I guess you missed that it’s not just about judicial nominations, it’s also about executive branch nominations. There are some important agencies that have been without a head for years because of Pub bullshit.
And by the way, “I believe” is not a cite. Here is the data:
Note that it grossly understates the actual amount of Pub bullshit, because it only counts actions that actually were filed, and not all the times that Dems didn’t bother to force the issue after some Pub said he would filibuster.
And note the huge jump in 2007, the year that Pubs lost control of the Senate.
But the proper metric is the number of unsuccessful cloture votes, right? I mean, I click on the link of votes for 112th Congress and the first cloture motion passes 91-1. That’s not a Pub filibuster, is it? This is an honest question, because I don’t really understand the mechanism of the cloture motions (and, thus, tend to judge the number of filibusters by the number of nominees that don’t get confirmed).
That blog post has a link to a PDF ( See table 6-7 ) showing attempted and successful cloture votes (which you would know if you had taken the time to read!). The procedure is successful about half the time in bringing matters up for an actual vote.
There are non-filibuster related reasons to ask for a cloture vote, but cloture votes have a high correlation with filibusters, whether threatened or actual. Think of it this way: if all the Senators were willing to give unanimous consent to proceed to a vote, a cloture vote wouldn’t be necessary. But it has proven to be repeatedly necessary just to get anything done.
I read the table on the blog. And went to the link to the Senate site provided in the other post. Which appears to have the same information (and information about the underlying motions).
My question is: Is the proper measure the number of motions on which there is a vote, but cloture is not invoked?
Some number of the motions are withdrawn after recieving unanimous consent (at least according to the Senate site). Is that a Pub filibuster? Many of them pass with stageringly high margains (90-2; 83-14; etc). Are those Pub filibusters? My sense is no, but I’m asking.
On March 2, 2010, the Senate votes 99-0 to invoke cloture on Judge Keenan (now of the 4th Circuit). Is that a filibuster? You’re telling me that I’m supposed to make something of the fact that the motion was filed at all, and I’m just asking what.
ETA: Or do I say: in 2003-04, there are 37 votes on cloture that appear to fail and in 2009-10, there’s 28. And that’s the number of filibusters.
The existing rules were biting them on the ass now. It’s consistent with the general Republican agenda of trying to make it like Obama was not re-elected.
You have to keep in mind that unanimous consent means “unanimous.” If even one Senator objects, you don’t have unanimous consent.
Now if one Senator objects, and is easily overridden by a cloture vote, is that a filibuster? I’d lean towards no, unless it’s clear that the Senate minority leader can’t seem to get everyone in his caucus to move together in the same direction. If even a handful of the Senators in the minority party routinely refuse to give their consent and keep gumming up the works, I would call those filibusters.
Actually, on second thought, I’d say that any number of Senators refusing to consent constitutes a filibuster. Just because it has no shot of succeeding doesn’t mean you haven’t hindered the legislative process.
Well, this is where I get confused. The blog posts goes off “votes” and not motions filed (at least based on my attempt to match up the numbers), so we’re assuming that all the cloture motions that are withdrawn becuase of unanimous consent (or something else) don’t count. That seems right to me.
So I guess we’re looking at the number of cloture motions that require a vote. And that seems to run between 50 and 60 between 1991 and 2006. And then it jumps significantly in 2007-2008. But scrolling down the votes, a lot of them are 90-2, 94-0, 93-1, etc.
Clearly where cloture fails (some of them are righteous Dem blocks and others are Pub bullshit) it counts as a filibuster. Especially, where there are more than 50 but less than 60 votes in favor.
But, I guess, you’re saying that the 88-8 votes or the 71-26 votes constitutes “filibusters” becuase… why? The need for the extra vote? Is the Senate that busy? Do those bills have a lower change of ultimately passing?
If the metric is “cloture failed,” which feels like a filibuster to me, then the number seems surprisingly constant from 1991 to 2012, with the exception of the 2007-2008 time period.
Yes, the Senate is that busy, and it runs much better when everyone involved can agree on how to proceed with Senate business. There are court vacancies, most notably on the DC circuit, that need filled. The NLRB, for the first time in 10 years, is fully staffed. The vote on Janet Yellen for Fed chief is coming up, which is vitally important.
It’s not simply a matter of needing an extra vote. It’s that the abuse of the filibuster has created a de facto requirement for 60 votes in the Senate just to get nominees confirmed. That’s undemocratic.
Look, I opposed the use of the filibuster for nominations in 2003 and I oppose it now. With the exception of lifetime appointments, which, frankly, I’m comfortable holding to a 60 vote requirement. And while I disagree that the D.C. Circuit “most notably” needs three seats (including John Roberts’ seat!) filled, as opposed to, say, the four seats on the much-busier 11th Circuit, so be it. Although I understand the political appeal of a more-liberal D.C. Circuit.
What I’m having trouble with is the notion that requiring a vote (that is overwhelmingly passed) for cloture on a nomination (and obviously we haven’t broken out the numbers for nominations from cloture in general) constitutes an “abuse” of the filibuster or meaingful obstruction to the nomination process. The number of actual blocks seems to be fairly constant; the number of votes has increased (but I’m still not sure why there are so many overwhelming votes). I don’t think the McCain-Graham threat to block Yellen was a filibuster in the cloture sense (maybe it was, I also have trouble with these “holds” and “blocks”). I expected to see some significant number of nominations “blocked” in the sense that the did not take office; not that they were slightly delayed and subjected to lopsided procedural votes.
I’m certainly not sure how it’s undemocratic. I guess it’s un-majoritarian, but there was a time when that was a good thing.
I can’t believe it finally happened. If Reid had any intellect and balls (and wasn’t complicit) he would’ve ended the filibuster in 2009. It was obvious the GOP was going to obstruct because the more they obstruct the more incompetent government looks (and the better the GOP does politically).
Sad it took him 5 years to figure this out. Its a start. He has talked about filibuster reform over and over and over and I figure this was just more hot air until I read it actually happened.
It was never a problem in the past and, in the long run, the judges will be pretty much evenly divided between the parties.
You may even get judges who are willing to look at the law objectively instead of being ideologues. I know that sounds like a terrible thing, but maybe we should try it again.
According to the NY Times, the Republicans had announced that they were going to allow any of the three vacant seats on the DC court of appeals to be filled period This goes beyond mere obstruction to destruction. And if there is a Supreme Court vacancy in the next three years? Will we see the rule extended?
Well that’s mighty democratic of you. Small d. I’ve always hated the filibuster. This is a great day for the USofA when the filibuster is greatly diminished in power.
Democracy does have a way of biting the citizens in the ass. But so much less so that all other forms of government.