Filibuster Reform Now Is A Bad Idea

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:08:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Not that there is a snowball's chance of it happening, but now is most definitely NOT the time for filibuster reform in the Senate.

In the upcoming Congress, a Republican House will be passing all kinds of bad bills. President Obama seems unwilling to be a veto (pun intended) point in the process. Our last best hope for limiting the damage is in fact the filibuster in the Senate.

Apparently, many folks are hopeful of some good things coming out of the next Congress. I'm not one of those people. Bill Clinton vetoed 17 bills in the 2 years after the 1994 elections delivered the Congress to the Republicans, including vetoes that precipitated government shutdowns. I don't expect President Obama to veto any. The filibuster in the Senate will need to be the veto point.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | House Passes Repeal of DADT >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Filibuster Reform Now Is A Bad Idea | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Then we are in BIG trouble. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by sj on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:19:16 PM EST

big, big trouble.

: That (none / 0) (#29)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:36:28 PM EST

is what I think too.

Bad bills such as? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by wsn on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:24:05 PM EST

What bad bills will pass now that didn't pass between 2002 and 2006?

If Obama will not veto it, why would a median Senate Democrat filibuster it? See, e.g., Franken and the tax bill.

Also, what about confirmations? Should we leave a bunch of judicial seats open for the Republicans to fill when they get back the presidency?

A lot of legislation (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:39:27 PM EST

would have been worse without the filibuster.

Folks are rewriting history here.


: Such as? (none / 0) (#34)
by wsn on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:37:36 PM EST

The Bush tax cuts?
The Iraq war stuff?
Alito? Roberts?

Might get a lot filled (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM EST

Now that the Republicans are in power.

At least that's this theory (or hope):

With Democrats and Independents holding just 53 seats, there will be no strategic retirements at the Supreme Court. There is thus little likelihood of the White House and the Senate being preoccupied, as they have been the past two summers, with a Supreme Court nomination hearing. Few circuit court nominees are likely to be brought to a confirmation hearing in the next two years (and fewer still to a final vote).
The focus of the White House and of the Senate Judiciary Committee can therefore shift to district court nominees, who traditionally have generated less controversy. This will be a healthy development.
Currently, there are 111 vacant seats in the federal courts. Of these, 88 are district court seats. To the extent the federal judiciary is understaffed, it is understaffed at the district court level.
Filling the vacant district court seats is more important than filling the open circuit court seats. Most cases are resolved in district court. District courts also have less capacity to take on additional cases than do circuit courts, which have fewer fixed obligations and greater control over scheduling and disposition of cases.
In the past, the Obama White House has shown a preference for filling circuit court seats. There are currently nominations pending for all but eight of the 23 vacant circuit court seats. By contrast, of the 88 district court openings, there are 40 seats for which the President has not named anybody.

Hell, he won't just not veto... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Dadler on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:24:33 PM EST

...he'll jump all over any Dems who hold him to the veto fire. That's his entire dysfunctional M.O. All criticism of any loud sort will be directed at his own party. Obama is one very, very, VERY messed up human being. Try reading one of his books NOW. Go ahead, I dare you. The audacity of hope? How truly laughable is that today, when this guy has chosen, again and again, to side with the Masters of the Universe over those on whose hopes he rode into office with a mandate for that word...change.

You're looking at this all wrong BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:24:46 PM EST

If Obama is to continue to claim that he has no control over legislation in Congress when he really wants to sign some conservative junk bills, he needs to have filibuster reform done.

That way, he and the majority of Democrats who seem to have zero allegiance to traditional party ideals and constituencies, can hide behind the Republicans.

The White House didn't care about losing the House because they want Boehner's party to do what Nancy wouldn't - give them the radical conservative legislation - and so they made sure to basically throw the election. Now they take their majority in the Senate and throw it out the window. Eh voila! Obama is again "not responsible" for the conservative legislation that he will sign.

Okay, maybe it is far-fetched, but then again, how could any group of people really be this incredibly stupid?

I love it. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Buckeye on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:29:55 PM EST

NOWWWWWW they want to end the filibuster. Not early 2009 when it would have done them some good. I wonder why? Could it be that it would have eliminated all excuses for stripping legislation of key reform measures to please corporate interests? i.e. banks. i.e. insurance industry.

Eh? The fillibuster is irrelevent. If Obama/Republ (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Dan the Man on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:31:17 PM EST

icans support a bill, there will be 15+ Senate democrats who would automatically support it. More than enough to overcome a fillibuster. Obama in 2011/2012 has a working majority in the house and 60+ votes in the Senate to finally pass the kind of bills he wants. He's a modern day Ronald Reagan.

: Agree totally (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by MO Blue on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:59:18 PM EST

Obama will have a filibuster proof majority in 2011/2012 to pass all the conservative legislation it wants. No obstruction at all.

Much prefer to put the (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by brodie on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:51:40 PM EST

responsibility to veto on one person, the president, rather than allowing him to weasel out of it by pointing fingers at the many in Congress.

And there'll never be a perfect time to fix things. But when we have enough on the side of reform to change it, we should insist it be done.

What is the proposed reform? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:17:46 PM EST

Fewer votes needed to overcome?

I don't think we need reform as much as we need Dems who are willing to use the filibuster as effectively as Republicans use it.

The filibuster only works if you are willing (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Maryb2004 on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:09:13 PM EST

to use it. I don't see the Dems willing to use it. I say reform the Senate rules while they have the chance.

Oh Brother! (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by pluege2 on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:27:50 PM EST

Our last best hope for limiting the damage is in fact the filibuster in the Senate.

you forget that reid doesn't support Democratic filibusters - only republican ones. For democratic filibusters he marshals the party against them with all his might.
.

Uhhm (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:45:26 PM EST

We have no idea what Obama would not veto.

I get that we think he goes home to share oxycontin with Rush, but I think we're overstating it just a bit.

: It's clearly BTD's ... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Yman on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:06:45 AM EST

... opinion about Obama's reluctance to use his veto power, but you're right about the "overstating it just a bit":

I get that we think he goes home to share oxycontin with Rush, but I think we're overstating it just a bit.
Only that would be you, not "we".

and what makes you think (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:40:31 PM EST

there are enough democrats with the gonads to actually use the filibuster, in its present form, against bad, republican supported bills? they wouldn't want to be accused of being obstructionist or anything.

Here comes Hooverville. (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:10:28 PM EST

I'm here in DC (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:11:27 PM EST

I claim the good spot near the reflecting pool and under a tree for my area in Tent City.


I think I'll just (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by nycstray on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:13:16 PM EST

stay under the bus.


: Isn't it getting ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Yman on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 08:57:14 AM EST

... a little too crowded?

Agreed, (none / 0) (#4)
by masslib on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:13:16 PM EST

And one has to ask oneself why now? I keep having people tell me simplifying the tax code now as the President has suggested is also a great idea because it is not progressive enough. I keep think what part of Republican controlled House don't they understand.

Principle (none / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:14:34 PM EST

but, but, but it's the principle of the thing.... also, how are conservatives going to pass all their legislation if liberals are allowed to block them? The liberals will vote for this to prove that what the conservatives have been doing is wrong. snigger.

I think this is a reasonable point of view (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:27:44 PM EST

However, Democrats and liberals are essentially unwilling to hold firm on the filibuster even when it is available.

I think we would be in a better position now if Harkin had gotten his way in 1995.

At the very least, I think it is fair to revise the Senate rules and sweep away a lot of the cruft. Maybe you keep a 60 vote requirement but make it much easier and less time-consuming to get to a vote.

yea (none / 0) (#12)
by CST on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:30:41 PM EST

I see it as kind of moot since I don't anticipate Democrats having the backbone to filibuster anyway. Filibustering only works if you use it. Right now only Republicans are using it anyway.


Um (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:32:44 PM EST

Isn't that because only the majority leader decides which bills come to the floor. Would Harry Reid bring a bill to the floor that Democrats would filibuster?


what if the house (none / 0) (#16)
by CST on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:35:10 PM EST

passes it first? Can the senate just ignore it?


Happens all the time (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:36:49 PM EST

From last February


: so we don't need a fillibuster anyway (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by CST on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:40:43 PM EST

if Harry Reid has a backbone.
That sentance makes me... cringe.

He has brought plenty that I wish they would have (none / 0) (#23)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:18:55 PM EST

Liberals fought for 30+ years (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:33:09 PM EST

to amend Rule XXII from 2/3 to 3/5. It took the death of Kennedy and the ascension of HHH to VP (and Senate Presidency) to make it happen.

Of course, I would prefer to abolish the Senate. . .


Not under Hubert but (none / 0) (#20)
by brodie on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:48:34 PM EST

a few years later, in 1975, with Dem Maj Leader Mike Mansfield presiding over 61 Ds following the Watergate midterm election, and with Repub (!) VP (senate prez) Nelson A. "Rocky" Rockafella making some favorable procedural rulings to enable the change.

Even cranky Bob Dole went along with the change.


: I stand corrected! (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:10:32 PM EST

Dems in the Senate (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 03:37:36 PM EST

were able to get legislation changed because of the filibuster from 2002-2006.


: And privatization of Social Security (none / 0) (#30)
by MKS on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:36:55 PM EST

was avoided too.
No need to let defeatism set in....

: Arguably. (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 07:46:55 PM EST

But they were not able to stop any of Bush's Judicial nominees, including the most extreme. If changing the rules next year gets more Obama appointees through, that will probably make it worth it.

Considering that Democrats haven't (none / 0) (#18)
by Anne on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 02:40:27 PM EST

been able to filibuster anything, even with a decent majority, what difference will it make? I mean, it's not like the Democrats left standing are a cohesive, like-minded caucus who would be able to come together to oppose the conservative legislation that will be offered - hell, I'd be willing to bet that most of that legislation will be put together with the assistance and cooperation of Democrats, and will have the full support of the president.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

: Have you ever heard of the Republicans (none / 0) (#31)
by MKS on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:38:49 PM EST

talk about Miguel Estrada being filibustered in his attempt to be seated on the Circuit Court?
Dems blocked a lot in the past....No reason they can't in the future....
And for the next two years, Reid can simply refuse to bring up adverse bills....