Filibuster Reform in the U.S. Senate

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Is this the end for the filibuster?

In 2008, Barack Obama promised to change the way Washington works. In 2013, we might actually see that change. But it won’t be because of Obama. It will be because a critical mass of senators — perhaps even including some Republicans — decide enough is enough: It’s time to rein in the filibuster.

The problem with a president promising to “change Washington” is that the presidency isn’t the part of Washington that’s broken. The systemic gridlock, dysfunction and polarization that so frustrate the country aren’t located in the executive branch. They’re centered in Congress. And one of their key enablers is Senate Rule XXII — better known as the filibuster.

Filibusters used to be relatively rare. There were more filibusters between 2009 and 2010 than there were in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s combined. A strategy memo written after the 1964 election by Mike Manatos, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Senate liaison, calculated that in the new Senate, Medicare would pass with 55 votes — the filibuster didn’t even figure into the administration’s planning.

There were more filibusters between in the 111th Congress (2009-2010) than in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s combined. (Data: Congress.gov, Graph: Ezra Klein)

Today, the filibuster isn’t used to defend minority rights or ensure debate. Rather, the filibuster is simply a rule that the minority party uses to require a 60-vote supermajority to get anything done in the Senate. That’s not how it was meant to be.

And it’s not how it has to be. The Constitution states that each chamber of Congress “may determine the rules of its proceedings.” And this week’s election has provided fresh evidence that the Senate, at least, may be preparing to remake its most pernicious rule.

Chris Murphy, the incoming Democratic senator from Connecticut, couldn’t have been clearer: “The filibuster is in dire need of reform,” he told Talking Points Memo. “Whether or not it needs to go away, we need to reform the way the filibuster is used, so it is not used in the order of everyday policy, but is only used in exceptional circumstances.”

Angus King, the independent senator-elect from Maine, said, “My principal issue is the functioning of the Senate.” He backs a proposal advanced by the reform group No Labels that would end the filibuster on motions to debate, restricting filibusters to votes on actual legislation. The group also wants to require filibustering senators to physically hold the Senate floor and talk, rather than simply instigate a filibuster from the comfort of their offices.

And it’s not just the new guys. In an election-night interview on MSNBC, Senator dikk Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats’ second-in-command, emphasized the importance of filibuster reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a committed guardian of institutional prerogatives who put the kibosh on filibuster reform in the previous Congress. But even he has given up protecting the practice. “We can’t go on like this any more,” he told MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I have to tell you, I want to change the rules and make the filibuster meaningful.”

That doesn’t go nearly far enough. The problem with the filibuster isn’t that senators don’t have to stand and talk, or that they can filibuster the motion to debate as well as the vote itself. It’s that the Senate has become, with no discussion or debate, an effective 60-vote institution. If you don’t change that, you haven’t solved the problem.

Defenses of the filibuster tend to invoke minority rights or the Constitution’s preference for decentralized power. It’s true the Founding Fathers wanted to make legislating hard. That’s why they divided power among three branches. It’s why senators used to be directly appointed by state legislatures. It’s why the House, the Senate and the president have staggered elections, so it usually takes a big win in two or more consecutive elections for a party to secure control of all three branches.

But the Founders didn’t want it to be this hard. They considered requiring a supermajority to pass legislation and rejected the idea. “Its real operation,” Alexander Hamilton wrote of such a requirement, “is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.” Sound familiar?

The Founders also opposed political parties — though they went on to start a couple — and couldn’t have foreseen how highly disciplined parties would subvert the political system they designed. Instead of the branches competing against one another, as they envisioned, we now have two parties competing uniformly across all branches.

Party polarization has turned the filibuster into a noxious obstacle. Filibusters are no longer used to allow minorities to be heard. They’re used to make the majority fail. In the process, they undermine democratic accountability, because voters are left to judge the rule of a majority party based on the undesirable outcomes created by a filibustering minority.

Ideally, a bipartisan majority of senators would end the filibuster — either immediately or with a delayed trigger six years after a deal is struck — so neither party would know which is poised to benefit. But doing away with the filibuster in the next Congress has some appeal, too. Democrats control the Senate and Republicans control the House; there will be no instant power grab leading to one-party dominance.

Republicans might want to think about getting on the train. Though they’ve mucked up opportunities to take over the Senate in 2010 and 2012, they have another opportunity in 2014, when Democrats will have 20 seats up for reelection and Republicans will be defending only 13. If the filibuster ends now, there’s a real chance that the first party to benefit from a reformed Washington would be the Republicans. That should be a change they can believe in.

 

[No1]

What caught my eye is the No Labels nod. My boy has been down with that since college, I see that they're getting some clout now.

 

[stealthbomber]

finally. maybe now congress can get something done.

 

[Piff Perkins]

There were fewer fillibusters and obstruction during the Civil War and civil right's era. Let that sink in

 

[StatUS]

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

There were fewer fillibusters and obstruction during the Civil War and civil right's era. Let that sink in

People don't even understand the way the filibuster has been used in the past 4 years, and how it amounts to a radical change in the fundamentals of how government has operated. That has to be taken into account in any objective assessment of Obama's first term. The American Jobs Act would've passed and unemployment would be substantially lower now if the government operated as it usually did pre-2009, to name a glaring example. These Repub s have been filibustering stuff like judicial nominees, treasury staff, and ambassador appointments on sight for no other reason than to be a$$holes and do anything to sabotage the administration in any way possible. They filibustered tax cuts for small businesses and a jobs bill for returning veterans.

It was pretty sad to hear a few very vocal posters who supposedly keep up with politics not even knowing how the filibuster process works and how it's been used during the Obama presidency on a couple of our HL podcasts. The general public is even more clueless about it.

 

[No1]

People don't even understand the way the filibuster has been used in the past 4 years, and how it amounts to a radical change in the fundamentals of how government has operated. That has to be taken into account in any objective assessment of Obama's first term. The American Jobs Act would've passed and unemployment would be substantially lower now if the government operated as it usually did pre-2009, to name a glaring example. These Repub s have been filibustering stuff like judicial nominees, treasury staff, and ambassador appointments on sight for no other reason than to be a$$holes and do anything to sabotage the administration in any way possible. They filibustered tax cuts for small businesses and a jobs bill for returning veterans.

It was pretty sad to hear a few very vocal posters who supposedly keep up with politics not even knowing how the filibuster process works and how it's been used during the Obama presidency on a couple of our HL podcasts. The general public is even more clueless about it.

The thing about it though, is that it will be harder to change the process than most think. You still want to protect the minority. I'm going to read the No Labels proposal in depth later this week. I'm curious as to how they want to go about it.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Filibuster Reform

WASHINGTON — A brewing and potentially bitter fight over Democratic efforts to curb filibusters is threatening to inflame partisan tensions in the Senate, even as President Barack Obama and Republicans explore whether they can compromise on top tier issues such as debt reduction and taxes.

A potential showdown vote to limit Senate filibusters would not come until January. Democrats are threatening to resort to a seldom-used procedure that could let them change the rules without GOP support, all but inviting Republican retaliation.

That fight is looming as the newly re-elected Obama and GOP leaders prepare to use the lame-duck session of Congress that starts Tuesday to hunt for compromise on the "fiscal cliff" – the nearly $700 billion worth of tax increases and spending cuts next year that automatically begin in January unless lawmakers head them off.

That effort will be contentious enough without added animosity over efforts to weaken the filibuster. Unless a filibuster compromise is reached, the dispute could produce sour partisan feelings that might hinder cooperation on legislation when the new Congress begins work in January.

Filibusters are a procedural tactic that lets the minority party block bills that lack the support of at least 60 senators. Democrats seem likely to command a 55-45 majority in the new Senate, making 60 a difficult hurdle.

Frustrated by the GOP's growing use of filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a Senate vote in the new year to limit their use.

"I think that the rules have been abused and that we're going to work to change them," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters this past week. "We're not going to do away with the filibuster, but we're going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we're going to make it so that we can get things done."

Democrats say that vote to change the rules would require a simple majority of senators, and they argue that the Constitution lets Senate majorities write new rules for the chamber. That, in effect, would mean Democrats could change the rules over GOP opposition, assuming 51 Democrats go along.

Republicans say they filibuster legislation because Reid blocks them from offering amendments. They also note that Senate rules require that the body's procedures can be changed only by a two-thirds majority.

Changing Senate rules by simple majority, rather than a two-thirds vote, is rarely done and referred to as "the nuclear option" because it is considered an extreme move that can trigger all-out partisan battling.

The Senate's arcane procedures require the consent of all senators to do almost anything. An embittered minority party can use the chamber's rules to force repeated votes and delays that can grind work to a virtual halt.

Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would not say what Republicans would do should Democrats try changing the rules by simple majority vote.

"We hope Democrats will work toward allowing members of both sides to be involved in the legislative process – rather than poisoning the well on the very first day of the next Congress," Stewart said.

Republicans also note that in public remarks Reid made on the Senate floor in January 2011 during a discussion with McConnell, Reid agreed to oppose "any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate's rules other than through the regular order." That was a reference to Senate rules requiring two-thirds majorities for rules changes.

Democrats say it is Republicans who broke the January 2011 informal deal the two leaders discussed because McConnell said he would use procedural delays "with discretion."

Instead, Democrats say, Republicans frequently have used stalling tactics to prevent the Senate from even beginning to debate bills. They then bog down debate by insisting on votes on piles of amendments, including many on unrelated issues that are designed to score points in future election campaigns, Democrats say.

Reid wants to prevent filibusters on "motions to proceed," which let the Senate begin debating a bill, and aides say he might consider other restrictions as well. Reid plans to discuss it with fellow Democrats in the postelection session. Discussions with McConnell could occur as well, Democratic aides said.

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon has proposed filibuster limits that include requiring senators delaying legislation to talk continually about it on the Senate floor, much like the senator portrayed by the actor James Stewart did in the 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

That type of filibuster has been extremely rare for decades.

The use of filibusters by senators, usually those in the minority, is one of the key ways the chamber differs from the House, where the rules usually let the majority prevail unimpeded. Senators in the majority often complain about the minority's excessive use of filibusters, but are usually cautious about limiting the procedure because they know their own party can fall back into the minority after any election.

According to the Senate Historian's Office, the number of "cloture petitions" – a procedural step that sets up a vote to end a filibuster – was 68 in the two-year session of Congress running from 2005 to 2006, the last time Democrats were in the minority.

But that number has exceeded 100 for each of the past three two-year sessions, all of which have seen Republicans in the minority, peaking at 139 in the 2007-2008 session. There have been 109 in the current 2011-2012 session, with several more weeks of lame duck meetings expected.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said that while Democrats are open to compromise, McConnell "has got to know that the American people on Tuesday completely rejected his entire approach to governing, obstruction and gridlock at every turn."

McConnell spokesman Stewart said Republicans already compromised in the informal 2011 agreement that Democrats broke.

"Doing hyperpartisan actions doesn't lead to partisan compromise," he said.

 

[Jello Biafra]

The only thing that needs to be reformed with the filibuster is how it is used. Right now you can just say you are filibustering and then you can go home as log as neither side has 60 votes. They need to take it back to the old ways where in order for a filibuster to occur the party who calls for it has to stay onsight and speak continuously or lose the floor and see their filibuster be defeated.
Strom Thurmond's old racist ass stood on the Senate floor for 24 straight hours trying to stop the Civil Rights Act before he had to fall back.
Do you think John Boener is going to risk having to skip a tanning appointment to fillibuster a bill the Dems are trying to push? Far less obstruction would go on I guarantee it.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January

 

[Brown_Pride]

Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January

I heard an interview with harry and he pretty much said they were gonna roll with this in January
Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say do it. For better or worse this current fiasco has got to stop.

 

[FAH1223]

 

[the cac mamba]

so no one sees the value of having the filibuster in 2017?

 

[No1]

so no one sees the value of having the filibuster in 2017?

No. Without then you have more progressive legislation and you never get 2017.

 

[the cac mamba]

No. Without then you have more progressive legislation and you never get 2017.

is that a fact