Just last night, Rachel asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) whether the larger and more progressive Senate caucus might finally reform Senate filibuster rules in the new Congress. The senator replied, "I am so hopeful."
Given the need, Klobuchar isn't the only one. Take a look at this chart I put together on the growth in the number of filibusters since the Senate changed its rules in 1917.
The chart is based on an updated table the Senate keeps, chronicling cloture votes over the last nine decades, using three metrics: (1) cloture motions filed (when the majority begins to end a filibuster); (2) votes on cloture (when the majority tries to end a filibuster); and (3) the number of times cloture was invoked (when the majority succeeds in ending a filibuster). By all three measures, obstructionism soared over the last six years as Republicans abused the rules like no other party or caucus in American history.
You'll notice a sharp drop in the number of filibusters in the most recent Congress. While that might suggest signs of progress to some, it's not -- the drop only came as a result of the GOP-led House passing far-right bills the Senate didn't care to pass. And even despite this fact, the 112th Congress saw the third most filibusters of any Congress in the 223 years the Senate has existed.
In case this isn't obvious, the Senate wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and by any credible measure, it can't work this way -- which is why there's so much talk of reforms next year.
Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) complained, "We hope Democrats will work toward allowing members of both sides to be involved in the legislative process -- rather than poisoning the well on the very first day of the next Congress."
It's important to understand why this is wrong.
According to McConnell's office, the only meaningful way for the Senate to operate with a cooperative legislative process -- one in which "both sides" are "involved" -- is for an obstructionist minority to have the power to require mandatory supermajorities on literally every vote of consequence.
That's absurd. The U.S. Senate functioned quite well for two centuries while operating under majority rule. To hear McConnell tell it, unless 41 senators can trump 59 senators, the institution will become a shell of its former self. In reality, reform simply clears the way for a return to Senate norms and traditions.
If Republicans didn't want to invite these changes, they shouldn't have twisted and abused Senate rules in ways previous caucuses never even dreamed of.
The New York Times editorial board had a good piece on this today.
The filibuster's importance is as a last-ditch ploy to prevent a minority party from being steamrolled on the most pressing national issues. It was never intended to routinely require a 60-vote supermajority on virtually every issue the Senate takes up. Yet that's how Republicans have used it in the last six years, to a far greater extent than Democrats ever did when they were in the minority.
The proposal made by Mr. Udall and Mr. Merkley last year, which we strongly supported, would have preserved the filibuster but made it much harder to use. Rather than allow a single senator to raise an objection that triggered a 60-vote requirement, their plan would require 10 signatures to start a filibuster and would then force an increasingly large group of members to speak continuously on the floor to keep it going. Senators could not hide in cloakrooms but would have to face the public on camera to hold up a judge's confirmation, a budget resolution or a bill. [...]
Mr. Reid has already expressed an interest in ending filibusters on "motions to proceed," a parliamentary tactic routinely used by Republicans to prevent debate on bills. That would reduce time-wasting in the Senate but would still allow supermajority barriers on the actual passage of bills. But he needs to go further, supporting the Udall-Merkley proposal to end "lazy filibusters" and to eliminate the filibuster on establishing House-Senate conferences, which has made negotiations increasingly rare.
So, what happens now? Policymakers are primarily focused on debt-reduction talks and negotiations to avoid automatic spending cuts and tax increases, but plans for institutional reforms will continue, largely out of sight. Greg Sargent reported last week that half the chamber is now on record supporting filibuster reform, but The Hill reports this morning that proponents still have some work to do.
"I haven't counted 51 just yet, but we're working," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said.
The biggest stumbling block? There are Democrats who want to be able to use Republican tactics the next time there's a GOP majority.
Leave a Comment:
Kill the filibuster....Make those weak bladder bastards stand on the floor and speak.
If everyone that voted for the Liberal cause lived in their own country so they would never have to deal with or see the likes of another conservative, would they create a sustainable society?
Maybe both sides need each other
The damage of filibuster abuse far outweighs the benefits of having a filibuster. Republicans have proven this fact and would be the first people screaming for reform if dems were doing this...but we all know dems would never do this because they believe in what is good for the nation, whereas repubs care only for power and serving the wealthy.
Our nation is set up for rule by the majority...so let the voters determine that majority. Voters would have more influence if senators were elected to 4yr terms rather than 6yr terms.
The Dems, ultimately, won't pull the trigger. They don't play to win, they play to avoid being attacked on Fox.
Please sign and share this petition. Reform the filibuster rule, and end the secret hold.
Idiots I have to agree with you. I find that completely annoying that instead of fully supporting what their base and voters want even when they had complete power in 2008 they're constantly curtailing to what conservatives yap about. It's really frustrating.
@valsays
They never had complete power...a 60 proof majority was only there for a month and a half...but over 50 dem senators so the majority could at least function except for the filibuster requiring 60 votes...which allowed repubs to block the majority on everything.
'rather than poisoning the well on the very first day of the next Congress." Ah McConnell you make me LAUGH when you say this with a straight face...
My sarcasmatron is detecting no apparent sense of irony in this sentence.
Shocking!
"The biggest stumbling block? There are Democrats who want to be able to use Republican tactics the next time there's a GOP majority."
I disagree , the only reason these rules are in place is so exonn mobile and wall st can pay off 1 or 2 senators , and shut our hole government down ..... before they had to pay off 10 or 12 senators to get it done , so this is more cost effective for the corrupt lobbyists ,,,,,,,,so lets stop pretending that these rules represent something they do not , and what their function is , and call out any senators who tries and paint the FB as something that is user friendly , the gop are all about shutting down our constitutional government , these rules were made for THEM , and dem corporate shills
My dem senator Harken is on board , I will write him any way for encouragement , every dem out there should be blasting their senators about this NOW!!!!
the next time there's a GOP majority."
And, it is OUR job to see that it never happens!
As if we could actually find 41 dem senators that would filibuster every Republican bill? Sorry, but the Dems just don't have that kind of discipline. The Republicans would be able to shake just enough loose to break just about any filibuster.
I seem to remember the last time there was a hulubaloo about the filibuster, and mention of the nuclear option, was when Bush's judicial nominees were being delayed by the Democrats.
Gee. Aren't there a BUNCH of Obama judicial nominees who are being delayed because the Republicans thought that they'd be taking the White House AND getting a majority in the Senate.
So do the Democrats think that the Republicans aren't going to continue this process? They WANT conservatives as judges, so they can "take" that branch of government.
Does anyone not believe that the moment the GOP takes over the Senate, the filibuster rules will go out the window? It takes 51 votes to change the rules, and you'd better believe that as soon as the GOP gets 51 votes, the filibuster is done.
There are important votes coming up, including SCOTUS appointments, and allowing a minority of Senators to block the majority will only lead to more gridlock. You can't assume the Republicans will play nice when (or if) they achieve a majority in the Senate.
The fillibuster simply needs sunlight. Take out the secrecy, and make the Senators explain why. This will neuter the obstructionists when they make the front page of the news.
You're assuming a fact not in evidence, i.e., that Southern scum like Sessions and DeMented have a sense of shame.
This!
It's this complete lack of accountability the Republicans are taking advantage of. I know, shocking. Remove the anonymity and, at the worst, we'd likely be back where we were before changes were made to the filibuster.
It'd also be rather difficult for the MSM to blat "Senate fails to pass...", when their leading story is "Republicans mount Senate filibuster...".
Fox excepted, of course.
McConnell lied to Reid when the Dems proposed changes at the start of this session. Now it is time to pay the piper. Dems should abolish the filibuster. McConnell is looking to mislead the Dems into thinking there will be bipartisan efforts. There will not. In two years we are looking at more elections and the Republicans intend to filibuster everything they can without drawing public attention until those elections. Dems should make the Republicans pay the price for all the filibusters, total abolition along with indefinite holds on appointments. This will obviously hurt the Dems when they are in the minority because they will no longer have the filibuster as a weapon. But total abolition will put the onus on the majority party for bad legislation and appointments. This will end the dog and pony show with bills that are designed for public consumption rather than serious consideration.
Dems won't push to reform filibuster because it is their excuse to NOT do the things they have promised. No filibuster, no "we can't get it done because the Repubs won't let us". This is just all part of the game to keep the people in power in power, and to give Obama the excuses he needs to "compromise", as he did in the past four years. Big Business, Big Banks and Wall Street still rule. In case you haven't figured it out, Obama is, and always has been, their man. A few weeks after the new congress is in session, no one will even remember they could have changed the rules to make it a functioning body again. Business as usual.
Give me a fricking break. This proposal is window dressing. You are dreaming if you think this limp proposal will dissuade the likes of the Jeff Sessions occupying safe deep Red Senate seats.
Look at reality. In 2003, republicans under Frist were set to eliminate the fillibuster on judicial appointments. It was not convenient for them because Bush was appointing extremists and was unwilling to moderate his selections. So the dems fillibustered. Dem moderates helped prevent fillibuster reform, and Bush simply continued his extreme appointees, getting Alito on the Supreme court to replace O'Conner.
The GOP got what they wanted with or without the Fillibuster.
Why did the Dream act fail, Why did cap and trade fail? Why was Obama's preferred "Medicare for everyone" plan never get off the ground? They could not get past the GOP fillibuster.
So the reality is that the GOP expects the fillibuster to function to moderate Dem positions and nominees, but are willing to blow it away when it requires them to moderate their positions.
It is a delusional charade to play the game this way. Blow away the fillibuster and offer to return to it only after the GOP agrees on moderating their use of it.
These milquetoast "make them stand up if they are going to fillibuster" embroideries are predicated on the idea that the GOP is vulnerable to a sense of shame, and will feel the least bit vulnerable among their electorate. This is willful self delusion. Embrace the horror. These guys will use any means to block Obama policies and nominees to the Judiciary.
No indefinite filibusters. Turn the Senate into a majoritarian chamber until the GOP returns to their senses about the responsibilities of governance. There are consequences for their my way or the highway approach to its relationship with their Democratic rivals.
Now they must take the consequences. If they insist on behaving like petulant children, put all the sharp objects out of their reach.
Eliminate the fillibuster and related rules used for obstructionist strategies.
McConnell had a gentlemen's agreement to moderate the use of filibusters for this session. He lied and there is no reason to trust him again. Reid was double crossed and now the Republicans need to pay dearly for that lie.
Exactly. And it is difficult to name any other GOP Senator in a leadership position worthy of trust.
And McConnell is actually on the moderate end of the GOP spectrum. Folks like Sessions vying for the McConnell's position are far more radical in their advocacy of obstructionism.
If the Dems abolish filibusters and holds, the Republican senators are going to battle it out over who is to blame. And it will be safe to say it was all of them for supporting the filibusters and holds. We can enjoy watching the blame game that is happening in every part of the Republican party.
It's not that these various Republican have or do not have a sense of shame. What putting the filibuster back to what is was does is allow the citizens to see what these people are doing - blocking legislation solely for partisan purposes when that legislation has enough support to pass.
A functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. Unfortunately, too many of our citizens are apathetic about politics, but there's certainly no reason to presume that today's citizens are any dumber than those of prvious times.
Once they have the information available.
Harry "Pollyana" Reid was practically gushing when he talked about "real" filibuster reform last week. Even then I didn't believe it would happen. Now reality is setting in. Republicans march in lock-step. Democrats don't. Both sides are afraid of what will happen when they're in the minority. Why aren't they more concerned about doing the country's business?!?
If they paid attention to the country's business instead of the 1%s business, they'd have no trouble maintaining their majority.
There has to be something changed so there can be governing taking place.
This filibuster business has to at least be conducted, if someone wants to do a procedure, it needs to proceed, not just say I call b.s. The idea is to have a say, to convince people listening to your position. Only it went from reading recipes and phone books to just saying some magic words and voila, majority overridden and have minority running off to 3 martini lunch, high giving.
That is just a slap in the face to the people. We want to have people heard, but this is just f'ing ridiculous.
the idea that clowns like jim demint or rand paul have a veto over every nomination president obama makes is utterly repulsive.
Reforming the filibuster to prevent abuse is not "poisoning the well". It's more like throwing some disinfecting tablets down it.
There are Democrats who want to be able to use Republican tactics the next time there's a GOP majority.
Without the filibuster, maybe these spineless scum might have to become actual, you know, Democrats, and work for their constituents instead of for Wall Street and the corporations and keep their seats and help their party keep a majority. There's obviously a few more Ben Nelsons who need to go.
Democratic Female Senators need to take the lead to change, if not eliminate, the filibuster this session. Senator Amy needs to put her "I hope so" into action. She, and Gillibrand, Murray, Feinstein, Mikulski, etc. need to propose a substantive measure that either supplants or supports the Udall/Merkle position. We elected all the senators to go on record, negotiate, and take action to get the nation back to work. What better way to start than to get the Senate working again?
I don't have much faith in the "make them talk" approach because that will be used to obstruct just as it had in the past. And I'm not sure there is an equitable solution that allows the minority some ability to keep from being steamrolled. I do know that if a filibuster continues to exist it must not allow the obstructing party to deploy it without suffering some pain.
What I don't like is talk of reforming the filibuster from people like Reid. I fear that talk simply means that they'll do something that looks like reform but allows the same obstruction to continue.
And any talk of trusting McConnell to keep his word should be grounds for removal. With Harry in charge I doubt we have much hope for true reform let alone removal.
I should add to my comments above that ending the filibuster on motions to proceed would seem substantial--and a step in the right direction, I just don't think it would be enough.
"The biggest stumbling block? There are Democrats who want to be able to use Republican tactics the next time there's a GOP majority."
Does anyone think that next time the GOP is in the majority that they won't change the rules to prevent Dems from using GOP tactics? Just look at how much Bush pushed through the Senate using reconciliation; They will never treat the Democratic Caucus as equals and accept that sometimes the other side wins as long as they can control things whether in the majority or the minority
Democrats might as well go for reform, things will be against them no matter what they do next time the GOP takes control.
Where can we get a list of the Democratic senators who haven't signed on to the U-M proposal? They need to be called on to explain why they feel that the GOP should be able to block legislation and appointments that are supported by their party and their president.
Given the current use of the filibuster in the Senate, it is clear reform of some sort is essential. I like the idea of requiring at least 10 senators to initiate a filibuster and would add a requirement that it be done in writing with the purpose of the filibuster clearly stated. I would also suggest applying the same procedure to 'holds' on judicial nominees.
Democrats will never get the chance to use the filibuster again. I promise you, the second the GOP gets control of the White House & Senate the first thing they'll do is end the filibuster. Not reform it, end it.
They've already threatened to do it previously, over judicial filibusters of Bush nominees.
Who are the Democrats that are unwilling to do filibuster reform ?? I think their names should be plastered on the front page of the papers to get their constituents' attention. Give them the attention they deserve, we're good at remembering who @!$%#ed up come election day.
For Republicans in large majority red states like Georgia or Kentucky, senators do not need to worry about a general election challenge. Instead, they have to be concerned with a primary challenge from somebody running to the right of them. With lobbying efforts from GOP focused businesses on top of that they have no reason (assuming no ethics or otherwise) compromise with the Democrats. Why not filibuster everything?
However, I think we may overestimate how conservative some states are. If it was brought to light exactly which bills some of these senators were blocking, it may not play well with chunks of voters in some of these states.
I wrote a blog post 2 weeks ago on this issue, more detail here:
http://ballotlines.com/2012/11/14/building-a-divided-house-the-structural-causes-of-our-partisian-politics-part-1/
A RULE that is obeyed, followed, utilized or otherwise kept can NOT be abused. ABUSE occurs when a rule is broken, disobeyed, abrogated or otherwise trashed.
Rules exist for a purpose and invoking an existing rule is to be preferred over abrogating it. ONLY when rules are not adhered to and followed does abuse and then chaos followed by Tyrannical Mob Rule Majority Democracy rear its ugly head.