filibuster

UPDATE 01/23/10

Nuke it!

Re: Harkin, Dem Groups Working To End Filibuster, Sam Stein, Huffington Post, Posted: 01-22-10 01:26 PM

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is asking his Senate colleagues to join his effort to effectively take away the minority party’s power to filibuster legislation.

A long time proponent of filibuster reform, Harkin introduced a similar bill in the early 1990s. Back then his ally in the cause was Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, then a Democrat. But today, there seems to be limited appetite on the Hill to tackle the topic. A change to Senate rules would require 67 votes for passage and few expect Republicans to unilaterally give up their power to obstruct.

Off the Hill, the Huffington Post has learned that a coalition of progressive groups and labor organizations have begun laying out a potential campaign to pressure lawmakers to revamp the filibuster rules. Meetings and discussions are in their preliminary stages. But following the lethargic health care reform process, there is a growing consensus that some political penalty needs to be applied to Republicans in Congress for their excessive use of the parliamentary tool.

Precisely! There must be some recourse for abusing the parlimentary procedure. There must also exist a pathway to that recourse other than the 2/3 majority needed to change the rules. There has to be an outside way to either punish the overuse of the filibuster or a way to limit or narrow the circumstances under which it can be used.

There are no votes on the right for any kind of change to the filibuster rules, you can probably count some nay votes on the left, also.  This from wikipedia:

In U.S. politics, the “nuclear option” is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.^[1]

It is time for this again, or something similar.

——————————————————————————————
Initial blog post, 01/22/10 

Re: Filibuster reform headed for Senate floor; measure faces uphill battle – TheHill.com, By J. Taylor Rushing – 01/22/10 06:00 AM ET

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends in the next few weeks to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Good for him, but it’s not so much the filibuster that needs changing, it is the abuse of the filibuster that needs changing. The cure for this is to tweak the circumstances that it can be invoked, or provide penalties for using the filibuster for political reasons.

Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move.

And he is 100% correct. But I don’t think that the filibuster should be tossed out entirely. We would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If the Democrats ever find themselves in the minority again, gods forbid, what recourse would they have to ultra right wing whack job tea baggers from pushing through more disastrous legislation like we had during the Bush years?

One simple fix to the filibuster problem would be to expand the budget reconciliation rules, under which the filibuster cannot be invoked, and extend the rule to include amendments to bills already passed that affect the budget. In other words, if the majority wanted to amend the Medicare law to cover more people, then the reconciliation rule would apply.

This is just my idea. I think that another, albeit more harsh way to inhibit the use of the filibuster would be for the majority to file suit in a special federal court against the minority if they were blocking legislation for merely obstinate and political reasons. This court would be convened for this special purpose and could hear the case quickly.

As an example, if the minority filibustered the health care reform bill even though it contained many provisions that the Republicans wanted for the simple reason they believe it is a plan of their political opponent’s, then the majority Democrats could present that to a federal court for a decision. Simply stated, the majority could claim that the minority’s actions are politically motivated, not based in fact, and have the option to prove it in a federal court. We have heard many arguments against legislation by Senate leaders that were not based in fact, an example is the argument of the “death panels” in the health care bill. The reason for filibuster must be based in reality, like cost and like the effect the legislation would have on the people. I say let the majority sue them for political grandstanding.

Another method to make the minority think twice before invoking the filibuster would be to aggressively debate the reasoning for it on the Senate floor with all the cameras rolling. Call out the minority and make them explain why they want to delay/kill the legislation.

The filibuster has been a long-running controversy in the Senate. In the 20th century, Southern senators used it to block civil rights legislation supported by a majority of the Senate.

More recently, Democrats used the filibuster when they were in the minority, while Republicans criticized the procedural rule. Democrats have increasingly criticized it in this Congress, though Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are on record supporting its existence.

Harkin argues the filibuster is being used too commonly in today’s Congress.

In a Jan. 4 letter to his colleagues, Harkin noted that filibusters were used just once per Congress in the 1950s, compared to 139 times in the last Congress.

“At issue is a fundamental principle basic to our democracy — rule of the majority as a legislative body,” Harkin wrote. “Elections should have consequences. Yet the Senate’s current rules allow for a minority as small as one to make elections meaningless.”
Speaking to The Hill, Harkin said use of the filibuster has ground the legislative process to a halt.

“While there are reasons to slow bills down and get the public aware of what’s happening, there’s no excuse for having a few people just stop everything with a filibuster,” he said.

I agree. The only excuse from the minority is a political one. It is a maneuver meant to gain political power. But if something isn’t done to curtail the use of the filibuster, our congress will be impotent for years to come.

_________________________________________________________________