Filibusters (a special midweek post)
The link here is to the Official Explanation of why, in the current view, the mere threat of a filibuster, is the same as an actual filibuster and why it takes sixty votes to pass a bill in the Senate and not just a simple majority. The link does not explain how, in that event, major legislation has been passed with fewer than the votes needed for cloture nor why advocates for, say, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stayed with the bill until they got the votes for cloture, rather than just mark it off calendar.
It's an interesting exercise in the pusillanimous to explain why one has to give up the fight because of a threat of a fight. I will accept that modern practice has made the "cots"-type filibusterdramatized so well on the West Wing to be either passe or fictitious altogether (though I am not convinced that is so).
But accepting this memo as correct, what of it? If Republicans want to keep suggesting the absence of a quorum, to prevent the Senate from voting on a good health care insurance reform bill (preferably a medicaid for all bill, but one with at least some government agency which will provide competitive insurance for those unwilling to accept the gouging of a private money making company with a ballpark named after it) then let them do it. No, it will not be covered on live tv except C-SPAN (the cable nets have flying balloons to cover and would not have time to show quorum call after quorum call, but the fact that the Senate is unable to do any business for this reason will be reported, and, from time to time in this ordeal, perhaps over 50 some odd Democratic Senators could sit in the chamber so that the absurdity of the suggestion of the absence of a quorum was illustrated in a way the fools we live with could understand and the American people would see why they are being denied what a majority of them want.
Senator Reid: why not just try it for a week or so instead of letting Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Conrad (D-Insurance Companies) write the bill?
It's an interesting exercise in the pusillanimous to explain why one has to give up the fight because of a threat of a fight. I will accept that modern practice has made the "cots"-type filibusterdramatized so well on the West Wing to be either passe or fictitious altogether (though I am not convinced that is so).
But accepting this memo as correct, what of it? If Republicans want to keep suggesting the absence of a quorum, to prevent the Senate from voting on a good health care insurance reform bill (preferably a medicaid for all bill, but one with at least some government agency which will provide competitive insurance for those unwilling to accept the gouging of a private money making company with a ballpark named after it) then let them do it. No, it will not be covered on live tv except C-SPAN (the cable nets have flying balloons to cover and would not have time to show quorum call after quorum call, but the fact that the Senate is unable to do any business for this reason will be reported, and, from time to time in this ordeal, perhaps over 50 some odd Democratic Senators could sit in the chamber so that the absurdity of the suggestion of the absence of a quorum was illustrated in a way the fools we live with could understand and the American people would see why they are being denied what a majority of them want.
Senator Reid: why not just try it for a week or so instead of letting Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Conrad (D-Insurance Companies) write the bill?
Advertisement
CALL FOR THE GODDAMN VOTE
That is what I say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34COolbdmY
October 17, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great link. Thanks.
October 17, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect.
I am not against filibusters per se and the rule works to keep the majority from stomping over a minority, which is as often us, as it is them. But this is different. There in no principle at stake; only greed.
BTW: I am so used to hearing Pete Seeger's version of this, that your link was a very nice surprise. I will try to return the favor, though this is a rough version from the Dropkick Murphy's of Boston, Massachusetts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDOzMvMqb7I
October 17, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy that will wake one up on a Saturday morning. I laughed the entire way through it but I was thinking about the fire...the life force that is really necessary for real solid change. wow
October 17, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barth, thank you for a very informative piece. I, for one, didn't quite understand how the process worked.
As frustrating as it is, our forefathers had the wisdom to make it difficult for major change to occur without a lot of support.
So, we have to compromise, or get out there and raise a stink. I suspicion compromise will win out, as galling as that is.
October 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The filibuster wasn't really the wise creation of "our forefathers," if you're thinking of the group who wrote the Constitution. It dates to the 1850s, when some Senators realized they could manipulate Senate rules to seize and hold the floor in order to prevent legislation from coming to a vote.
It's a perversion of the wise tradition of unlimited debate. And as Barth noted, there are ways to work around it, if you really want to do so.
The Senate's own Web site has a brief, informative article.
The threat of filibuster is often used to provide both sides with political cover for not doing things that are in the public interest, but are opposed by the Senators' corporate sponsors.
What possible justification is there, in a democracy, for requiring a super-majority in the Senate in order to pass each and every piece of legislation?
After all, for an act to become law it must also succeed in the House, earn the President's signature, and withstand challenges in court. That's already pretty difficult.
I believe that democracy would be better served without the filibuster. Perhaps Senators (and the media) could stop obsessing over whether there are 59 or 61 votes for cloture and pay attention to the merits of the bill itself.
October 17, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with 99% of Red Planet's comment, but recall how the prior administration, with the control of Congress before the Katrina Awakening, intended to jam all sorts of ideologues down our throats as federal judges with lifetime appointments and how the need for 60 votes protected us from that.
The majority cannot have complete unfettered control, but the 60 vote requirement should not be used for every single piece of legislation. The only way to prevent that is, in my opinion, to illustrate its misuse.
October 17, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken, barth. When the filibuster was used judiciously by both sides, rarely and only to stop egregious legislation, I thought it was a good thing. Now, not so much.
And Bush did jam all sorts of ideologues down our throats! Because Democrats used "principled" opposition to the filibuster as political cover so they could give the President, and their campaign contributors, what they wanted.
Samuel Alito and John Roberts come to mind.
The Walmart Twins - Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor - famously gamed the system by voting nay on Alito's confirmation, but yea on cloture.
They positioned their cloture votes as a matter of principle, to give the President an up/down vote on his nominee, and positioned their no votes on the nomination also as a matter of principle. But they knew all along that cloture was the key vote, because the Republicans had enough votes to confirm if they could only get past a filibuster.
Thus they were able to serve their corporate master while pretending to be principled Democrats.
And Pryor joined the Gang of Fourteen so he could help fritter away any possibility of using the filibuster to stop Roberts.
If we didn't have the filibuster, at least this particular form of gaming would disappear.
And if we didn't have the filibuster we wouldn't have Olympia Snowe and Holy Joe in the driver's seat on health care reform.
Maybe. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.
October 17, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink