I think its fair to say that at least the Democrats have been campaigning with a dream of having 60 for a very long time. And the American people gave them a gift, and basically they're squandering it. Any organization needs to decide how it wants to hold itself accountable. But to me there's a question of what are the expectations amongst Democrats in terms of governing? What's the social contract? -- Andy Stern, SEIU
To their credit, the Village Blogs have been writing a lot about the problems with the filibuster (see, e.g., Ezra Klein.) Two questions arise - (1) is eliminating the filibuster a good idea?; (2) is there a chance in hell of eliminating it? My answers are (1) I am for eliminating the filibuster for legislative measures and for Executive Branch appointments but decidedly against elimination of the filibuster for Judicial Branch appointments. Indeed, the filibuster is not used at all for Supreme Court nominees and it should be. And (2) there is not a chance in hell of eliminating the filibuster. There will be a single payer health care system first. Why? Because the filibuster empowers individual Senators in ways that no other procedural device provides. Do Presidents hand back power? Neither do Senators. More . . .
(22 comments, 747 words in story) There's More :: Permalink :: Comments