« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Democrats, filibusters, and briar patches.

[monotone] Please. Don't. Stop. [/monotone]

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2010 at 09:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let’s set the (somewhat stylized) scenario, here:

The Senate on January 5, 2011 – as per the apparent wishes of Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tom Harkin of Iowa, neither of whom are up for reelection in 2012 – votes to change the rules so that a simple majority may short-circuit the filibuster.  Cheers and applause from the progressives; silence from the Republicans.  The cheering dies down as progressives realize that the Republican silence is not from stoicism; it is more anticipatory.  What do they anticipate? Why, a knock on the door! It is a courier from the House of Representatives, with the freshly-printed text of HR 1 (“Repeal of Obamacare”), ready for the Senate’s perusal.

All forty-seven Republicans sign off on that bill.  Immediately.  So does Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who campaigned on Obamacare’s repeal.

Then eyes turn to:

  • Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Bill Nelson of Florida. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Jon Tester of Montana. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.
  • Jim Webb of Virginia. Blue Senator, Red State. Up for re-election in 2012.

What do you think the odds are that the GOP can get three of those Senators to panic? You don’t know? – Funny; neither does the Obama administration, which is why they’d be insane to sign off on making it easier for Republican Senators to pass legislation, not harder. 

As usual, the Democrats are far behind the decision curve: this gambit should have been tried in 2009, not 2011.  In 2009 the Republicans had only 41 Senators, which not only meant that it required rock-hard internal discipline to Hold The Line on key votes (and a fairly ruthless system of triage); there was no chance of Republican legislation passing, either.  That’s how it works when the numbers are 59/41.  But when the numbers are 53/47, then any move to change the filibuster rules aids the minority party.  Lower the threshold to, say, 55, or punish ‘filibustering’?  Fine! Nothing will pass without the House’s blessing, anyway.  Make it all simple-majority-vote? Excellent - because in the 111th Congress the GOP needed to find 19 Democratic votes for cloture and 10 for actually passing legislation, which is why we didn’t pass any legislation.

Having to only come up with 4 to pass various House bills sounds like a big step up, actually.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: This assumes, of course, that the trick would even work.  As I was reminded in a private email, there is the ‘continuing body’ argument regarding changing the rules of the Senate, which would make the original gambit dead on arrival.  Said argument has been the subject of some controversy lately, but then, so has everything else.

PPS: See also Brian Darling’s posts here and here on the subject.  He’s less sanguine than I am on this.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Let’s show the Democrats the real benefit of the filibuster … and USE IT FOR REAL.

    I am saddened that Sen DeMint is backing off reading of the START bill.

    I am disappointed that so LITTLE EFFORT has been made by GOP Senators to slow down the process.

    I am upset that the Sen Reid cram-down express has yet to be derailed. Even though it easily could be.
    How hard is it to use old-fashioned slow-down motions and actions? To take to the floor and use up a few days?

    Not hard at all. If your heart is in the saving of America from some very bad bills. It feels like the Republicans just dont care if this horrible stuff is passed.
    What is with these limp-noodle spineless Republican Senators?!?

    We have 41 Republicans – quit playing games and …
    Filibuster the lame-duck session!

  • fpete13527

    ….let the Dems do whatever they do.

    The problem has been that the GOP has been too cowardly to do sqwat.

    No matter what, it is the GOP mindset that has to change.

  • LittleL1954

    We have 37-38 Republicans and 4 RINOS. Just as we have in the newly elected Texas House. May have 101 with R’s by thier name, but that does not mean business as usual will end.

  • 1689

    That’s fine as far as it goes. But Reid will send a repeal bill to committee that will never refer it to the full Senate. And there don’t appear to be discharge petitions in the Senate. Is there another mechanism to bring a vote before the full Senate? In any event, Obama would veto and there aren’t enough votes to override. But it would demonstrate that a majority of the country is in favor of repealing this socialist monstrosity. That’s helpful in terms of framing the debate. Especially if the country is on the verge of bankruptcy, which it is.

    The bigger issue is losing the Republic, limited government with checks & balances, what makes our country unique — and not one like thousands that have gone before it. Once the fillibuster is gone, the tyranny of the majority goes unchecked. The Courts don’t limit the Congress’ power with the Commerce Clause anymore, not in any meaningful way (the judge in Virginia being a recent exception). So it would only be a matter of time before some future Congress unleashes some majority-driven legislative plan based on class envy, race & economic hatred.

  • freemanja1991

    The Happiest man in the Bahamas (Iowa) in 2010. He would have lost in this cycle. He will be gone in 2014. I promise the Country this. I’m already starting to work on this.
    My Short List:

    Former Congressman Nussle
    Congressman Latham
    State Auditor Vaudt
    Governor Brandstad
    Congressman King

    Beat The Bohemian ’14!

  • Adjoran

    Because of the Senate seats we lost in 2006 and 2008, we have only 9 and 10 seats to defend, while Democrats will have over twenty at risk each year, several in purple or red states which have been trending back towards conservatism since their election.

    Elimination of the filibuster rule would make for smooth sailing for a Republican Senate to work with a Republican House and a Republican President in his or her first term. I can hear the lamentations of the Democrats now.

    Sounds pretty sweet, to tell the truth.

  • froster

    There’s probably 40 Democrats for lowering the threshold (at most) with some senior Democrats who want to keep things “the way they were”

    I expect filibuster reform will consist of – make people who want to filibuster SPEAK (which is a good thing, the silent filibuster has no place in an institution where debate is prized), and/or remove the filibuster on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed (which I personally disagree with as it keeps the socialist legislation moving)