reid should have been requiring a REAL filibuster since we got the majority, instead of this namby-pamby, let’s-not-get-nasty, “procedural” filibuster they’ve had going. Make the Republicans read the damn phone book in the Senate chamber, while C-SPAN makes it absolutely clear who exactly is doing the roadblocking in Congress, instead of taking on their pain like some sort of Silverlode Savior and distributing it evenly across the Century. Reid needs to act like a goddamn party leader, dammit, not a glorified traffic cop!
That’d take balls, something with which Reid seems far less equipped than Pelosi.
-Joe
I was waving that flag for most of the last Congress, until someone (I can’t remember who) out in the blogosphere pointed out why this wouldn’t work:
- Let’s say the Senate Dems try to end debate on a party-line bill. They fail by a 58-40 vote - 58 votes for cloture, 40 against. They needed 60. Sucks ass, but that’s life in the U.S. Senate.
- Reid keeps the bill on the floor, much to everyone’s surprise. The theory is that, whenever the GOP minority runs out of things to say, he can call a vote.
- It only takes two or three Republicans, taking turns, to keep talking forever.
- But while they’re doing so, they can insist on frequent quorum calls. Per Senate Rule 6, it takes 51 Senators to constitute a quorum. If Reid can’t scrape together 51 Senators to constitute a quorum, “no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.” So if no quorum, then the minority doesn’t need to do a thing - no debate is in order, and nobody can move a vote.
- So forcing a filibuster would force the Dems to keep 51 Senators on the floor, or on cots in nearby cloakrooms, while only two or three GOP Senators would have to be inconvenienced.
That ratio of majority inconvenience to minority inconvenience is probably why Reid hasn’t tried to force the GOP to filibuster. Not to mention, he’d have to pick an issue that 51 Dems cared deeply enough about, to endure the inconvenience involved.
My sentiment is that Reid should have tried this anyway, given the right bill. The ideal vehicle, IMHO, would have been the minimum-wage hike that they tried to pass in January 2007. (It was ultimately passed by attaching it to the Iraq appropriation bill that May.) That was a measure just begging for some visuals of the GOP tying up the Senate for days in order to block a wage hike for those working for the least amount of money, but Reid blew the opportunity. Such is life.
Per Senate Rule 22, while cloture on ordinary bills requires a 3/5 majority of ALL Senators - i.e. 60 affirmative votes - cloture on rules changes requires “two-thirds of the Senators present and voting” - which under some circumstances might be an easier hurdle to clear.
The particular hurdle I’m thinking about is the above situation, where the Dems took the trouble to keep 51 Senators handy to force the filibuster, while only a few Republicans stuck around to keep the filibuster alive.
At that point, the Dems “present and voting” would constitute far more than a 2/3 majority - and could thereby (a) table the bill the Republicans were filibustering (tabling a bill is a privileged motion, hence can be done at any time), (b) bring a rules change (e.g. weakening* or abolishing the filibuster) to the floor, and © hold a cloture vote on the rules change, which they’d win overwhelmingly.
Then, having gotten past the hurdle of the cloture vote on the rules change, they could pass the rules change itself by a simple majority. If the rules change were a weakening of the filibuster, that would then make it easier in turn to pass the original bill.
Alternatively, if Reid were able to scrounge up 51 Dems to force the GOP to filibuster, this would seem to force the GOP to keep at least 26 of their caucus present to prevent the Dems from pulling the above switcheroo on them. That would still be tougher on the Dems than on the GOP (51 out of 58 Dems, v. only 26 out of 40 Pubbies) but would make the balance of annoyance a lot closer.
- IMHO, the simplest weakening of the filibuster would be to require only 3/5 of those present and voting to pass a cloture motion. Or require a 2/5 minority of the entire Senate to block cloture, rather than a 3/5 majority to pass cloture. I’m OK with the filibuster existing, but IMHO its use should place a heavy burden on the minority’s time and energy, to keep them from doing it all the damn time.
How about this?
Filibustering is only allowed on “advice & consent” issues.
Seriously.
Hilzoy, a blogger I’ve got a lot of respect for, suggested that the filibuster should be kept around only for judicial appointments. Her justification was that since Federal judges and Justices are appointed for life, they should have to clear a higher bar than normal legislation (that could be repealed by the next Congress), or even other advice-and-consent appointments (which would be undone by the next President).
Still, I’m more of the “make filibusters functionally a lot more difficult for the minority, then let them figure out what’s important enough to filibuster” school. For instance, the Dems filibustered repeal of the Federal estate tax a few times during the past 15 years, which I was delighted to see at the time. So I have a hard time saying the filibuster should be limited to X, Y, or Z. Just make it considerably harder for the minority to do, then let them do as they wish.
This thread is about how democrats banned science in a climate bill. What happened in reality is that a majority of the science banning side was republican, and a minority were democrats. Almost all of the opposition came from democrats.
So no, it’s not us blaming it on Republicans. It’s us calling bullshit on you for blaming it on democrats.
What the fuck, man? The title of the fucking thread is “ha ha ha, look at the hypocritical democrats!” How is that an interesting discussion, and not an invitation for partisan bickering?
People have been saying that here, but does anyone have a cite for that claim? And keep in mind that the House Ag Committee, which is where this got hashed out, (right?), has 27 Democrats and 17 Republicans. And it looks like pretty much every member is from an agricultural state, so I don’t see how party affiliation is any more important than typical district pandering by Congresscritters.
Is there a public list of who voted what way on this issue in the committee? That would be more informative than speculation and assertions about which party typically votes which way.
The problem with filibuster is that the entire premise is based on a faulty understanding of the Previous Question motion in the earliest days of the Senate. It should never have been allowed in the first place.