McConnell should eliminate the filibuster

Politics & Elections
1

Dylan Matthews of Vox argues this. He notes: 59 Senators representing 36 states and 62.7 percent of the US population* voted to fast-track approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. They failed. Then, 58 Senators representing 37 states and 76.6 percent of the population voted for a bill that would limit NSA spying, particularly the collection of phone records. They also failed. Look. I don’t know the details of the NSA spying bill. And if I was a Senator I would trade Keystone pipeline support for the sort of greenhouse gas emission bill that we should have passed 25 years ago. But those votes reflected pretty substantial super-majorities. The filibuster is out of control and should be abolished.

Now ideally, I’d prefer the filibuster be retained but dialed back 80%. Maybe change cloture rules to cover 55 votes (rather than 60) plus representation from population majorities. But that’s just making better the enemy of the good: abolition is far superior to the status quo.

To see the rise in obstructionism by Republicans, see this historical chart dating back to 1980. Republican congressmen are sleaze innovators. But once they shatter congressional norms, Democratic behavior ratchets upwards. That’s appropriate and moral: when somebody punches you in the face repeatedly you hit back, while making proposals to de-escalate. Otherwise you are just enabling their behavior. It’s sad that modern conservatives can’t grasp that concept: some will even point to Democratic filibusters and cluelessly prattle, “See! Democrats do it too!”

A bland tabulation of cloture votes lacks a certain specificity though. To see how Republican obstructionism saps this nation’s strength, see this advocacy page. For example, it shows how Republicans tie the court system in knots by delaying judicial confirmations, confirmations that at times are eventually approved unanimously. More. McConnell once even filibustered a bill that he had sponsored himself. Following the worst financial crisis in post-war history, the Republican Senator Jon Kyle blocked the appointment of 6 treasury appointees for reasons wholly unrelated to their qualifications or positions.

If McConnell bans the filibuster, there will still be an executive veto which can and should be used frequently. For if the Republican Senate abolishes the filibuster, it is far more likely to be motivated by a power grab than a serious effort to grapple with the nation’s problems. Still, it would be a step in the correct direction.

In the more likely case the filibuster remains in place in Feb 2015, expect Democratic Senators to block Republican legislation. Turnabout is not only fair play, it is a categorical imperative. And if Republicans again attempt to shutdown the government, sabotage the economy, and downgrade our nation’s good credit expect push-back.

Past threads:
June 2012, GD: The filibuster - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Nov 2012, elections, “Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress” Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board

2

That would be pointless. I expect the GOP to abolish the filibuster if they keep the senate and win the white house in 2016, but right now any bills the GOP like will get vetoed.

A better idea than banning the filibuster is making it painful. Right now it is too easy to filibuster. Force people to actually stand and stay in session, that way it’ll only be used on occasion.

3

The talking filibuster should be restored. It should be difficult to filibuster, not easy, and not impossible. Though no filibuster would be better than the way it is currently.

4

Yeah, there is zero point in doing it now and it would probably backfire horrendously since Democrats are likely to take the senate and white house in 2 years.

5

So very much this. I like the filibuster. At it’s worst it can produce gridlock. At it’s best it forces reaching across the aisle in the body (because of long terms) that traditionally was least reactive to short term pressure and best able to be the source of bipartisan solutions. There should be some pain though. The change I would like to see if getting rid of the ability to do other business while a virtual filibuster effectively tables a motion without debate. Take things back to pre-1975 rules. As long as you can justify a debate and keep debating … do it. If your point of contention is reading War and Peace into the record at 2am, and you can justify it to your constituents, more power to you. I think we’d get more bipartisanship on cloture votes if nothing else. :wink:

6

If we hadn’t had the filibuster in 2004, it’s likely that the Constitution would now prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states. Keep that in mind.

7

How? If they didn’t have the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster, where were they going to get 67 votes for the amendment?

8

The latter is “Reforming the filibuster”, which I don’t have a problem with. As discussed in previous threads IIRC, can you come up with a single great example of constructive filibuster?[sup]1[/sup] The classic one reflected attempts to maintain Jim Crow. Also, let me quote my 2009 post:

[sup]1[/sup]Here’s one! Janice Rogers Brown. Except I see that she was appointed to the appeals court anyway. Here are more possible examples. They aren’t exactly high profile.

9

Since Senators cannot be absent without permission, it only takes one quorum call. Arrest all of the missing Senators and have the Sergeant-at-Arms prevent any Senator from leaving. That makes a quorum call now a dilatory motion and those are never in order.

10

Or permit obstruction or economic sabotage. Remember: a bad economy hurts the party in power, while bi-partisanship disproportionately helps the party in power. So there’s every incentive for the minority party to intentionally gum up the works. Cite: Mitch McConnell.

  1. Let’s see some examples. 2. Let’s see some recent examples. 3. This analysis is outdated: it is pre-McConnell.

Another method would be to require 40 votes to block a bill, rather than requiring 60 votes to move it forward. Under the status quo, one Senator can just keep asking for cloture votes while his confederates can go home and get some sleep. It should be the reverse.
There is nothing in the constitution that requires Senatorial super-majorities. There is nothing in pre-1988 Senate tradition that requires consistent Senatorial super-majorities. Even if we ban the filibuster entirely, the US legislative process will still maintain more stopping points than most other democracies.
That said, if McConnell hands the Democrats a filibuster, they should use it: you don’t knuckle under to those who would sabotage the US economy: you stand up to them.

11

I’d say gridlock includes those. Whatever words you want for FUBAR. :wink: This is probably a useful time to bring up the tactic called filling the amendment tree followed by an immediate call for cloture without real debate. That tends to feed the gridlock monster as well. Harry Reid’s set new records in that area to go along with McConnell’s filibuster records. The spike in filibusters started earlier. I can blame McConnell for starting it. I can also blame them both for continuing it. It’s like two stooges in a slap fight …I just don’t know which one to call Curly Joe and which to call Shemp.

  1. 1964 Civil Rights Bill and 1933 Banking Act both saw compromises after filibuster. The Civil Rights Bill clearly would have passed on a majority vote and it also pretty clearly would have not passed with as large a majority. On such a divisive issue the public involvement during the long debate, and eventual super majority are something I value. It’s also useful to remember that not every back room deal is obvious. Breaking a filibuster via cloture, or the threat of one while still in committee process, can prompt deals that aren’t in the record.

2 & 3 - Completely irrelevant. I don’t think the current rule set works.

That could work. I’d be good with a completely new rule that limited the number of filibusters the minority leader could use thus making them rare but still available for the truly big and controversial issues. A rule that the filibuster must be germane to the subject (like the UK House of Commons has) could do a lot. Just getting them on the floor debating instead of sending an email and effectively tabling a bill without a super majority is a win.

I don’t disagree with any of those points. We both pretty clearly value being more efficient than the current rule set and practice gets us. My value for efficiency is likely lower than yours. On the most divisive issues, when the Senate is close to evenly split, my second worst case would be a series of law reversals every election when the balance shifts. The worst case is CSPAN running a years long stooges marathon. I’m tired of watching that. We both want to change the current rules set. My preferred changes just don’t completely involve throwing away the filibuster.

12

I had a notion about this the other day : the purpose (in theory) of the rules behind the filibuster is to allow for extended debate, yeah? Then set it up like this : You can make a cloture motion once per day, and the threshold is sixty votes … the first time. But it goes down with each subsequent motion such that the threshold eventually bottoms out at 51 votes.

That way, if you want to stall something, you actually have to convince people to see things your way, and not just get the votes of your forty buddies who already agree with you forever.

13

The democrats used the filibuster to block social security privatization after Bush’s reelection. Privatization a few years before the 2008 economic collapse could have had bad effects for a lot of people.

14

Or make the cloture vote 3/5 of those present, not 3/5 of all Senators. Remember Senators must be present except when given leave so “I wasn’t there for the vote.” is not an excuse.

15

Kind of. When the Senate Rules were made, the idea was that gentlemen should debate a topic as long as they want. Consequently there never was any built-in limit to debate unlike other rules of order. The filibuster was a natural outgrowth of that. In all honesty, the way to eliminate the filibuster is to limit debate and if the bill isn’t killed it goes up for a vote.

16

I’m OK with a filibuster as long as that sumbitch has to stand there are keep talking.

17

Most generally, I’m advocating abolition to make the point that we should err on that side. Americans (myself included as it happens) have some emotional attachment to the filibuster, so I doubt whether McConnell would blow it up.

If you believe one of my links, the filibuster has never actually been like that. I think.

Interesting. I followed a wikipedia link though and it seems like it died in a House committee. It appears that it never got out of a Senate committee, AFAIK. Not sure though.

Nicely argued: I find examples helpful. Consider 2 states of the world though.

In the first, majorities of both parties accept the scientific consensus on global warming. One party prefers somewhat more action, somewhat higher subsidies for low income insulation, somewhat higher revenues accruing to the public purse. The other party wants a longer phase-in, tax credits for insulation and a revenue neutral action plan. Under such circumstances, a filibuster would be expected to delay action, but conceivably garner a wider base of support.

In the second state of the world, Mitch McConnell discovers a bug in the political system, one he did not create himself. It turns out bipartisan deals disproportionately help the party in power. So Mitch does not want legislation, and he does not want the public to think that there are any Republicans interested in a climate bill. In this world, the filibuster is a useful instrument of obstruction - there is no interest in bipartisanship. The minority believes bipartisanship to be a sucker’s game.

We live in world #2. So a lot of the very real advantages of the filibuster no longer apply, and I’m afraid there’s no way of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

If McConnell lost his re-election bid, would we still live in world #2? Mitch and I would guess yes, but who knows? Maybe he missed something.

True, predictability is indeed a good thing. That said, most world democracies are parliamentary systems, where one side calls the shots and the other throws brickbats. Although one would think that policy would bounce around like a ping pong ball, in practice this happens less because the party in power has accountability. In the US, bad actors are not punished and politicians routinely dodge responsibility. Think about the absurd claims regarding government shutdowns. In other countries most coalition governments are afraid to rock the boat too much (though of course they need to assemble a policy package to sell to the public).

However… banning the filibuster won’t give us a parliamentary system and I shouldn’t pretend that it would be a panacea.