President Obama: What's next?

[sauronsfinger]

If President Obama can't muster 60 votes, the bill shouldn't pass. You view things through such a partisan filter that you are blind to reality.

Please cite the rule or series of rules which makes this mandatory.

It is my understanding that these "rules" are by a working agreement between the two parties and are subject to change at any time either party wants to change them and has to the votes to change them. The current rules of the Senate treat the body like a proper gentlemans club in which neither side is forced to do anything unpleasant or ungentlemanly.

Is that wrong?

Are there strict Constitutional rules which say otherwise?

Partisan or not -- its immaterial. The issue is the rules of the Senate and the procedures that they go by.

[tinwë]

I'm pretty sure legislation only needs a simple majority to pass in the Senate. The supermajority is only needed to override a Presidential veto and to move for cloture to end a filibuster. If there really was a sixty vote rule than nothing would have ever passed at all during the Bush administration. But of course lots of bills did get passed, not because Democrats voted for them (although they often did) but because they didn’t filibuster. And they didn’t filibuster because they knew their constituents would crucify them for it. That’s all the Republican Senators have to decide right now, not whether they should vote for the bill - they don’t need to - but how badly the folks back home will feel if they filibuster. Or not.

Sorry V, in that respect I really think SF is right.

Not that the Senate should pass the House’s bill - they never do anyway, do they? But I think the changes will, and should, come from the Senate democrats, not the Republicans. If the Senate Dems have any sense at all they will put up a bill that they know the Rep’s will not filibuster, but that doesn’t mean it will be something the Rep’s would necessarily vote for.

[Primula Baggins]

Voronwë, I appreciate the respect and all, but I am not so shoddily inconsistent in my principles as you say.

[Faramond]

There is nothing about cloture votes in the Constitution.

Many people are of the opinion that the filibuster should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. But what constitutes extraordinary circumstances? Many Republicans were outraged by the many Democratic filibusters of Bush's court nominees between 2002 and 2006. I'm guessing many here found those filibusters necessary, though. The Republicans threatened the "nuclear option", which would have ended the possibility of filibuster of court nominees. The Gang of 14 moderate senators pushed through a compromise that took the nuclear option off the table and allowed most of Bush's nominees to go through.

I don't know if the Democrats could use some sort of nuclear option here. The danger, of course, is that later on it could be used against them. They only have to worry about that if they ever lose power again though.

This is a huge spending bill, so I don't think it is out of line at all to use a filibuster if it comes to that. If it's bad form to use it here then it's always bad form. My hope is that a new gang of something-teen emerges that strips out some of the more blatant pork from the spending bill and ends the possiblity of a filibuster. The sticking point may end up being tax cuts though.

[sauronsfinger]

Here is an excellent summary of the changes in Senate rules, what the impact of those rules are, and the possibility of changing the rules if the majority is thwarted by them by a simple majority vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

I would urge anyone interested in the subject to read it. It is very informative.

As I indicated previously, the Senate operates under very different rules - self imposed rules - than the House of Representatives does. One big reason is that the Senate considers itself a far more friendly body in terms of partisanship than does the House. So they have adopted what could be called "gentlemans club rules" that attempt to keep full out party confrontations to a minimum, if they happen at all.

As a result, the Senate finds itself in a situation where the traditional self regulating negatives of the filibuster have effectively been done away with. The filibuster used to be a highly divisive tactic employed by a minority because it saw no other way of stopping a bill that it was seriously opposed to. It was selectively used because of the high negatives that come attached to the use of a filibuster. Among those negatives are
*** increased polarization among the parties
*** stopping of all Senate business for weeks or months
*** changes in the normal daily schedule of business demanding far more floor participation for Senators
*** increased media and public focus on how the Senate does its and the nations business

What has now evolved is a system where one side says
"We don't like that bill but we do not have enough votes to defeat it"

The other side then says
"what are you going to do about it?"

The first side says
"we will filibuster it and stop all Senate business for weeks or months".

So they take a procedural vote and if the pro-bill side does not get 60 votes, they simply accept the position of the minority side, forget about the bill, and take it off the calendar killing it.

There is no real filibuster.
There is no real stopping of Senate business.
The Senate does not grind to a halt for weeks or months.
And everyone still enjoys the gentlemans club atmosphere which has been spared the partisan wranglings that come with the filibuster.

Of course, this means that 59 people wanted a bill and 41 did not want the bill and without a vote ever being taken on the bill the 41 walk off the floor vicotrious and the 59 go home as losers.

It is difficult to reconcile that with the idea that the majority is suppose to rule. But that is the system that they have voluntarilly adopted. Of course, if you read the above article you will find that the majority can change the rules if they decide to. But they are loathe to do that since they fear being in the minority someday and want to have the right to employ the same tactics.

And keep in mind that this does not apply to all bills. Only the ones that the minority leader wants to enforce the rule upon. Bills are passed all the time on close votes that do not require anything like the super majority of 60 votes.

Faramond wisely recalls the nuclear option threats of a previous Congress and how it was resolved. Knowing how the Senate loves temporary compromises and loathes any real actual long lasting solution to their own internal problems, I would not be surprised to see something along the previous lines evolve here.

[Elentári]

sf wrote:

As I indicated preciously,

Hanging around with Gollum too much, Sauron?

Sorry couldn't resist !

I am enjoying the politics threads, even though it I'm an outsider in these matters. We do, of course have a history of filibustering in the UK, usually referred to as "talking out".

Filibustering can have consequences that were not expected or intended. In January 2000, filibustering orchestrated by Conservative Members of Parliament to oppose the Disqualifications Bill led to cancellation of the day's parliamentary business on Prime Minister Tony Blair's 1000th day in office. However, since this business included Prime Minister's Question Time, Conservative Leader William Hague was deprived of the opportunity of a high-profile confrontation with the Prime Minister.

On Friday, 20 April 2007, a Private Member's Bill aimed at exempting Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act was 'talked out' by a collection of MPs, led by Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes and Norman Baker who debated for 5 hours, therefore running out of time for the parliamentary day and 'sending the bill to the bottom of the stack'. However, since there were no other Private Member's Bills to debate, it was resurrected the following Monday.

[sauronsfinger]

Elentári ... well I did do it preciously.

Okay - the C and the V are right next to each other on the keyboard.... to err is human.... to forgive is divine.... thanks for the correction... I will go back and fix it and everyone will wonder what you are talking about.... you have the skills of a good copyeditor.

[Elentári]

That's ok, sauron, it'll be our little secret

[Now that will get people wondering!)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not that the Senate should pass the House’s bill - they never do anyway, do they? But I think the changes will, and should, come from the Senate democrats, not the Republicans. If the Senate Dems have any sense at all they will put up a bill that they know the Rep’s will not filibuster, but that doesn’t mean it will be something the Rep’s would necessarily vote for.

What's the point of even having the Senate Republicans, then? Should we just get rid of them.

If there really was a sixty vote rule than nothing would have ever passed at all during the Bush administration. But of course lots of bills did get passed, not because Democrats voted for them (although they often did) but because they didn’t filibuster.

For all intents and purposes, every major piece of legislation that passed during the Bush years passed with at least sixty votes in the Senate. When there was fillibusters, it was because there was sixty votes, so it would have been a waste of time

As for the "nuclear option" the whole issue with that was that the fillibuster had not traditionally been used to block judicial appointments before, unlike major pieces of legislation. And the gang of 14 was a good example of how the Senate promotes bipartisan solutions.

[tinwë]

...

So they take a procedural vote and if the pro-bill side does not get 60 votes, they simply accept the position of the minority side, forget about the bill, and take it off the calendar killing it.

...

And keep in mind that this does not apply to all bills. Only the ones that the minority leader wants to enforce the rule upon. Bills are passed all the time on close votes that do not require anything like the super majority of 60 votes.

...

Thanks for explaining that SF. I really was not aware that’s how it worked. Learn something new every day!

What's the point of even having the Senate Republicans, then? Should we just get rid of them.

Err .. Ok!

[sauronsfinger]

You are most welcome tinwë.

Voronwë - for all practical purposes, the entire 60 vote situation imposes a new benchmark for passing legislation that is outside that of the system set up by the Constitution. That is the most critical point that, in my humble opinion, trumps any concerns for arguments about bi-partisanship.

Where does anyone - you, me, Senators, Representatives, get the right to establish a new hurdle to pass laws that the Constitution did not establish?

Where does anyone get the right to subvert the will of the American people because they want to be collegial and avoid the very things that the system was set up to include?

You ask this question

What's the point of even having the Senate Republicans, then? Should we just get rid of them.

The answer to that is in the hands of the American people through the voting system. If the people want the Republicans (or in other times the Democrats) to have more power, they can simply elect them to office. The Senate Republicans currectly have the same rights that the Democrats would have under the same system. They can represent their constituents in both committee and on the floor and voice their concerns and opinions. They can propose bills and amendments at the proper time and in the proper way. They can vote both in committee and on the floor. They still have all the same rights as any Senator of any party.

All the gang of 14 did was to put a band-aid on a problem. It got them through the problem facing the Senate at that time. It would have been better to let the problem come to a head and solve it once and for all and move on. But that was not done. Instead we still have this looming over us today.

I suspect it will not be allowed to come to a head this time either. I suspect that the gentlemans club nature of the Senate and the desire to avoid a real showdown will lead to a new agreement which is todays band-aid.

And that is a shame. The filibuster had its own built in safety mechanisms in order to prevent its over usage. But that has been bypassed and simplified so that all you now need is the threat and everyone then moves on to other things. So now we get the result of a successful filibuster without the attendant political damage that is self-inflicted upon the perpetrators. The safety valve to prevent the overuse of the filibuster has been removed.

[tinwë]

I'm sorry, I should have given this a more serious answer to this:

What's the point of even having the Senate Republicans, then? Should we just get rid of them.

Why is the minority party there? They are not there for fairness, or balance, they are certainly not there so the majority can pretend to be bipartisan. They are there, as SF said, because somebody somewhere voted for them. Those people may have voted for them because they wanted fairness or balance, but my guess is most of them voted for them because they agree with their policies, and could most likely care less about being bipartisan.

I honestly didn’t know that the cloture rule was being used in this way. I do recall filibusters actually taking place, my old Senator the late Jesse Helms (good riddance be upon him) was famous for the filibusters he led. But to do away with the political ramifications as SF has suggested is just wrong.

And yes, I did feel differently about it when the Democrats were the minority, but again, I was not aware that the rules essentially guaranteed that a filibuster would not happen. Had I known that I might have felt differently about it then.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While it is true that the Senatorial fillibuster is not constitutionally mandated, it has been in existence for over 200 years, since 1806. And yes, it has evolved over time so that it is no longer necessary to talk and talk and talk and talk in order to maintain a fillibuster. But this is part of the evolution of our political system. Remember, the two-party system that has become so entrenched is also not specified anywhere in the Constitution. In most democracies, there are multiple parties, which serves as a stopgap to prevent one party from having too much power. Since that doesn't not exist in our system, it is good that this alternative has evolved organically, in order to provide a guard against the tyranny of the majority. I am thankful that it exists, for I firmly believe that too much power concentrated among those that all think roughly alike is a very dangerous thing.

[sauronsfinger]

Voronwë ...

you said this

While it is true that the Senatorial fillibuster is not constitutionally mandated, it has been in existence for over 200 years, since 1806. And yes, it has evolved over time so that it is no longer necessary to talk and talk and talk and talk in order to maintain a fillibuster. But this is part of the evolution of our political system.

What you are describing is not a filibuster. It is merely the threat of a filibuster. In an actual true filibuster it is absolutely necessary to talk and talk and talk and talk as you put it. That is part and parcel of the very essence of a filibuster. The entire point is that you talk and talk and talk and talk and nothing else gets done in the Senate. And there is a price to pay for that.

What you are supporting is the threat of the filibuster and the reward of the tactic without any political price to be paid. It is the equal of the parent with the spoiled bratty child who always gets his way simply because the parent throws up their hands saying "I just do not want to fight about it - its not worth it." The brat does not even have to hold his breath until he turns blue because the parents are so cowed that they automatically give in to the kid.

That is exactly what Harry Reed has done. This is not political evolution. The use of the term 'evolution' implies progress and advancing forward. This is not progress. This is not advancement. This is political cowardice on the part of Harry Reed and the Democrats.

In this case I do not blame the Republicans in the least. I give them total credit for being able to put this over on a cowed and weak Democratic leadership. Yes I am a Democrat but I am ashamed at the Democratic leadership in the Senate and their record on this issue. I feel nothing but negativity towards the Democratic leadership for their cowardice on this issue.

I can understand your desire to reach out and be bi-partisan. It is a good and noble desire and speaks well of your intent and motivations. But I think you are not looking at the entire issue here and would ask you to look again.

In my humble opinion anyone who supports this is ignoring the fact that the very design and usage of the filibuster has had a steep price to pay for its use as a political tactic. Yes, it is a way for the minority to stop legislation they object to. But to hold a position of power in the Senate, to understand its history and its rules, and to then allow the minority to use it repeatedly as the Republicans do is to border on the irresponsible. It rewards the use of the tactic with the results intended but does not impose any cost upon the ones using the tactic.

What is being done by Harry Reed is to allow the Republicans to simply threaten the filibuster, "win" a routine procedural vote, then Reed caves in like a second grader on the playground giving up his lunch money to the school bully. All that insured by allowing this is that it will happen again and again and again.

ANyone interested in this issue should ask themself some important questions about allowing this to continue. I would be most interested to read your answers as I do respect your opinion.

What price do the American people pay for this preservation of the mirage of bi-partisanship?

What price do the American people pay for this preservation of the country club atmosphere in the cloak room of the Senate?

What price do the American people pay for the loss of valuable legislation that clearly had the support of the majority of the membership but now is defeated because Reed allows mere threats to rule the day without a price being extracted?

In most democracies, there are multiple parties, which serves as a stopgap to prevent one party from having too much power. Since that doesn't not exist in our system, it is good that this alternative has evolved organically, in order to provide a guard against the tyranny of the majority.

What we do have to prevent the tyranny of the majority is the US Constitution, the Rule of Law, Judicial Review, the Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances. And what we have in the USA is the vote of the American People in regular free elections. We do have a multi-party system in the USA. Two main parties compete and other parties also put forth their candidates. The American people decide who gets elected and who serves.

If the American people elect one party to run all phases of elected government, so be it. That is not my decision to make.

Joseph Palermo at The Huffington Post has a good column on the fiction of the 60 vote idea written some two months ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a- ... 43936.html

That is all I have to say about this.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Heard on NPR this morning. Gregg was guaranteed that his replacement would be a Republican.

That takes this from the SF side of the spectrum (cynial, victory for it's own sake, smash the other party utterly because we hate dissenting opinions) to the V side of the spectrum (enlightened, work with the other side if they have something to offer).

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

A filibuster is a very divisive tactic to employ. It injects a very high level of partisanship into the body. It kills all other business before the body if it is done right. It grinds the Senate to a halt and puts the idea of party warfare right up front in the center of the entire nation. The 24/7 national media will fixate upon it.

The filibuster is the equal to the spoiled kid wanting so badly to get his way that he tells his parents he will go into the corner and hold his breath until he turns blue. Mom and Dad are so scared of what might happen that the little menace is allowed to carry the day and have his way without the attendant problems.

Does that apply to Democrat sponsored filibusters as well, or only to Republican sponsored filibusters? Remember that the constitution authorizes each house to write their rules of order (usually similar to Robert's Rules of Order) and that the rules as written allow filibusters.

And it will happen. It might be now with the Simulus Bill.... it might be months from now with the Employee Free Choice Act ... it might be a year from now on something else... but it will happen. If it does not happen now, the Republicans will continue to use it as a threat to kill or delay legislation. And that is pure blackmail that is allowed to continue without penalty.

The Employee "Free" Choice Act would be a good target for a filibuster, given that it enables peer (thug) pressure instead of secret ballots to decide whether or not to form a union.

It must stop and it must stop as soon as possible rather than later.

And were the tables reversed, you'd argue that it must be kept at all costs. As Faramond wrote, "The danger, of course, is that later on it could be used against them. They only have to worry about that if they ever lose power again though. "

[sauronsfinger]

CG

That takes this from the SF side of the spectrum (cynial, victory for it's own sake, smash the other party utterly because we hate dissenting opinions) to the V side of the spectrum (enlightened, work with the other side if they have something to offer).

It is obvious we have our differences. However, your characterization here is at once insulting to me while it seems to follow some other desire of yours toward another poster.

I resent it and it does not advance the discussion. There is an existing Nan Elmoth thread for this.

[Primula Baggins]

A reminder to both of you: please take personal disputes and any discussion about them to the Nan Elmoth thread.

C_G, I agree with SF that your post was insulting where it referred to him.

SF, your reply could be considered insulting as well ("some other desire of yours").

Please, both of you, stop it now.

[sauronsfinger]

One of the talking heads who really emerged as a star during the campaign was Nate Silver of 538.com. His insight and predictions stood far above most others. He also predicted a narrow win for Franken in Minnesota before the recount started. So his track record is a solid one.

Silver has a good analysis of what might happen in the Senate if the Republicans decide to go for the filibuster.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/ ... mulus.html

Basically, Silver says he does not envision them getting the votes to make it work.

[Primula Baggins]

Some Republicans here and there are saying the same thing today, which signals to me that they know they don't (quite) have the votes.