Improve, But Don't Destroy, The Filibuster

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 23:07


Over the past week, there has been grumbling among some Democrats and progressives that we should have let the Republicans destroy the filibuster back in 2005. Matthew Yglesias is an example of this, writing today that the recent difficulties with the stimulus package are yet another reason to get rid of the filibuster.

I admit, such calls are pretty tempting right now, but overall I have to disagree. The Senate is, fundamentally, an undemocratic institution that was created to protect small states by providing them with more representation than the principle of "one person, one vote" could ever possibly justify. In the context of such an institution, it makes perfect sense for there to be another mechanism to protect minority viewpoints, and the filibuster fits that bill nicely. While I would rather see the Senate turned into a proportional representation institution where all 100 members are elected every four years during mid-term elections, that just isn't going to happen--like ever. So, let's work with what we have.

There are two ways that the filibuster needs to be fixed. First, the relevant Senate rule needs to be changed from "three-fifths of all sitting Senators" to "three-fifths of all Senators voting." The "all sitting Senators" aspect of the rule creates two logical problems with the filibuster.

(More in the extended entry)

Chris Bowers :: Improve, But Don't Destroy, The Filibuster
The sitting Senators rule simply doesn't make sense:
  1. First, under current rules, any Senator who is preventing from voting due to illness is automatically opposed to any laws passing the Senate whatsoever. Not only is this unrepresentative of the views of that Senator, and not only is it unrepresentative of the view of the people who that Senator represents, it is about as obvious a case of unnecessary gridlock that one can find.

  2. Second, under current rules, any Senator who wishes to abstain cannot actually do so. All abstentions are logically the same as "no" votes, since a fixed number of "yes" votes are needed to end a filibuster through cloture. In a democracy, there should always be an option to abstain. The current Senate rules deny all Senators that option on filibusters.
The second way that filibusters need to be fixed is that all Senators voting to continue the filibuster through endless debate should not be let off the hook without engaging in actual public debate. Any Senator who votes in against cloture and in favor of continuing a filibuster should be required to give, at minimum, a two-minute speech in the Senate explaining why s/he wants to continue debate. If s/he fails to make such a statement, then her or his vote against cloture is rendered null and void. A vote against cloture should only be accepted after such a speech is made.

No more theoretical filibusters If you oppose something strong enough to filibuster it, then get up on CSPAN2 and actually continue debate. If your two-minute speech opposing, say, health care for children ends up in a campaign commercial for your next opponent, then so be it. Obviously, such a rule would not apply to instances where there are initially enough votes to end the filibuster.

I think that those two changes would be adequate to fix the filibuster. There are real conflicts to the principle of elected representation caused by the "sitting Senators" rule, and Senators who block a bill by denying cloture should be, you know, actually forced to continue debate. We could implement these two fixes through the "nuclear option," and be done with it. It only takes 50 Democrats and Joe Biden.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Improve, But Don't Destroy, The Filibuster | 61 comments
The rule used to be 2/3rds of Senators voting.... (4.00 / 5)
...they dropped to to 60 after Democrats won huge numbers after watergate, so they wanted to get more power.  They dropped the number to 60, but as a concession to the minority, they made that number based on seated Senators instead of total voting.

People keep bitching about the 60 votes for the stimulus, but that's a totally different rule... any bill that increases the deficit requires sixty votes by another Senate rule... it has nothing to do with the filibuster.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

True (4.00 / 3)
It is a different rule, but that one should be changed to "Senators voting" rather than "sitting Senators," too.

There would be no need to force Senators to talk extra time about their votes in the current rule that is causing us problems.

[ Parent ]
The rule, in fact, has changed numerous times ... (4.00 / 4)
...and, personally (sorry, Chris), the next change I'd like to see is doing away with it altogether.
[ Parent ]
Biggest problem with filibuster (0.00 / 0)
is that it lets Senators in the minority hide or muddle their position with a cloture vote. Voters have to try to figure out where they really stood on the issue and it's not clear. If there was no filibuster, it's possible a fair amount of bad legislation would pass the Senate but at least voters would know clearly who to blame and remove from office in the next election.

It would be great to do away with the Senate entirely. I can't think of the last time the Senate did anything that improved the lives of average citizens. Over the past thirty years it's mostly been responsible for massive suffering and the perpetuation of human misery. The Senate is the United States' House of Lords. Sustaining the legitimacy of an upper class by giving them a house of Congress was one of the biggest mistakes of the founders.

[ Parent ]
Why not reduce the number of votes for cloture to something sane (4.00 / 3)
in addition to the fixes above? 55 strikes me as a reasonable number (or 11/20 of sitting Senators). That way the "worst excesses" of the majority party can probably be stopped by the minority party, but you don't have to win three landslides in a row just to implement the most basic items of your platform.
But then again .. (4.00 / 1)
Reid sucks as a majority leader .. and the Republicans are better at ramming stuff through ... Democrats playing hardball in the Senate has gone the way of the doo-doo bird
[ Parent ]
Studying majority leaders (4.00 / 1)
there hasn't been one I've read about that I've liked. Johnson comes close, but even he sold out a lot on Civil Rights as majority leader.

[ Parent ]
Maybe... (4.00 / 2)
But he DID advocate for Civil Rights as President.    
[ Parent ]
Oops (2.00 / 2)
     I hit "recommended" instead of reply. Oh, well.
    It's ridiculous to say that LBJ "sold out" on Civil Rights. He had nowhere near a two-thirds majority to cut off a Southern filibuster. In his last year as Majority Leader there were 65 Democrats and 35 Republicans in the Senate, but 22 of the Democrats were from the Confederate States and only three of them (LBJ, Yarborough, and Gore) were pro-Civil Rights. Even if every other Democrat voted for cloture, he would have had to get 60% of the Republicans to break a filibuster, as the rules then required two-thirds.
    He was able to accomplish that as President after a four-month filibuster because he had things to offer to the Republican leader Dirksen. But as Majority Leader, without the active and sustained support of the Eisenhower Administration, it was never possible to pass a serious Civil Rights bill. He did manage, however, to put together a coalition to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was the first civil rights bill passed in 82 years.
    The whole story is told in Robert Caro's book "Master Of The Senate"
[ Parent ]
Reid has similar problems (0.00 / 0)
and had these problems ALOT in the last Congress considering the Democrats never really had a majority, but we kept criticizing him anyway.

I'm not a defender of Reid, but I think we look at LBJ in hindsight, but at the time I'm willing to bet we'd be criticizing him.

[ Parent ]
That is pretty transparent (4.00 / 2)
given the fact that we will hold 59 votes. If I were a Republican I would make great hay out of that position.
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (0.00 / 0)
But if we passed a bill saying the Sky is blue and apple pie is fantastic, they'd say its Green and apple pie is ruining America.
[ Parent ]
This makes no sense to (4.00 / 13)
me.  Are we blind to the historical cost of the filibuster?

For how long in this country were civil rights delayed because we did not need 50 votes, but 60?  How many will die because we need 60 votes to pass Health Care reform, and not 50.

The Separation of Powers provides adequate protection against the tyranny of the majority.  Nowhere is the filibuster mentioned in the Federalist Papers

Why are progressives afraid of democracy?  

i'd recommend twice if i could. (0.00 / 0)
the idea that the senate's historically undemocratic nature justifies its continued undemocratic nature is, well, conservative.  
[ Parent ]
Without the filibuster.. (4.00 / 3)
Social security would have been destroyed a few years ago, along with net neutrality, and health care protections, among many other atrocious pieces of legislation that Republicans tried to push through...

Some people forget that the filibuster was all we had to protect the US from radical republicanism...  We won't have the majority forever... someday we will need that tool again...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
The Repugs never had 50 votes (4.00 / 2)
to repeal social security.  I do not agree with you about that.

At the end of the day, though, there is no substitute for winning elections.  Essentially you are saying you don't trust democracy.  

[ Parent ]
simplistic (4.00 / 2)
Unless you are saying the founders didn't trust democracy. The put in protections to keep the majority from running rough shod over the minority, especially in fits of pique (which pretty much sums up the post 9/11 Bush years). Some of the worst stuff Cheney wanted was stopped by the 60 vote requirement and Democrats could have stopped more than they did if they had any balls which they, or at least Harry Reid, didn't (and doesn't).
[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
The filibuster was not one of those protections, as fladem clearly explained. It's not in the Federalist Papers.
[ Parent ]
Meh (0.00 / 0)
That's a ridiculously close minded argument.
[ Parent ]
How exactly? (0.00 / 0)
If we're talking about the basic design and intent of the federal government then this point matters a great deal. It is historically inaccurate to read the filibuster into the Madisonian plan. It was never considered as part of the checks and balances, separation of powers, or protection of the rights of minorities.

I'm sorry if reality doesn't agree with you, but that's a burden you'll have to bear. Not me.

[ Parent ]
OK... (0.00 / 0)
First off, You sound like a little yappy poodle dog who needs to hear the obedience whistle.  Its rather annoying so please...stop.
My comment is to your insistance that the just because the Federalist Papers don't call for it, it shouldn't be in it.   That's as close minded as Conservatives who say that we have no ineherent right to privacy as discussed under R v W because its not explicitly stated in the constitution.

Now...

The Federalist Papers are important pieces of historical PROPAGANDA.   They are important but should ALWAYS be taken with some grains of salt and not as an absolute.   They are, after all, propaganda designed to get Public Support.   That doesn't make them bad, but they are a sales job.

The the Senate was never founded on equality.  It wasn't a boyd for the people and was not democratic.  It was an aristocratic body to begin with.  It was a compromise, as we both know, and held the aristocratic job of representing the states rather than the people... which is why it was by appointment.  

You act as if the filibustering is new... the ability to do so was first created in 1806.  It wasn't used until the 1840's and only since Senate Rule 22 was enacted has become the weapon we see today.  That doesn't mean it should go away...

Rather it should be amended.  I don't even feel that we have to have it as 3/5ths present voting... I think removal of Senate Rule 22 would go a long way.   Make Coburn get his ass up and stay in the same spot for 24 hours without being able to use the bathroom.    Take away the potential for abuse... cure the cancer, don't kill the patient.

[ Parent ]
So (4.00 / 2)
you don't trust democracy.  That's a defensible position.
If your primary goal is to protect the status quo.  

[ Parent ]
Not repeal (0.00 / 0)
privatize...they had the votes for that...barely, but they couldn't override united Democratic opposition.

The only good thing is that some Republicans sided with us on that issue.  

[ Parent ]
If they had privatized Social Security (4.00 / 1)
it would have made the current crisis 100 times worse. The GOP would have dug their grave even deeper as folks saw their newly privatized pensions go up in smoke.

I don't think there were ever 50 votes to enact the Bush plan. From what I recall, they never even wrote a coherent plan or introduced one in Congress. It was just a clusterfuck from the get-go and never went anywhere.

[ Parent ]
Maybe they should've done it (0.00 / 0)
maybe we'd have a few more Democratic Senators now and Nelson and Collins would be irrelevant.  
[ Parent ]
On SS vote (0.00 / 0)
Republicans were scattered on what they wanted. Some on the far right wanted to repeal it completely, some, like Collins and Specter, didn't want any part of it.

They had 50 votes, but probably just around 50. Democrats threatened to filibuster, but a couple of Republicans threatened to join them and the whole thing was shot to death.

If there was no filibuster, they probably would've been able to get a half assed plan through with maybe Cheney breaking a tie. but that isn't saying much  

[ Parent ]
You are rewriting history... (0.00 / 0)
They had the votes initially.  The filibuster combined with the strong PR campaign turned it.
[ Parent ]
What? .. (4.00 / 1)
if you go that route .. Reid didn't use the filibuster enough when in the minority
[ Parent ]
Even if they tried (0.00 / 0)
they never had the votes...There were almost always enough Democrats to go along with what Bush wanted.

The only thing they were able to stop was privization of social security, which really stopped in the House.

[ Parent ]
Reid... (4.00 / 1)
He DIDN'T use it enough... you are absolutely right.   He was a failure as Minority Leader.
[ Parent ]
I said another day (0.00 / 0)
that if we're willing to deal with the consequences as the minority without it, then get rid of it.

One could argue the Republicans had a right to do those terrible things you said...they WERE elected.  

[ Parent ]
True. (0.00 / 0)
Though we should have politicians on the left who are as committed as those on the right.  If we had that, when the Dems became the majority, they could reverse all the damage done by the Republicans in the 50-vote Senate.  And to some extent that is what is happening, though we really have two parties concerned most about the interests of corporations.
[ Parent ]
flip side (4.00 / 1)
Yes, it is easier for Republicans to destroy key social programs in a filibusterless senate, but it is also much easier to restore same when voters kick them out.

Canada and the UK have had majority conservative governments that didn't dare repeal UHC.

The flip side of giving the majority party more power is that voters know exactly who to blame if they don't like what has happened.  The seperation of powers messes with that, since so much terrible legislation is bi-partisan.  Who can voters blame for the PATRIOT act or the Glass Steagal repeal?

However, this means turning the US into a parliamentary system, which is also a pipe dream (also would require ditching the veto).

[ Parent ]
That's assuming... (4.00 / 1)
That the voters are engaged enough to care.  Most don't seem to be... not unless a major castrophe happens.
[ Parent ]
Completely agreed (4.00 / 2)
There's nothing in the Madisonian plan that included a Senate apportioned by states that suggests a filibuster is necessary to the preservation of democracy. And as you have noted, the filibuster's actual effect has been to retard the development of democracy.

There's no need for a filibuster rule. It can and should be ended.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely agree (4.00 / 1)
    The Senate has been called the place where good ideas go to die. It's already a very un-democratic institution, the filibuster makes it worse.  
[ Parent ]
To throw that back at you... (4.00 / 1)
How many MORE people would the GOP have screwed over the last 8 years needing only 50 votes?    

I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that Social Security would be now under the ridiculous Bush plan.

Even more money funneled to the Iraq war.

How many Wingnut judges would be sitting right now, overturning things like R v W?

Its easy to say get rid of it now that we are in power, but looking back, it would have been BAD BAD BAD news.

[ Parent ]
The filibuster (4.00 / 2)
was not used on the AUMF.  I don't think it saved a dime in spending in Iraq.

All of this is misses the key point: because the Senate is fundementally undemocratic, the filibuster gives the power to a small group of states.  

McCain carried 22 States.  Of those I count 18 that remain pretty solid red.  In those 18 states, the GOP holds 30 Seats.  This means they only need 10 more to stop any legislation.  Moreover, the Dems from those states (eg Nelson in Nebraska) are easy to pressure because they are in some ways at odds with the electorate in their state.

The practical effect of the filibuster is to give Conservatives a near veto over progressive legislation.  

[ Parent ]
I wasn't referring... (0.00 / 0)
to AUMF.  I was talking about spending... And I am pretty sure that it was threatened on spending, which led to a little bit of reduction.

It might give the power to the small group of states... but the whole point of the senate WAS THAT IT WAS UNDEMOCRATIC.  It was setup to appease the small states who wanted equal representation in the legislative bodies.   Hell, we didn't directly elect Senators UNTIL the 20th century... It was by appointment... Its ALWAYS been an undemocratic body... that kind of shoots a hole in your reasoning.

The filibuster has been around since 1806 when Aaron Burr lobbied to eliminate the procdeural "move to the previous question".   Its been in place for a long time, but was not used until 1841.  

I agree its used WAY to often.  That doesn't mean we should get rid of it.    

Maybe we do as Chris said and require 3/5 of voting senators.  We should eliminate Senate Rule 22, which allows them to filibuster without filibustering (lazy SOBs... hate Strom Thurmonds politics, but you have to respect that that SOB knew how to Filibuster.)  Maybe a solution is bring back the "Move to the Previous Question" and eliminate Senate Rule 22.   SO Someone can filibuster, but they have to follow the rules.  When they stop speaking, they can vote for cloture or move or whatever.

[ Parent ]
Who gives a rat's ass that the Senate's always been undemocratic? (0.00 / 0)
That's universally acknowledged here. The issue is whether or not it should continue to be.

You say yes, but less than now (so that we can benefit from the lack of democracy). We say no, and we'll risk the consequences. Both are practical positions, with obvious downsides. But the original intention for the Senate doesn't support your argument any more than Robert's or fladem's. It gets to make its own rules, so there's no reason it shouldn't be reformed.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Agreed 100%! (0.00 / 0)
Screw this.  We live in a democracy.  And any system which allows a minority to block progress can result in a disastrous California-style deadlock.

And ask me if I give a rat's *** about "small states."  I live in Massachusetts; my best friend lives in Maine.  Last I checked we have the same values and aspirations.

[ Parent ]
I'm with Yglesias (4.00 / 6)
I think the filibuster rule, just like the ridiculous 2/3 requirement to pass a budget out here in CA, is merely a tool for gridlock and obstructionism. If the majority wants to pass bad laws, they should have that right. And then the public should be able to hold them to account.

The cloture rule goes against democracy, allowing a unified minority (which the Democrats almost never had in our minority status) to block the will of the people. The GOP was crushed in two consecutive elections, their presidential candidate was blown out, yet they can still stop Obama from enacting his vision? It's bullshit.

Look, I enjoyed having the filibuster when we were in the minority. Unfortunately, the Senate Dems almost never used it. Alito, Roberts, the Military Commissions Act, the list goes on and on. We stopped a few judges and drilling in ANWR, but that's small fry. If anything, the GOP would have imploded sooner if they were fully free to do as they pleased.

So yeah, I say get rid of the filibuster, or at least knock it down to 55 votes.

The 2-minute speech thing is a silly idea, because it's rather unenforceable. What if Vitter decides to read from the phone book for two minutes? No sweat off his back, and no goodies for an attack ad. The voting Senator idea is better, but wouldn't help much. If the minority can gather up 40 no votes, you'd still have to whip up 60 yes votes.

I don't get the argument. (4.00 / 3)
You grant that the Senate is fundamentally undemocratic, which it is.  I suppose it may follow from this that the undemocratic fillibuster would fit right in.  But the premise itself needs to be challenged.  Getting rid of the fillibuster certainly would violate the undemocratic spirit of the Senate.  But I take this to be a good thing, not a bad thing.  The Senate isn't essentially (in its nature) undemocratic.  That is, we could have a more democratic Senate.

Btw I highly recommend Stanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution.  Great read.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Unde...

Imho the real problems is Dem leadership... (4.00 / 3)
even though some fine tuning of the rules may be a good idea. But there will come a time again, maybe in 12 years or later, when the Dems are int he minority again, so this can backfire.

No, really, the important point is that even when only 3 or four votes are needed in the Senate, Reid is totally unable to break the ranks of the rethugs. The GOP had no such problems in the past, they regularly managed to bribe Dems with pork to vote for their horribly unliberal crap. I don't think republican Senators have so much more party solidarity, imho it's more that Reid and his gang only no know to handle carrots, but are totally clueless with the stick.  There have to be more provisions in such bills that will hurt the GOP in order to force them to negotiate. And the bill should have been much bigger in the first place, as Krugman rightly pointed out, in o order to have more bargaining matter. Putting no additional fat in it resulted in every "compromise" effecting vitally important provisions. This should have come as no surprise. After all, which spending billssurvive both House and Senate nchanged?

No, really, this is much more a problem with both Dem strategy and tactics than just a cause of the 60 vote threshold. Reid sure is a nice guy and good liberal, butonce again he proves he isn't up to the job. Where are the changes we can believe in in Senate???

The main problem is NOT the rules (4.00 / 3)
The problems is the predominance of bedwetting Democrats too scared to fight.  Republicans have no problem going on Meet the Press and uttering the most ridiculous discredited bullshit and saying it as though they believe it (which some of them well might).  But where is the Democrat who even knows how to go on those shows and make a principled defense of Keynesianism that people can understand?  They are weak.

And then, the filibuster.  Why the aversion to letting one happen?  If played right (and again, the Democrats might not be able to pull that off, see above) such a move would explode in the Republicans' faces.  

Perhaps, only just perhaps, this stimulus bill might not be the best place to make this happen.  But looking down the road a piece, Health Care is.  Let the bastards filibuster Universal Health Care and watch their numbers plummet.

The trouble with this thread is this idea that tinkering with the rules is the solution.  Yes, it could backfire if the Republicans get back in down the road, and it doesn't deal with the real weakness which is internal to the Dems.

See Paul Krugman this morning.



sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Minimum wage (4.00 / 2)
Those Republican speeches against raising the minimum wage in 2007 made them look like the heartless jerks many of their leaders really are.  Great for the Dems.
[ Parent ]
That's another good issue to go to war over. (0.00 / 0)


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
Make the house be able to override the senate fillibuster (0.00 / 0)
If say 60% of the house votes for a measure the senate should be able to have a simple up or down vote on it.

Thus you protect minority populations rather than minority states.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

For the present circumstances, I prefer the "sitting" to "voting" version (0.00 / 0)
Why?

For any filibuster at the moment -- if it's a real one, as opposed to a phone-it-in one -- the 3/5 of sitting Senators rule means they've got to keep 40 Senators on the floor, jabbering away for C-SPAN.

Meanwhile, we've only got to keep 41 there.  All the rest of the Senators on our side can be out talking to news people.

Yup, it's unfair, but it can be useful.

Filibuster (4.00 / 2)
"..an undemocratic institution that was created to protect small states by providing them with more representation than the principle of "one person, one vote" could ever possibly justify."

The problem for us now is that the views being protected by the filibuster are those of the most backwards and ignorant segment of our population, home of the worst indicators of social pathology.  I say get rid of it.

A LOT of hyposcrisy... (4.00 / 2)
I'm not going to call anyone out... but a lot of the people screaming for the death of the filibuster were RAILING against the GOP getting rid of it in 2005.   Amazing how many on the left here seem to emulate the trappings that those on the far right fell into  
There is truth (4.00 / 3)
in what you say.  One of the reasons the filibuster cannot be eliminated now is that it was defended by Democrats in '04 and '05.    
[ Parent ]
To some... (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I didn't think it was right then and I don't think eliminating it outright is right now.    

I'm with Bowers.... reform it.  Senate Rule 22 revoked would be an awesome start... but I think Dem and GOP senators are too damn lazy and aristocratic to actually grind out a filibuster.

[ Parent ]
I was hoping the cat killer .. (0.00 / 0)
would have gotten rid of it in '05 .. cause the Dems weren't using it very effectively anyway .. why even bother having it .. when you aren't gonna put it to pull use on someone like GWB
[ Parent ]
Small state (4.00 / 3)
When the constitution was written the difference between small and large states was not as great as it is now.

What we have now is a situation where 16% of the population controls 50% of the seats in the senate. Only two of these states are urban (RI and MD). The result of this has been a long history of discrimination against the concerns of the large cities and industrial sectors.

The filibuster no longer serves its purpose, it allows a much too small group to stymie progress. I suggested a week ago that the senate vote to change its rules on a temporary basis due to the economic situation.

The filibuster rule could be suspended completely or only for an expanded class of legislation. The temporary rule change would expire when some objective criteria was met, like the unemployment rate dropping to a target or the like. Changing rules in the Senate only requires a simple majority, there is no reason for the Dems to be so timid. That is unless they really don't like the stimulus package and are allowing the GOP to be the heavies.

I have a chart which shows the population imbalance in the senate:

The Small State Senate Bias

We let things get out of whack for too long in this country by referring back to conditions which no longer exist, whether CEO's salaries or farm subsidies. Everything in moderation.

Policies not Politics

It isn't fair... (0.00 / 0)
But then the Senate WAS NEVER FAIR.  Yes the population gaps weren't as big, but then the Senate was also appointed.  
[ Parent ]
My question... (0.00 / 0)
Would you be pushing for this if the bigger states were GOP states and the smaller states Dem States?
[ Parent ]
People, people, get a grip (4.00 / 3)
This is not a procedural issue.  

It's an issue of intestinal fortitude.  The Republicans manage to come out swinging whether they're in the majority or the minority.  The Democrats can't manage to fight from either position.  That's the problem, not the rules.

The key is for the Democrats to learn how to fight again.  Find an issue that the Republicans don't dare filibuster (universal health care, minimum wage) and dare them to fight.  They need to be broken.  Until the Dems can do that, we will be forever in this position.

Wake up.  Stop making excuses.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

I hate to disagree (4.00 / 2)
but I absolutely believe the GOP will filibuster Universal Health Care.  
[ Parent ]
I think Chris is mistaken...... (4.00 / 2)
He is correct about the Senate being a undemocratic institution created to protect the interests of the small states, and it's also important to "cool" the "heat" from the House of Representatives.  But, Big But, the Senate already does that with the it's makeup.  It doesn't need an additional mechanism like the filibuster.  That gives even MORE power to the the smaller states.  They already have a very big advantage as it is with the two Senators per state.  Isn't that enough?  Do they have to have a filibuster also?  Wyoming doesn't even have 500,000 people, people!!!!!   They get two freakin Senators same as California's 38,000,000 citizens.  Isn't that already enough of an advantage?  Do we also have to give Senator Crapo the ability to tie up the whole nation??  I think not.
Strange logic (0.00 / 0)
Chris writes:

"The Senate is, fundamentally, an undemocratic institution that was created to protect small states ... In the context of such an institution, it makes perfect sense for there to be another mechanism to protect minority viewpoints, and the filibuster fits that bill nicely."

This doesn't really follow. Since the Senate is already constructed in such a counter-majoritarian way, it is unnecessary overkill to add yet another layer of such protection by keeping the filibuster.  

Improve, But Don't Destroy, The Filibuster | 61 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox