At the beginning of last year, with Democrats maintaining a Senate majority for the third-consecutive Congress, there was a concerted effort to reform institutional rules and curtail Republican filibuster abuses. Those efforts failed, replaced with a "gentleman's agreement" that was largely ignored soon after.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a traditionalist who's resisted changes to way the chamber operates, expressed regret for leaving filibuster rules intact.
For those who can't watch clips online, Reid said on the Senate floor:
"If there were ever a time when Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley were prophetic, it's tonight. These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn't. They were right. The rest of us were wrong -- or most of us, anyway. What a shame. [...]
"If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it's the filibuster rules, because it's been abused, abused, abused."
That last point shouldn't be considered controversial by anyone. The Senate wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and it's quite obvious that it can't work this way.
Consider this tidbit: from 1917 to 1972, a grand total of 82 cloture motions were filed. In this Congress, which began just last year, there have been 84. In other words, there have been more cloture motions filed in the last year and a half than the Senate saw in the half-century between World War I and Watergate.
The most cloture motions filed in American history were filed by Republicans in the 110th Congress (2007 to 2008). The second most were filed by Republicans in the 111th Congress (2009 to 2010). And the third most filed by Republicans in the 112th Congress (2011 to 2012).
"Abused, abused, abused" sounds about right.
Mandatory supermajorities for literally every vote of any consequence not only make it impossible for the legislative branch to function effectively, it creates what is, in effect, a governmental crisis in which abandonment of norms prevents policymakers from responding to national needs.
The question, of course, is what Reid -- or anyone else -- intends to do about it. The Majority Leader has not publicly discussed any plans, but his endorsement of institutional reform makes it significantly more likely that changes will eventually occur.
Leave a Comment:
I think Reid is concerned because he felt that the Democrats would be in the opposite position and then they'd be out of luck.
Apparently what he has forgotten is that, no matter what he does, the Republicans will change the game to favor them.
One can only imagine what the last three years would have been like without this rule.
One can only imagine what the last 5 1/2 years would have been like without this execrable bozo who has occupied the Majority Leader position like a fearful mouse peeking from a crack in a floorboard, and who skitters back to the safety of his dark, calm, quiet crack whenever he senses the slightest whiff of danger to his overriding desire for comity and capitulation.
The Harry Reid years have been squandered years regarding the position of the Majority Leader showing the slightest bit of spine or imagination or combativeness. His departure, whenever that happens, will be a huge relief.
A Majority Leader position is a terrible thing to waste.
burro ... Well said! Agree completely. Think of all the great things that could have been accomplished in 2009 and 2010 had Reid shown any backbone at all. Why the Dems made him majority leader again after the 2010 election is a mystery.
There should almost never be a filibuster for confirmation of judicial and administrative nominees. Any time a prty wants to stop legislation, it should actually have to conduct a filibuster, so that the country can observe the delaying tactics first hand. And those filibusters should be very much limited in number to major pieces of legislation.
"Do about it?" Nothing- until after the election!
And, after the election, it will be a 49-51 split, and you pick 'em.
Maybe we will have to concentrate on a good "
housesenate cleaning" in 2014. (Who in the Senate is up for re-election then?)Check out the Common Cause site. They are planning a suit to ban filibusters.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5958583
I see no chance that the Senate can reform itself.
I still don't understand why anyone in either Congress or the WH ever believed that "bi-partisanship" could be had. Maybe it's just me, but haven't these politicians been watching the other side over the last several years? The GOP has gotten nasty, incivil, ignorant, boorish, and have the nerve to throw temper tantrums (gov/t shut-downs) - in order to get their way - it's about time Reid get a back-bone and stand up for what IS right for the people!
Vote out the GOP in November!
The Senate wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and it's quite obvious that it can't work this way.
If Harry 'Spineless' Reid had any stones, the 'rules' would have been changed to reflect the intent of the framers at the start of this Congress. Instead, Harry 'Spineless' Reid reached a gentlemen's agreement with the rethugs that Mitch McConnell likely never had any intent to honor.
Who in D.C. besides Harry 'Spineless' Reid and Barack 'The Capitulator-In-Chief' Obama have believed that the 'word' of repuknicans would be honored during the last two years?
Remember, if you hear republican politicians talking about how the government in D.C. is broken, they are not complaining; they are bragging about what they have accomplished.
The Dems will, to avoid a fight, wait till Republicans take over the Senate, then in order to show their willingness to get all and TO AVOID A FIGHT, agree with Mitch McConnell it's time to end the filibuster. Then Republicans will erase the 20th century.
Then republicans will erase the 21st century and the 20th century as they move us back to the good old days before the War of Northern Aggression. Back to the good old days of the founding fathers intent of only white male property owners having the right to vote. Disgusting and depressing...
I have no idea why this unedited version of post remained while the edited version was posted, also. Sorry for the repeat.
To: DisgustedWithItAll & SadOldVeteran
Yes, the Dems typically take a copy of Roberts-Rules-of-Order to a GOP knife fight; and it's depressing. They tend to be the mature civil adults in the room where the GOP juveniles are throwing tantrums....HOWEVER, that's no reason to just let the spoiled brats have their way. Many of the newer Dems, including the POTUS seem to have finally decided to institute a little "tough-love"....THANK GOODNESS. It's now up to US to back them up. I've always been a policy voter, Dem. or Rep. was rarely relevant. What has transpired in the GOP party in the last few years has convinced me that the current GOP has been "possessed" by the radical right and now is equivalent to our own Christian version of The Taliban. (Sounds extreme, I know, but it appears to be just so)
SO VOTE DEMOCRAT! EVEN IF OBAMA GETS ANOTHER 4 YEARS HE WON'T GET MUCH ACCOMPLISHED IF HE HAS THE SAME OBSTRUCTIONIST BEHAVIOR HE'S HAD FROM THE GOP FILIBUSTER AND CLOTURE.
If we have a HUGE sweep in November, then the GOP may rethink it's current extreme trajectory...then just MAYBE we can consider them as a viable party again.
If you simply give up and don't vote. They win. And will continue to win, making things even worse (is that even possible?)
The GOP are COUNTING on your apathy...."The way that evil succeeds is by good people doing NOTHING"
We're all counting on you!
To steal a phrase "Just DO it"
The Dems will, TO AVOID A FIGHT, wait till Republicans take over the Senate, then in order to show their willingness to get along, showoff their congenital comity, and AVOID A FIGHT, agree with Mitch McConnell it's time to end the filibuster. Then Republicans will erase the 20th century.
I, for one, believe Sen. Reid has done a good job under very trying circumstances. He is obviously a very intelligent man who knows what future consequences may be in store should he change the rules recklessly. Namely, finding his own party in the minority, with no way to block an insane GOP agenda. He is wise not to want to shake it up too much.
That said, I feel a limit to the number of filibusters per legislative session would be a step in the right direction.
Before I give a dime to the DSCC, I want to see pledges from the Senate Democratic leadership that, if they still control the Senate in January, they will at a minimum:
1) Exempt motions to proceed from filibusters; and
2) Reduce the 30 hours of post-cloture debate to 2 hours, one hour for each side.
The motion to proceed is the motion to begin debate on a bill. Filibustering a motion to proceed is the mechanism by which a minority can keep the majority's bills from even being debated on the Senate floor.
Technically, filibustering a motion to proceed is saying you want to keep on debating whether or not you want to debate a bill. That's pretty stupid, which is why it shouldn't be allowed. Debate on a motion to proceed should have a one-hour maximum, and then a simple majority vote should take place on whether to proceed to debating the bill itself.
The requirement of 30 hours of post-cloture dabate is a mechanism by which a minority of just one or two Senators can exact a high price for letting a bill go forward, even after it's passed by a filibuster-proof majority. The minority can insist on their 30 hours of floor time, which means that the Senate has 30 fewer hours to deal with the rest of its agenda.
If I understand correctly, it's this ability for a single Senator to throw a spanner in the works that the Senate 'hold' is based on: it's ritualized extortion. A 'hold' is basically 'satisfy my objections to this bill, nomination, or (lately) even some other random thing that's bugging me, or I'll insist on taking up my 30 hours of floor time.'
I'm all for getting rid of the filibuster altogether, but getting rid of these two problems would move the ball forward a great deal, while still giving room for a minority to block bad legislation. They'd just have to do it after debating the issue.
The Dems cannot change the filibuster rules until the new Congress convenes. There has been unwritten rules about Senate procedure and how it can be changed. It is time for the Dems to eliminate the filibuster and holds. It is unclear if Republicans will do it because if the control the Senate but not the House and White House there is no incentive for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. But if Dems control Congress and the WH, then it is time to force the issue. According to the Senate rules, it takes a certain number of votes rather than a simple majority to change procedures so that any changes are bipartisan. If Dems control the Senate, then they need to go nuclear on the filibuster and holds. They also need to prevent the Senate from carrying the rules forward to the next Senate session in January. Let the Republicans scream because they can't get any court to intervene; rules of procedure are not subject to the court system.
Again and again, it all comes down to political will. There is no reason the majority has to do anything at all, they can change the rules any time they want. Simply change the rules, and let the chips fall where they may. It's just that Reid chooses to honor tradition over the good of the nation. The three branches of government are separate but equal, which means the Senate (and the House for that matter) is free to do whatever they want without interference from the other two branches. Let the GOP sue in the Supreme Court, who cares what those a-holes "rule," the majority could tell them to take a hike and what are they going to do about it? The GOP has figured this out so well they can control legislation with only 40 Senators. It's long past time for Reid to tell them to go screw.
Like someone said above, badly.
After the 2010 election in 2011 there was little reason to dump the filibuster rule. The crazy Repubs controlled the House.