Open Left

David, I have just one Question?

Why do even good, progressive journalists and pundits continue to throw around the term "filibuster-proof?"

Eugene Robinson's column today tried to make the argument that the Republicans are irrelevant, and can't even be regarded as a strong opposition party.  It's like he was smoking LSD laced weed!  

I include the comment that I posted in response to his column at the WaPo site:  

Gene, why do you say that the Democrats now, or will have, a "filibuster-proof" majority, when everyone knows that there are numerous Democrats who frequently side with Republicans, and that getting all 60 Democratic Senators to vote the same way, particularly on progressive legislation, is well-nigh impossible?  

Simply having 60 members does not make a "filibuster proof" majority, unless you can count on all 60 voting the same way, at least a majority of the time.  Otherwise, what you have is the occasional opportunity to break a filibuster, an important distinction.  

To say that either party is "filibuster proof" implies that they have the votes to regularly impose their will by breaking (overriding) the opposition's filibuster; but where the filibuster is 95% likely to succeed, to make that implication is completely unfounded and wrong.  

Would you like a "bullet-proof" vest that allowed 95% of the bullets to pass through unobstructed?  How about "shatter-poof" auto glass that only fragmented properly 5% of the time, and the rest of the time, sliced the passengers to shreds?  If only NASA had "heat-proof" tiles on the Columbia, instead of merely "heat-resistant" tiles, those astronauts would be alive today.  

I usually like your work, and value your opinions.  However, in this instance, I believe the inaccuracy of the statement undermines the credibiility of your arguments.  The reality is that, just yesterday, I daresay as you were writing or preparing to write this column, Sen. Dick Durbin was sponsoring legislation which would have allowed Bankruptcy Judges to "cramdown" principle on mortgages.  That measure was defeated because there were not enough votes to invoke cloture, i.e., IT WAS FILIBUSTERED, SUCCESSFULLY!  Senate Republicans are far from irrelevant, and are in fact doing an excellent, almost unprecedentedly good job, of being the opposition party.  With only 40 votes, they routinely block progressive legislation, favored by the majority of Democrats, by keeping their entire caucus intact, and picking up anywhere from 4 to 12 Democratic votes.  The facts belie your argument, and you would do well to reconsider your statements, and the implication of what "filibuster-proof" really means.  

 

What do you think?  Particularly now that Souter is going to retire, and all the Republicans have to do to filibuster an Obama Supreme Court nominee is to pick up one (1) democrat or independent vote (yes, I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman), just how "filibuster proof" do you think the Democratic majority will prove to be?  

---

by: Jbearlaw @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 14:05:05 PM CDT