|
As many people may recall, the Democrats flirted with the idea of reforming or abolishing the filibuster in 2010. This idea was shelved in favor of a "gentlemen's agreement" between Reid and McConnell that the Republicans would reduce their use of the filibuster, and in exchange Reid would not support reform. That agreement was ... less than successful. As a result, Reid is moving to reform the filibuster this year. Typically, reforming the rules of the Senate requires a supermajority. Reid intends to evade this restriction and change the rules with a simple majority. There's two components to this: the justification, and the method. The Justification Traditionally, the Senate has been thought of as a "continuing body": unlike the House, which is a 'new' House each 2 years, the Senate has been in one continuious session since it was founded, with only one third of it being turned over at one time. As a result, the rules of the "previous" Senate are thought to be binding on the "new" Senate after each election. Filibuster reform relies on doing away with that: arguing that after the election it is a new Senate and this new Senate has the right to set its own rules by majority vote and cannot be bound by the previous Senate. Therefore, on the opening day of the next Senate, the new Senate can set rules by majority rule, without being subject to the filibuster. At least, in theory. The Mechanics Theory about what should and shouldn't be possible is relatively irrelevant, it turns out. Any time there's a dispute over what the rules of the Senate are, the parliamentarian (traditionally) makes a ruling on the issue. However, it doesn't need to be that way: the majority leader can have a friendly face make whatever ruling he wants - in this case, having VP Biden make the ruling. It only takes 50 votes to uphold a ruling of the chair. That means that Biden can rule that why yes, the Senate can set rules at the opening of the new Senate, and no the Republicans cannot filibuster them. And to overturn that ruling, the Republicans need 51 votes. This is what's been referred to in the past as the "nuclear option". In effect, regardless of what the rules say, the chair + 50 votes can do whatever the hell they like: they can allow rule changes with a majority, they can rule you can't filibuster judicial nominees, or what have you regardless of what the rules say. You can't appeal a supposed violation of the internal rules of the Senate to the court system: they'll refuse to hear the case and say it's Senate business. So that's how it would be done. What Reforms? Reid has been somewhat cagey on what reforms he's seeking. The Senate is a very traditional body and he may or may not be able to round up 50 votes for any particular change. Reid has made it clear reform will include two things: 1)No filibustering the opening of debate In the past, people would filibuster the motion to move to a vote on a bill, after it had been discussed, amended, and what have you. However, you can filibuster nearly anything that needs a vote. You need a vote to even consider a bill - to start debate on a bill in the first place. Republicans have begun filibustering at this point, so the Senate never even has a chance to debate the bill. Republicans charge this is in response to an increase in "Filling the tree", an arcane parliamentary maneuver that prevents any amendments from being offered on a bill. Unlike in the House, in the Senate the minority usually has a right to propose amendments - either "poison pill" amendments, amendments to put people in a bad spot, or to try and weaken the bill, or even occasionally entirely irrelevant matters. However through 'filling the tree' this can be blocked, and this maneuver has become significantly more common. Reid seeks to amend the rules to prohibit the opening filibuster, so the Senate can always debate a bill even if they can't vote on the final product. 2)The "silent" filibuster Many people's conception of a filibuster is the traditional "reading a phonebook" style of filibuster. In reality, that is no longer needed. A filibuster these days requires exactly one person, who objects to unanimous consent to move the matter forward. Once this happens, a motion to cut off debate requires 60 votes - not 60% of all present and voting, 60 votes. This means the one guy in the chamber can keep a filibuster going indefinitely against a 59-1 vote. Reid has proposed (vaugely) to bar this practice and require "a real filibuster" where the minority actually needs to commit to the filibuster. This is largely intended to do two things. First, be a pain in the rear end for the minority so they are less willing to use it, and second, to allow a spotlight to be shone on them and public opinion rallied against them if it's an unpopular filibuster. You can play clips of a man reading a phonebook on the news: a sleepy senator voting nay, not as much. Other rule changes are "under discussion". One that is not under discussion is a flat removal of the filibuster: Reid has come out and said he's not willing to go that far. A good starter article on what's going on is here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ster-reform.php As anyone who follows the legislative process knows, the filibuster has been one of the largest impediments to getting things through Congress, and I think this has the potential to be one of the most underrated but far-reaching changes in how the government works in some time, so I'm very interested in seeing what changes wind up happening, and who supports/opposes the changes.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:09 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:34 |
|
|
I'm all for this reform, mostly for the silent filibuster being put to an end. Filibusters would become popular bits of news as clips of senators reading from phone books to stop a vote on cutting middle class taxes is up for debate. I suppose there's one part I'm confused on - is there such a thing as the filibuster in the House? And I mean, even with filibuster reform, the gerrymandered-to-gently caress house is going to keep us from getting anything done for two more years, but still it'll be nice to see these fuckers have to sweat a little bit while they gently caress around like fat children on motorised scooters.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:30 |
|
|
Yeah, that was exactly what I was going to say: fixing the Senate is great but with a R-dominated house I don't expect it to allow significant legislative progress.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:33 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I suppose there's one part I'm confused on - is there such a thing as the filibuster in the House? Nope. That's why whoever the minority leader is in the House has little to no power. Crackbone posted:Yeah, that was exactly what I was going to say: fixing the Senate is great but with a R-dominated house I don't expect it to allow significant legislative progress. It does two things. First, it fixes the Senate over the long term - few laws will get passed now that wouldn't have gotten passed without filibuster reform, but in the future this will change when one party controls both houses. Second, if you make it harder to filibuster, you make it harder to filibuster Presidential nominees (both judicial and non-judicial) which matters right now even with a Republican House (because they don't get a say). These filibusters may also be on the chopping block as one of the potential other reforms.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:33 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I'm all for this reform, mostly for the silent filibuster being put to an end. Filibusters would become popular bits of news as clips of senators reading from phone books to stop a vote on cutting middle class taxes is up for debate. Due to gerrymandering, the republicans aren't going to lose the house until 2020, and possibly beyond, if they still control their state houses. They only real hope is if a real supreme court decides to change their previous ruling of "gerrymandering for political gain is a-ok"
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:37 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Due to gerrymandering, the republicans aren't going to lose the house until 2020, and possibly beyond, if they still control their state houses. They only real hope is if a real supreme court decides to change their previous ruling of "gerrymandering for political gain is a-ok" This is not true. There are enough seats the Republicans won with less than 55% of the vote that were they to lose those seats control would flip. Gerrymanders decay over time.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:40 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Due to gerrymandering, the republicans aren't going to lose the house until 2020, and possibly beyond, if they still control their state houses. They only real hope is if a real supreme court decides to change their previous ruling of "gerrymandering for political gain is a-ok" They can gerrymander all they want but they can't tell people where to live, right? In just a few house cycles I can imagine demographics in some of their pet districts might be completely different. Couple that with filibuster reform and it might be possible for government to actually govern again in this country and start tackling problems.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:44 |
|
|
Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with the filibuster, for one because it doesn't happen in the House and for another because Democrats in the Senate are not going to unanimously oppose bills even if Congress becomes wholly Republican.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:50 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with the filibuster, for one because it doesn't happen in the House and for another because Democrats in the Senate are not going to unanimously oppose bills even if Congress becomes wholly Republican. You're right, forgot what thread I'm in. Anyway, it'd be nice of Reid borrowed Pelosi's spine for at least a few days while they make these new rules.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:53 |
|
|
Who are the shaky Dem votes on filibuster reform? I'm assuming Manchin, but any others?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:53 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:Who are the shaky Dem votes on filibuster reform? I'm assuming Manchin, but any others? I don't know that it's public. A good rule of thumb is probably the longer they've been there, the more likely they are to oppose it on "tradition" grounds.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 17:57 |
|
|
Anything that reforms traditional legislative process in order to get government working again is never a bad thing. From what I understand, the senate can also filibuster executive appointments (and has with a number of appointments in the last decade) as well? As we've discovered in Canada, relying on your political parties to respect procedural traditions is a terrible, terrible idea.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:12 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:Anything that reforms traditional legislative process in order to get government working again is never a bad thing. From what I understand, the senate can also filibuster executive appointments (and has with a number of appointments in the last decade) as well? That's correct. Any nomination that must be confirmed by the Senate can be filibustered. Some executive appointments do not need Senate confirmation, those can't be filibustered (or rejected on a normal vote).
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:14 |
|
|
As much as this is gonna bite us in the rear end between 2 and 6 years from now, this bloody stupid parliamentary throwback to the 19th century should have been dead ages ago.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:16 |
|
|
I fully understand the case for removing the filibuster. Is there a case for keeping it?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:Who are the shaky Dem votes on filibuster reform? I'm assuming Manchin, but any others? This is the latest article I've seen on the subject. It seems that the holdouts that need to be convinced are Donelly, Feinstein, Pryor, Levin, Baucus and Reed. Adar posted:As much as this is gonna bite us in the rear end between 2 and 6 years from now, this bloody stupid parliamentary throwback to the 19th century should have been dead ages ago. When in the minority Democratic senators have never displayed the balls to use it as flagrantly as the Republicans do. So I think the case is moot.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:24 |
|
|
Returning to a live filibuster should also get rid of the secret hold, correct?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:I fully understand the case for removing the filibuster. Is there a case for keeping it? The Filibuster is a tool that can be used by a minority to fight back against what they feel is an unjust majority. However, that's only the old style filibuster, in which a congressman actually, you know, filibusters. If you really think that the bill being voted on is wrong, you'd better be ready to stand up and rant for hours on end. This "silent filibuster" is really dumb, and shouldn't exist.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:28 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Returning to a live filibuster should also get rid of the secret hold, correct? Nope. That's a separate issue, though one I think hasn't been common recently.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:28 |
|
|
This is a great move, especially the return to the "traditional" style filibuster. I can't wait until some senator is on the news with a live feed of him reading the phone book with the title "Senator rear end in a top hat (R-Bumfuck) blocking funding for veterans, children, and kitties."
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:28 |
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:This is a great move, especially the return to the "traditional" style filibuster. I can't wait until some senator is on the news with a live feed of him reading the phone book with the title "Senator rear end in a top hat (R-Bumfuck) blocking funding for veterans, children, and kitties." All I want for Christmas is a Motion to Instruct the Sergent-at-Arms to Arrest the Attendance of of Absent Senators. *Note to the mods: if we get the live filibuster back, can we have a dedicated TVIV Filibuster thread? That way we can keep the other political threads neat and tidy.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:33 |
|
|
Here's an article on what the Republicans could do in retaliation if there is filibuster reform. Because almost every motion is carried by unanimous consent, they could basically shut down the Senate. e: BTW, this is by far not the first time there have been filibuster reforms. Cloture was introduced in the early 1900s and the 3/5s rule came about only in 1975 (previously it was 2/3s of those present) e2: vvvv Changing the rules mid-session would require a supermajority, so they'd have to make the changes to unanimous consent at the same time, or wait until next session and take the political damage for filibuster reform without getting any practical benefits. Family Values fucked around with this message at Dec 5, 2012 around 18:56 |
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:50 |
|
|
Family Values posted:Here's an article on what the Republicans could do in retaliation if there is filibuster reform. Here's the thing: those rules can be changed too, if they're abused.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:53 |
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, filibuster reform that requires the talking filibuster wouldn't be a "return" to anything. The talking filibuster has never been required, and the old Strom Thurmond talking filibusters of the past were basically the same thing as Bernie Sanders' talking filibuster in 2010, by which I mean that it was undertaken by the Senator because the Senator wanted to be seen to be in very vocal opposition to the direction the chamber is going. The dual tracking reform people point to as creating the silent filibuster, from my understanding, didn't really destroy the talking filibuster at all. The silent filibuster was available at that time too, it's just that without dual tracking, all business of the Senate had to come to a halt while the silent filibuster went on. What dual tracking introduced was the ability for the leadership to recognize that they didn't have the votes to close debate, so instead of stalling the Senate in hopes that some members of the minority will join them, they would instead rather continue with other business while attempting to flip votes behind the scenes, at which point they could return to the track with the filibustered bill.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:I fully understand the case for removing the filibuster. Is there a case for keeping it? Without it the racists wouldn't be able to keep disenfranchising minorities in the face of changing demographics.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 18:58 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Returning to a live filibuster should also get rid of the secret hold, correct? The secret hold thing is a different issue, but it ties in to all the discussions about unanimous consent agreements to speed through procedural stuff. A secret hold is when a Senator denies unanimous consent, but doesn't reveal that he's the one doing it.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:13 |
|
|
As someone who feels that Obama made a lot of unnecessary screw ups in his first term and who is generally unhappy with how much Obama's gut sympathy seems to align with Beltway centrism, I have to say that its kinda fascinating to watch the Republican Party's bullheaded intransigence. If not for the GOP then Obama would already have made deep cuts into entitlement programs and preserved the Bush tax cuts. If not for the GOP being so draconian on executive appointments then I doubt they'd be facing filibuster reform right now. I still think Obama was a pretty big disappointment by any reasonable standard, but I'm gaining a fresh appreciation for the irony of history. The number of self inflicted Republican wounds just keeps on climbing. Since the Bush era they've done far more damage to their brand than anyone seems to realize. Even though Obama didn't work that hard to connect the dotes between George Dubya and the modern GOP, its clear that voters haven't forgotten. And while the GOP appears to have correctly ascertained that Obama's voters would be less enthusiastic, there's growing evidence that a major factor motivating the turnout of women and ethnic voters became a desire to punish the GOP for its hamfisted voter ID laws and its regressive stance on reproductive rights. The GOP was Obama's secret GOTV weapon. At this point the cartoonish villany and lack of critical self awareness on the part of the GOP seems like the best hope America has.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:20 |
|
|
I'd like to see a return of the live filibuster. Wouldn't that hold up all senate business though? Forgive my ignorance, but right now they can just say I'm going to filibuster and, if the senate doesn't have enough votes to override it, they just drop what was being filibustered and move on, right? Would a live filibuster change that?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:25 |
|
|
humannature posted:I'd like to see a return of the live filibuster. Wouldn't that hold up all senate business though? Forgive my ignorance, but right now they can just say I'm going to filibuster and, if the senate doesn't have enough votes to override it, they just drop what was being filibustered and move on, right? Would a live filibuster change that? The way it works now is that cloture is a move to end debate on a measure and move to the vote. The thing is, there's no requirement for there to be actual "debate" in the debate. Therefore, if a bill is filibustered now, the "debate" (with no actual debate) continues until Reid tables the bill and gives up. The reform would insist that the "debate" includes forcing Republican senators to actually, you know, talk. And talk and talk. And if they stop talking, the debate's over and the vote can start. So if they can keep a filibuster going long enough that Reid gives up and tables a motion, it can still succeed, but they're going to have to sing for their supper.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:30 |
|
|
humannature posted:I'd like to see a return of the live filibuster. Wouldn't that hold up all senate business though? Forgive my ignorance, but right now they can just say I'm going to filibuster and, if the senate doesn't have enough votes to override it, they just drop what was being filibustered and move on, right? Would a live filibuster change that? My understanding is this was the point of the dual tracking. It would allow the Senate to continue doing work despite the filibuster. Legislators at the time did not realize that it also made filibusters much easier to perform. So now a Senator doesn't need to make much of a calculation as towards whether or not the filibuster is worth it. He doesn't have to do any speaking or make himself look like an obstructionist. It all happens through a procedural vote that is too vague for the public to really grasp.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:41 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Here's the thing: those rules can be changed too, if they're abused. Could the Senate just take a leaf out of Michigan Republican's book and gavel through the objections?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:44 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Could the Senate just take a leaf out of Michigan Republican's book and gavel through the objections? Reid is going to have trouble with getting to 50 for this approach even with the "beginning of the session" justification. He's going to have considerably more trouble getting enough votes to ignore rules casually.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:51 |
|
|
Why did they even have this in the first place? Why would you want one rear end in a top hat to hold up the entire senate? Are there any examples of it being used for good?
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:56 |
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Why did they even have this in the first place? Why would you want one rear end in a top hat to hold up the entire senate? I'm sure if you look at 2002-2006, for example, you'll find Democratic uses of the filibuster you like.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:58 |
|
|
The party that isn't in power gets to block legislation it doesn't like and gets to force the other side to offer them compensation. The side that is in power gets a perfect excuse to give to their constituents when they're accused of not living up to their promises. From either perspective its a great way to insulate you from having to act on your campaign promises and it generally maximizes the power and influence of individual senators at the expense of both their political party and their voting constituents.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 19:59 |
|
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Why did they even have this in the first place? Why would you want one rear end in a top hat to hold up the entire senate? Because the founders were terrified of tyranny of the majority. Most of our government is built with that in mind. There is a place for it, but it certainly should be tied to somebody so passionate about the issue they're willing to put themselves center stage and risk political capital on it.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 20:01 |
|
|
The founders didn't invent the filibuster.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 20:03 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Because the founders were terrified of tyranny of the majority. Most of our government is built with that in mind. There is a place for it, but it certainly should be tied to somebody so passionate about the issue they're willing to put themselves center stage and risk political capital on it. The filibuster didn't exist in the original Senate rules. The rules were only changed to make it possible in 1806, and the first one didn't happen until 1837. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibu...arly_experience
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The founders didn't invent the filibuster. Durr, you're right. Assumed a bit too much there.
|
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:34 |
|
|
forgot my pants posted:My understanding is this was the point of the dual tracking. It would allow the Senate to continue doing work despite the filibuster. Legislators at the time did not realize that it also made filibusters much easier to perform. So now a Senator doesn't need to make much of a calculation as towards whether or not the filibuster is worth it. He doesn't have to do any speaking or make himself look like an obstructionist. It all happens through a procedural vote that is too vague for the public to really grasp. The purpose of dual tracking is more that you can "pause" the existing track with the filibuster and jump to something else. Dual tracking didn't require you to do that by any means, but prior to the introduction of dual tracking, filibusters had to be resolved by either breaking the filibuster or by tabling the bill, at which point any attempt to revive the same bill has to start the legislative procedure all over again. Even prior to the introduction of dual tracking, the silent filibuster was already permissible by the Senate rules. Dual tracking just meant that you didn't have to completely dispose of the bill in question just to get back to the regular business of the Senate. EDIT: Dual tracking is also useful in terms of cloture procedure, because cloture is a seriously lengthy process. So, instead of having to hold roughly 3 days of debate on the bill while you wait for cloture to ripen, you can do the other business of the Senate while trying to get to your cloture vote. Crackbone posted:Because the founders were terrified of tyranny of the majority. Most of our government is built with that in mind. There is a place for it, but it certainly should be tied to somebody so passionate about the issue they're willing to put themselves center stage and risk political capital on it. The original rules of the Senate did not allow for the filibuster. The possibility of a filibuster was created in 1806 when the Senate voted to get rid of the motion to move the previous question, which appears to be basically a form of simple-majority cloture that the Senate wasn't really using. thefncrow fucked around with this message at Dec 5, 2012 around 20:11 |
| # ? Dec 5, 2012 20:08 |
|
