« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Filibuster ‘reform’ near?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2011 at 03:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Scare quotes, because it’s DC Kabuki Time!  For those who are not ‘blessed’ enough to live within the Beltway – or downwind of it – this is that special time in the legislative calendar where federal politicians preserve the status quo by changing nothing at all and putting a big, red bow on the result.  In this particular case, the scenario is as follows: for some strange reason, certain progressives want to make it easier for Republicans to repeal Obamacare by making the threshold for a cloture vote less than the current 60.  Saner Democrats – which is to say, about a third to a half of the Senate Democratic caucus – don’t want this to happen, mostly because they can count, and they’re well aware of the minor detail that 2012 is shaping up nicely as a Senatorial bloodbath for their party.  So, it’s time for a compromise!

This is what they came up with:

Under the emerging deal, senators would still be able to put a “hold” on nominations and legislation — and therefore prevent quick votes on them — but instead of remaining anonymous for several days as current rules allow, the name of a senator who employs a hold would be made public right away. Supporters of this reform believe that senators will be less likely to drag out a dispute if they need to defend it publicly.

When asked about this, Senator Tom Coburn – who is easily the Senator most likely to call for a hold, and who takes an innocent, care-free glee in maintaining that status – responded by showing Senate progressives the Hawaiian good-luck symbol, and then going off to deliver another baby, in flagrant violation of Senate work ethics laws*.

So I think that you can safely assume that this is not actually going to be, well, relevant.  I won’t even go into the other two supposed provisions – reducing the number of nominees requiring confirmation, and banning reading the bills aloud – mostly because there’s no real confirmation that either ‘reform’ will be even adopted.  Even if they are, the odds that anything would have changed was… low.  Which could be seen as a pity: Democratic Senators worried about their reelection prospects stampede nicely.

Ach, well.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*OK, I made up the bit about the Hawaiian good-luck symbol.  And the actual, specific baby delivery.  Still, they don’t call him “Doctor No” for nothing.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Spiral

    I understand why the Democrats are walking away with their left-tails between their legs. But…..

    In 2012 Republicans might win the White House, maintain the majority in the US House and win back the majority of the US Senate. None of this is guaranteed, of course. But if I were a betting man and I were in Las Vegas right now, I might put some money on that proposition.

    So, what is the conservative plan for dealing with a resumption of Democrat filibusters of conservative judicial nominees to the federal court of appeals and the US Supreme Court?

    As informed conservatives know only too well, in the 2003-2004 Senate, the Democrats were in the Senate minority and the Democrats were able to prevent 10 conservatives judicial nominees from receiving an up or down floor vote. Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl eventually withdrew their nominations. Not because they weren’t qualified. Not because they wouldn’t have improved our federal courts of appeals. But because about 41 to 43 Democrat knuckle-heads didn’t like their constitutionalist views.

    In the 2005-2006 Senate, John Roberts and Samuel Alito did get confirmed, to the US Supreme Court. But only after the Republicans resumed threatening to use the “Constitutional Option” to get around Democrat filibusters.

    Earlier in that 2005-2006 Senate, the Gang of 14 deal did allow some conservative judicial nominees to get up or down votes on the Senate floor. But other conservative judicial nominees got bartered away.

    What’s our strategy for 2013, assuming (optimistically) that we win the White House and the Senate in November 2012?

    I think we need to seriously consider reducing the cloture vote requirement under Rule 22 of the current Senate rules to 50 votes (instead of 60 votes) on second cloture motions on the same piece of Senate business. We should consider doing this using the Constitutional Option, bypassing the 2/3rds requirements of Rule 5.

    I understand that many conservatives lean towards maintaining the filibuster. But should the judicial branch be handed to the Left just to preserve the filibuster? Even as leftish judicial nominees continue to get confirmed to the federal courts of appeals and US Supreme Court?

    Also, how do we repeal Obama-care completely (not just potions of it) without reducing the cloture requirement?

    I should also add in that the Framers of the US Constitution intended for the both the US House and US Senate to operate on a majority basis unless a supermajority requirement is stated clearly in the US Constitution. (Article 1, Sections 3 and 5).

    We are in a game of chess with the Left. So, we need to think a few moves ahead. Beyond the next 18 to 23 months.

  • Superheater

    Were to provide other “reproductive services”, you know, the kind that is always discussed with sentences containing the phrase “right to choose” but that carefully omit the object (sich as “slaughtering my unborn child”, if Senator” (very important you chose the right title) Boxer would have her panties in such an bunch.

    In any case, I still find the Senator legislative “ethics” committee to be somewhere between an oxymoron and a complete farce, given its complete disregard for the association of a former Senator with an avowed terrorist.

    Hmmm,.. associating with terrorists is ok, but profit-seeking enterprises..

    There should be a blanket provision for DOCTORS to provide medical services. Unlike the barriisters and sons-of-barristers than dominate the Senate, their services are essential.

  • Superheater

    Were to provide other ?reproductive services?, you know, the kind that is always discussed with thephrase ?right to choose? – but that carefully omits the object of the sentence (I prefer ?slaughter an unborn child?), if Senator (very important you chose the right title) Boxer would have her panties in such an bunch.

    In any case, I still find the Senater legislative ?ethics? committee to be somewhere between an oxymoron and a complete farce, given its complete disregard for the association of a former Illinois Senator with an avowed terrorist.

    Hmmm,.. associating with terrorists is ok, but profit-seeking enterprises, we can’t have that.

    There should be a blanket provision for DOCTORS to provide medical services. Unlike the barriisters and sons-of-barristers than dominate the Senate, their services are essential, and much unlike FORMER senators wh**ing, er selling their inside knowledge to foreign governments.

  • IJB

    I hope Senate Republicans put an immediate STOP to the prospects of that idiotic proposal being adopted.

  • SoFiMil

    If not, then I don’t want to hear another word from him about any changes to the current filibuster rule.

  • horizon3

    The Senate has already trampled the Constitution with their voting rules. They pass bills every day with only 60 votes! Although it has been some time since I took math classes, 66 is and always has been 2/3rds of 100.

    The rule for so called `reconciliation’ is also an override of Our Constitution by bypassing the 2/3rds requirement for passage, and allowing the Senate to bypass Article 1 Sect. 7, and adjust revenue and spending. Why do we allow this to stand?

  • ihateliberals

    while changing the rules now might look appetizing what happens when the tables are turned? rule changes are always a tough thing.

  • boxedquad

    Besides the obvious facts, consider the behind the scene stuff that has been halted by the 60 rule.. just for example gun control. And the prospects of a 2013 with Reid and company in the minority again…It may be like the pint size pip squeak with the Dem in the minority, HE SAID ” we must share..”..yeah and when they, (D) were the majority, they closed the doors and held one sided writing of new laws…now they are truly afraid of the PEOPLE…
    Less we forget, it will come to pass.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    tar, feathers, and pitchforks.

    Sorry was that not new toney enough?

  • Spiral

    I say let’s change the rules so that conservatives can get confirmed to the federal court of appeals or the US Supreme Court without worrying about what 41 Lefty Senate Democrats think.

    To me it’s an easy decision. The intent of the US Constitution was to have both the US Senate and US House to operate on a majority basis (read Article 1, Sections 3 and 5 of the US Constitution) except when clearly stated otherwise (like the 2/3rds requirement for ratification of treaties and so on…)

    Also, it’s clear that in recent times conservative constitutionalist nominees to the federal court of appeals got denied an up or down vote due to the filibusters’s 60 vote cloture requirement. Add in the fact that liberal policies have been enacted for the past 80 years despite the filibuster and one must conclude that the conservative agenda has not been advanced by the filibuster.

    If one disagrees, one has an obligation to explain how we are going to keep the federal courts from drifting further to the Left in 2013 without changing the filibuster rule.

  • gekster

    And like I said before, I don’t want either side to have that much power.

  • gekster

    dang fat fingers.

  • Spiral

    Back in 2003 the Democrats were in the minority. Yet they were able to filibuster, using the 60 vote cloture requirement in Rule 22, and defeat the nominations of Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl to the US federal courts of appeals.

    Is it really acceptable for 41 Leftish Democrats to have the power to block conservatives to the judicial branch, including not only the US federal courts of appeals, but also the US Supreme Court?

  • Spiral

    I know that sometimes the Democrats have the majority in the US Senate.

    However, how effectively does the filibuster’s 60 vote cloture requirement stop liberals from getting onto the federal bench? Not very effectively.

    But in the 2003-2006 timeframe, when the GOP held the majority in the US Senate and the White House, conservative nominees to the federal bench were defeated by Democrat filibusters and the Gang of 14 deal.

    Some Republicans began threatening to use the Constitutional Option to bypass the filibsuter and then no filibuster of Roberts and Alito appeared.

    Either we think past the current situation and plan for a 2013 scenario in which 41 Democrat Senators attempt to block a conservative from being confirmed (either to the federal court of appeals or to the US Supreme Court) or we allow the courts to drift further to the Left, all because of our ill-advised respect for the filibuster rule.

  • Spiral

    The filibuster rule did not prevent gun control from passing Congress in 1994. The so-called assault weapons ban passed both the Senate and the House in 1994, despite the availability of the filibsuter.

    The filibuster rule is a rule that enforces a “heads the liberals win; tails the conservatives lose” state of affairs.

    We need to put a stop to it and change the filibuster rule so that a majority of Senators can, if they want, have an up or down vote on an issue. Allow 50 votes to bring cloture on a 2nd cloture vote.

  • gekster

    get some dam conservatives elected who have a pair.
    If you spent as much energy promoting conservative candadates as you spen on a rule change that ain’t gonna happen, well, we will never know, will we.

    more whup, whup, whup, whup.

  • Spiral

    Electing conservatives who have a pair will not accomplish anything so long as there are 41 Democrat US Senators who want to prevent an up or down vote for a conservative judicial nominee or a conservative piece of legislation, as long as the filibuster’s 60 vote cloture requirement remains.

    Yes. More whup, whup, whup, whup, from conservatives who either weren’t paying attention when Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl got filibustered in the 2003-2004 Senate or have forgotten about it already.