Associated Press
We don't yet know exactly why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave up on ambitious reforms of filibuster rules. After months of voicing support for sweeping changes, it's possible Reid just didn't have the votes from his own caucus to pursue bold reforms through the "constitutional option."
Whatever the reasoning, however, it's important that folks understand that when Reid says protecting the filibuster is necessary to keep the Senate from being like the House, he's wrong.
"I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House."
I get the argument -- the rambunctious House operates by majority rule, while the staid and serious Senate seeks consensus by requiring supermajorities for everything. Without the filibuster, the Senate is little more than a smaller version of House.
Except, this just isn't true, and Reid's explanation rings hollow. If his principal concern is with "the history of the Senate," he should be more inclined to pursue real filibuster reform, not less.
First, let's note the basics. Historically, the Senate differed from the House, not because of mandatory supermajorities that didn't exist up until very recently, but because members serve six-year terms (instead of two) and represent entire states (instead of districts). The whole point was to create a deliberative institution -- longer terms were intended to give members longer and less reflexive perspectives, and representing states helped guarantee more diverse constituencies.
The Senate didn't need filibusters to be distinct from the House; the differences were baked into the cake.
But we can dig deeper.
Reid says he's concerned about "the history of the Senate," but the Senate functioned quite well for 200 years while remaining a majority-rule institution. There were, to be sure, procedural hoops to jump through, but if a bill reached the floor, and a majority of the Senate's members supported it, the bill passed. That's no longer true, and today's modest reforms won't even try to fix that problem.
This is how the Senate was intended and designed to work -- supermajorities for treaties, impeachment, expulsions, constitutional amendments, and veto overrides, but regular ol' majorities for legislation and nominations.
The Founding Fathers considered making the Senate a supermajority chamber, but they decided against it. As we noted on the show last month: "They rejected that big time."
"In a Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote that a super majority Congress would in practice serve to, quote, 'embarrass the administration, destroy the energy of government, and substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.'"
Reid understands this. He knows this. He appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show on October 27, 2010, and viewers saw this exchange:
MADDOW: Why is it that everything takes 60 votes now? I mean, it used to be 60 votes was a headline. If somebody forced 60 votes, that meant they were filibustering and that meant that they were taking an unusually strong stand against something. Now it's 60 votes even for routine--
REID: Rachel, this has to change. It's wrong what they're doing, because it's never happened before.... The Republicans, just this time have abused the system, and it's going to have to change. We'll have to look at ways to change that, because there should not be 60 votes in the Senate.
He's not "ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," because he's mindful of "the history of the Senate"? I know Reid knows better.
Leave a Comment:
If Harry Reid had 51 votes for the talking fillibuster and did not hold that vote, Merckley and the others would be in full revolt, and at the minimum going on MSNBC to complain.
The problem is likely Blue-Dog Democrats, people who should be Republicans but couldn't get in good enough with their state parties.
There is no pressure on Dems if it never comes to a vote. This legislative day could have lasted for a month more.
Plenty of pork could have been dangled in front of the wavering Dem Senators to get even the modest reforms that Merckley proposed. And OFA would have had time to mobilize street heat to pressure the wavering Senators.
But no.
Reid fumbles the single most crucial vote for the coming 2 years.
It is a ludicrous dereliction of responsibility, especially in the context of the last 2 years of GOP obstructionism.
Someone talk me down. I am hyperventilating about how bumbling and stupid this move is.
Just look at it not from a partisan, but mechanical perspective. Tell me why it is incorrect to conclude
Harkin is complaining to the press, so it is not clear if Reid lacked the votes or just decided he'd personally prefer the illusion of reform.
I am not as enamored of the talking filibuster as many on the left, but there were many, many important things Reid could have (and should have) held out for: disallowing filibusters on executive branch nominees; allowing filibusters to delay, but not kill, legislation; having a cloture requirement that reduces with passage of time; or even shifting the burden so the minority has to get 41 public votes (making it harder to kill popular measures). And I have seen nothing about secret individual holds. Not getting any of these is irresponsible.
John: If Nancy has the gavel, yes, this is something you fight till the end about IMHO. Apparently Harry Reid did not want to blow up the Senate today to just run into another wall in the House.
That's wimp out rhetoric. Important votes could be brought to floor votes with a discharge petition.
Zeitgeist (2.5 above) has it right. Mann and Ornstein (youtube esp 5:45) point out in their book how there are myriad ways to achieve the same obstruction McConnell did in 2010-2011. What is needed is comprehensive reform of Senate rules to remove the sharp objects from his reach.
The structural problem we have in an environment where political process has become parliamentary, and the rules non parliamentary, A party dedicated to ideological extremism can halt all legislative activity. Not responding to this even a symbolic way with a standing filibuster rule will be the single item associated with Harry Reid's name in the history books. The chorus will be that he was a legislative fool.
Their book is "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism" (amazon)
Ledowsky . you just missed 90% of what filibuster reform is all about , AGAIN
If you are not going to read what Mr Benen writes , then please do not bother commenting on it , we have enough 1/2 baked former gop commenter's on here
not that there is anything WRONG with that , lol
Once again the Democrats you voted for have spit in their voters' face by telling them there is no goddamned way they are going to do what you voted for them to do.
You can get a measure of just how much Harry Reid has done this by looking at the trolls that show up here to taunt you. They are absolutely elated over Reid betraying Democratic supporters.
This does not bother the mush-brained Useless Democrat calling himself Dude. He's here to put the stamp of approval of anything these gutless wonders do.
If the senate was able to pass sane legislation , that people can identify with , own , and get behind it , it magnifies the obstruction in The House even more
Complacency and leading from behind , which is what the Reid / Ledowsky dems are so proud of , is exactly what is wrong with DC , and th dem party today
You can tell how full of BS Reid is on the subject , by what Mr Benen just pointed out , it is glaring , Reid was singing a completely different tune when asking g for votes and donations this last election season , now its back to DYSFUNCTIONAL BUSINESS AS USUAL , since the election is over
Patango: Not sure what matter you feel I am wrong about, but if you don't mind I will simply post on wherever I feel, OK? This notion you have that you can turn me on and off is flawed and off base. If Patango/Disgusted Democrats throw labels at people, I will gladly call myself Reid/Lebowsky. At least ole Harry and I have manners and respect for other peoples opinions. At the end of the day I can say that, and that is nice...
Disgusted: You sure personify the modern cable news political observer well. You lurch from story to story pretending everything is life/death, and everyone is either a villian or hero. You have virtually no long view on anything, and just like the fiscal cliff deal you blew gaskets over, you are here pretending this is the end of life as we know it. I remember very well you pledging to never come here to Maddowblog because of hurt feelings and hurled insults over the fiscal cliff deal, and they were your feelings and insults! I suggest you take it easy fella, treat people the way you want to be treated, and show others some respect. You will feel better.
@Whitey
Sorry Whitey but there is no one more pathetic than the both sides do it or both sides are to blame nonsense.
Only one side is and has been destructive to all of us but the very wealthy...only one side and if you can't see that then open your eyes. When was the last time a republican brought you anything?
L Dude
I have seen you hurl a lot worse insults in here princess , give us a break
the "hyper sensitive troll " act is more of a joke than some simple "political comparison " truthiness
Patango: LOL No way fella, I am a wordsmith, the insult game is something you and your buddy play. You know I will make you look like exactly what you are, so play at your own risk...
Harry Reid is also a spineless weasel. I can only imagine that he is afraid if he pushed the reform rules he would loose his job as majority leader.
As of right now any possibility of getting anything or anyone that supports any of the things that might have even been considered for Obama's second term agenda are effectively dead in the water.
Harry Reid just turned Barack Obama into a complete lame duck and set him up for the GOP to use as target practice
Also what's sad is I'm sure the right wing echo chamber will still attack Reid for these laughable reforms. That's the lesson Obama finally learned, they're going to attack you as an out of control power hungry liberal no matter what you do, you may as well actually be liberal.
and it's time for conservatives to quite pretending they are popular or even philosophically relevant
I agree with you Whitey, I think that for too long Liberal has been a dirty word and progressives shouldn't be afraid to actually be progressive. (I don' think this is what you meant but nonetheless your correct). If the right wing is going to lose it's collective mind because Obama proposes centrist policies that generally enjoy bipartisan support such as Cap and Trade, or the Individual Mandate et sec, then Obama might as well actually give the right something to lose it's mind over.
I almost gagged on the irony there for a moment. Please continue.
Isn't it fun, watching a redneck dumbass who doesn't know he's a redneck dumbass, running his dumbassery everywhere?
Thanks, Whiteboy, for reminding us that the South IS The Problem.
This is the final proof that Harry Reid is just as ineffectual in his job as John Boehner is in his. He needs to be removed from his position as leader. He is no leader. I agree with those who say Reid has just re-tied the President's hands. This must be Reid's payback for bringing Biden in for the fiscal curb cra*. Not at all the actions of a leader. Harry is now " Lucy" pulling the football away once again.
Gridlock is good.
Ur not even trying anymore.
he gave up trying after the election
There's not a lot to say. Reid dropped the ball and the filibuster remains unscathed. The question now is why, but I certainly don't expect the left to press him on that issue. Transparency need not apply.
Why ? because DC conseva dems are just as spine less , as you are dishonest , along with the rest of your gop
Yes we do. Reid and Senate Dems lack the political courage to do what they know is right. To put it more succinctly: Chickesh*t!
Hey everyone, filabuster party in Mitch's office, your invited Harry.
Everyone's coverage of this is very disturbing, most of all Rachel's. She's been covering it as though it was the be-all for years, and last night, the day before the likely decision, no coverage at all? At least, I don't find it among the clips. RCP had an excellent piece this morning on how over time the Dems can expect to hold the Senate just 25% of the time, and therefore, changing the rules would be most averse to them. And that tho changing the rules would move things faster in the Senate, that except in years where they control all 3 - House, Senate, WH - the one they didn't have would be just as effective at blocking legislation as the Filibuster. Please, this is too important. Don't give us knee-jerk on this. Step back, take a deep breath, and when you can tie it all together for us, long view AND short view, PLEASE DO! Thanks for all your great work.
Mr Benen's OP just did that , feel free to make an actual counter point any time
FLOP!!!!!
I think that Reid and the Democrats are doing exactly what Democrats do best. They don't like being hyper-partisan on things. The change to the fillibuster rules would have the same "appearance" as the vote rigging schemes in VA, PA, OH etc. I'm not equating them but it would be easy to do so in the media. Like most things Democrats don't like looking like they're playing politics or gaming the system.
Lest us not forget that in 2006 I believe Republicans (admittedly a VERY different party then than now) toyed with eliminating the Filibuster as well and didn't pull the trigger. I think it's something that makes anyone other than a hyper-partisan a little squeamish to feel like you're changing the rules solely to benefit your side.
They didn't pull the trigger because the Democrats agreed to what they were demanding re judicial votes. Had the Democrats not agreed, they would have pulled the trigger using the nuclear option which was way outside the rules unlike this situation in which the Democrats could have amended, not ignored, the rules.
7.1 - appearances are deceiving! Your view is no exception. Allowing an up or down vote is hardly the equivalence of "rigging schemes" by Republicans. The rules Harkin, Udall, and Merkley proposed were not those to "solely benefit" the Dems. Better critical thinking here is needed by all, especially Harry Reid.
Reid is our Boehner.
Why should Sen. Reid's "personal readiness" have anything to do with what he does as Majority Leader? Seems to me his colleagues didn't elect him dictator. If 50+ of his colleagues were ready and willing to vote publicly for substantive filibuster reform, they should also now object publicly for his abject lack of leadership (and spine, and courage, and consistency, and logic, and good sense, et al.)
And so should we. Object, that is. Publicly. Loudly. Derisively, even. I have; I will.
I don't think he had the votes.
Senator Reid,
Americans have taken a vote. It has been decided that for the next two years, you and the Democrats can NOT use the excuse of a filibuster preventing you from enacting legislation or confirming any of the President's nominations.
You've made your own bed.
EXACTLY , the 1st time Reid starts complaining about THE FILIBUSTER , we should all give him and the media an ear full on how full of BS him and his fellow conservadems are
and short-sheeted the nation.
I can never figure out why they at least don't put the onus on the fillibusterers (fillbusterati? ... not important) to collect their side of the votes. In other words to fillbuster a vote you need at least 40 votes (and a reason would be good too).
Sounds to me like he looked at the very problematic 2014 Senate map and balked.
if they are going to go by that , then they can look at what the pollsters were saying back in 2011 , and how wrong they all got it till the end !!!!!
govern from fear , or fight for what you know is right ? most voters will go with THE FIGHTER , not the defeatist , we just have to get FIGHTERS , back in the fight now
"an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta"
That's the best description of the Republican Party I've heard yet.
Is Harry Reid a DINO?
Bring up the vote and let us all see who's against it.
Evidently, Reid is just like the rest of the Villagers: he doesn't want any actual legislation to be enacted which might displease his fat-cat owners, or worse yet possibly improve the lives of any undeserving peasants. The Koch Brothers win again, and the rest of America loses as always.
The founding fathers ment for both the house and senate to be a simple majority, half plus one. The filibuster and the 'hasslet rule' override this founding principal and need to be stopped. Get busy all you clever lawyers out there, it's wrong and needs to be stopped.
We are faced with so many outragious things from our politicans we are becomming too willing to accept them.
socialism , like
" we the people , perfect union , domestic tranquility , equality "
Arguing with Whitey, the perfect demonstration of what you get with ten generations of Alabama redneck incest, is impossible - he lacks a brain.
Whitey doesn't have a clue what socialism is and especially democratic socialism.
"In order to form a more perfect UNION..." "..protect the tranquility..." WE THE PEOPLE. A we society...about as SOCIAL as WE can get.
Maybe the GOP in the senate will take notice they have not reflected the will of the majority of the electorate and will lessen their extremism...but it's not much to give hope to
Whitey doesn't have a clue
what socialism is and especially democratic socialism.There, fixed it for you.
I tend to believe that it's a simple case of Sen. Reid not having the necessary votes. I'd suggest that, instead of whinging or chicken-littling, if you're not satisfied with what's hasppened you call/write/email your Senator/s and ask them how they voted.
Hopefully, they'll be truthful when they reply.
Truthful.?? NEVER will a Politician Give the Truth, the Whole Truth, & Only the Truth, So HELP Them God..... SPIN at Best Will Be Their Answer... Rachael Showed w/All Soundbites HOW BIG a Liar, Harry Reid Is, & HE IS LEADER of Senate.
The blunt truth is Harry Reid is a liar. And he lies to Democrats.
I am so disgusted. What liars. Everyone can spin it any way they want but for people like me who aren't as active and usually just donate. they've just created an activist. Who won't be giving them money and will work against who I voted for. They all need to be primary challenged. What MORONS.
My occupation was hard hit by the recession and it has been miserably hard for a long time and now I will have to keep suffering through it all. Que pendejos, que les pasen tan mal como me paso a mi.
what MORONS!!!
RENEWED FAITH Created in Me for "Rachael Maddow" as a Journalist for "Harry Reid" Exposure as a Lying Politician... MORE of Unbiased Reporting of TRUTH Will Return Me to a Nightly Viewer... Neither Political Party Really Gives a **** About the Taxpaying People of the USA... We Need Representation and NOT Politicians.
I'm guessing this has to do with the fact that 2014 looks like a tough year for Senate Democrats. Of course, 2012 looked like a tough year for Senate Democrats as well, but they pulled through, partly because of bad Republican candidates, and partly because of high turnout. If the Republicans wise up, they will have better candidates, and the lower, off-year turnouts in their favor. With another relatively high number of vulnerable Senate seats, the Democrats don't want to find themselves in the now weakened minority so soon after making such a radical rule change. In 2016, the Democrats have almost no vulnerable seats up for election, while the Republicans have a lot, so the Democrats are probably waiting to see how the next election cycle turns out, and if they have a majority in the 114th Congress, they can almost guarantee a majority in the 115th Congress, meaning that if they were to change the rules at the beginning of January in 2015, they could be confident that they wouldn't have to deal with the consequences for at least 4 years.
I certainly hope that the reason Reed is giving up on the filibuster reform isn't because it allows the Democrats to look like the good guys, proposing wonderful things that help the poor and elderly, while allowing the evil Republicans to come swooping in with their magical filibuster taking away Social Security...etc...so Wall Street can have what they desperately need: more "investors"(donators), saving for a retirement that will never return to them. Not that Reed sees it like that, but a lot of Americans are starting to think this place is turning into a dictatorship and we're all losing our voices...among other rights.
Reid (with several accomplices) lets the filibuster run out of control so that Democrats are only able to pass overwhelmingly popular legislation and they are defeated trying to pass merely mildly popular legislation.
When the GOP inevitably wins 51 Senate members (or 50 with an ersatz Dick Cheney as the tie breaker) they will pass EVERYTHING on their wish list including shockingly bad ideas.
Two years later a 2006-style sweep of Democrats erases most of the damage and produces a Democratic majority that lasts 6 years or more.
If Reid can't pass the left wing agenda, he can (fairly justifiably) blame the Republican filibuster. "Send us 60 Democratic Senators and maybe we can do something!" can be his response.
The nomination blockages and blocking the start of debate stops the delivery of the wildly popular legislation so those two abuses had to be gotten rid of. Reid doesn't WANT to pass legislation that enjoys support of 51-60% of the population as represented by a proxy of 51-60 US Senators. The only laws they can now pass maintain a permanent job approval record. Why would Harry want to change that?
Note: All of this works even better if dissent like Boehner's suddenly becomes accepted. If you can get 60 votes through bi-partisanship, that's just fine by Reid et al. Now they pass only popular laws AND they're bi-partisan. Reid and his ilk play EXCELLENT chess.