Back when Democrats were frequently filibustering Bush’s judicial nominees, Bill Frist threatened to use it.
Now that it’s the Republicans doing the filibustering why haven’t the Democrats threatened to use it?
See Mutually Assured Destruction.
No party is going to pull the trigger on that one, because they know they will not always be the majority party.
But the Republicans threat to use it caused the Democrats to back off. So maybe if the Democrats threatened to use it the Republicans would know that it was only a bluff and not worry about it?
The Democrats are spineless and can be pushed around with threats. The Republicans have resolve and if that threat came up they’d be willing to force the Democrats to pull the trigger.
Post #2 & 4 nailed it.
So what? Neither party needs this kind of de facto veto.
What does “need” have to do with it? It grants power to those not in power. They will never willingly give that up.
That said I suspect we will see a rule change in the future (likely after the mid-term elections). I think both sides realize, at least in private, that government run by supermajority is untenable. I suspect the filibuster will remain in some fashion but they will weaken it.
Personally I vote for making whoever filibusters actually go through the motions of the filibuster. Stand up there and read the Washington phone book for a few days. Stop all Senate business till resolved. Maintain a quorum throughout.
When it was done that way these things were rare and done only when the minority party was super serious on an issue.
While a unique thing in the world’s democracies I think a chance for the minority to flex a little muscle (regardless which party) is a good thing.
Just waaaaay too easy to do today. Make them earn their money.
Amen to that.
It’s not hard to figure out. The Democratic party has constituents who do not want their insurance FUBAR’d. They get this from individuals writing to them as well as organized labor.
For the same reason they don’t have the GOP’s party discipline or the GOPs willingness to pass everything they want through reconciliation. Or the GOP’s willingness to be blatantly hypocritical, or politicize terrorism, or anything else.
The dems don’t have the courage of their convictions that the GOP does. I don’t know why either. Kerry was a prosecutor. Harry Reid used to get assassination attempts from the mob in Nevada. Obama was a community organizer in an area full of gangs. Now they get pushed around by old men like McConnell.
It is curious. There are some nonwimpy dems (Kucinich, Sanders, Whitehouse, Weiner, etc). But they seem to be the minority.
That would require a change in the Senate rules. Changing the Senate rules takes a 2/3 vote, at least according to Senate rules. (Some would say Article I, Section 5 overrules that; more on that in a moment.) Getting a 2/3 vote to change the rules is even harder than getting 60 votes to break a filibuster.
Article I, Section 5, fourth paragraph, says: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
Seems like the Senate has the Constitutional authority to set its own rules, and the implication is that they may do so by majority rule. We’ve been discussing that over in the What will it take for Senate Dems to be willing to break a filibuster? thread.
I think it is because Dems are just as beholden to their corporate masters as any Rep is. However, Reps can be pro business/anti-labor across the board whereas the Dems need to do a balancing act.
So a Rep can oppose traditionally liberal issues across the board while the Dems will champion it unless it directly impacts their particular masters. Dems are all for health care reform unless they have a lot of health care donors on their list. Dems are all for environmental protections unless they have a lot of manufacturing in their district and their puppet masters say no way. And so on…
In the end the Reps can divide and conquer against the Dems and the Dems can never stand united.
From the Wiki.
A simple Senate majority can effectively eliminate the filibuster straw man by changing the requirements for cloture. How come dem Dems don’t? Because then they’d have no one to blame for their betrayal of their progressive campaign promises.
Every Congressional session is a corporate financed filibuster against any real ‘change’ foreign or domestic. The only thing holding Obama back is his own debt to corporate America. Secret unbid Medicare drug contracts to the big dealers and our own beleaguered health care system stuck with the bill while the Pubs wail about the costs? Please.
I’ve merged adhay’s new thread into this one because they’re about the same idea.
Yes.
The point is, that is a thing holding him back.
More importantly, it is also a thing holding back most Congresscritters, Dem as well as Pub.
If the current trend continues, we may need to create a new forum dedicated to this subject.
I see a Nuke 'Em For Change march on Washington. Or at least a flood of emails to Congress and the White House calling out the man behind the curtain.
Bingo! The Dems are fully aware that they do not have the public’s support behind them. They took one look at the MA senate race and now all the rats are jumping ship.
On anything major like healthcare it looks like there’s a gentlemens’ agreement not to use it. When the GOP had close to 60 Senate seats they didn’t use it to scrap Social Security for instance.
Gentlemen indeed.
Or legalize rape and murder.