Debate: Should the Senate filibuster rule be abolished?

[mortimer]

On one side of the debate, we have President Obama, who wants to do away with the filibuster.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/28/914338/-President-Obama-endorses-filibuster-reform

There are a couple of things that have changed in our politics that are gonna have to be fixed. One is the way the filibuster operates. As I said, that's just not in the Constitution.

I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it’s used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented...

On the other side of the debate, we have, um, Senator Obama.

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/10/28/obama-hopes-to-change-the-filibuster/

Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. Now I understand that Republicans are getting alot of pressure to do this from factions outside of the chamber, but we need to rise above the ends justify the means mentality.

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, then millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice if fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will get be poisoned to the point that we will not be able to agree on anything and doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest and it certainly isn’t what the Patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

So what say you? Is Obama correct? Or is Obama correct?

 

[Giggywig]

Seems to me the party in power wants to end the filibuster, right up until they are no longer in power. Then they love it. Remember 2004?
GOP May Target Use of Filibuster

Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said in a speech to the Federalist Society last month, labeling the use of filibusters against judicial nominees a "formula for tyranny by the minority."

If the GOP recaptures the Senate, I'm guessing the Dems will learn to love the filibuster again.

 

[EatatJoes]

I think they should require those filibustering to actually filibuster. I want to hear Sen. Lindsey Graham read from the dictionary.

 

[DavidJames]

Get rid of it and I don't like it regardless of who's in power. If you're looking at a party that flip flops on something, think Republicans and term limits.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I am a fan of having them actually fillibutster.

 

[Thunder]

I prefer filibusters require 45 votes, not 41.

I'm not a fan of the tyranny of the majority, but still...majority does rule.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congress has the right to establish most of its own procedural rules, so there's no Constitutional issue against the filibuster.

In practical terms, I think it would shift things a bit too much to the side of getting things done. As polarized as political ideology (and policy) is these days, I think we'd rather it more difficult to get things done than making it too easy. (Look at the troubles this has led to in California where it's pretty easy to amend the state constitution, too easy to get a recall vote, etc.)

I think at present we've got just about the right balance between rewarding the majority but not leaving the minority powerless. And every time this comes up, the majority has the power to do away with the filibuster (the "nuclear option").

However I am opposed to letting a single anonymous senator hold up confirmation hearings. That goes too far.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also think if they lose the majority in both houses, Democrats should learn a lesson from Republican strategy when *they* were in the minority. Even though the GOP was relying on the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to attempt to block legislation, they were able to turn public attention to the equally unsavory details of the legislative process (various kinds of deal-making, use of reconciliation, etc.)--all things the Republicans used themselves to push through extremely large and controversial legislation when they were in the majority. So even though people generally dislike the filibuster, public attention was on the negative view of the normal legislative process.

So if the GOP attempts to fulfill its promise to repeal the health insurance reform law, the Democratic party should make sure that process is as transparent as possible as they try to block repeal efforts.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

(One could make the argument that the new Republican method of reguiring 60 votes for everything that comes to the floor makes the flip-flop justified. I don't know about that and I don't really care.)

I think it should be. We usually try to have some rational reason for creating obstructions in the legislative process. This one was just formed ad hoc and has evolved to the point that it is now.

However I am opposed to letting a single anonymous senator hold up confirmation hearings. That goes too far.

But that is my problem, how do we justify arbitrarily calling something "too far" if we can't justify the thing in the first place?

(I'm referring to the fillibuster in particular, not the vague principles of "inefficient democracy")

What, something getting passed with 59 votes?! Absurd!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But that is my problem, how do we justify arbitrarily calling something "too far" if we can't justify the thing in the first place?

(I'm referring to the fillibuster in particular, not the vague principles of "inefficient democracy")

I think we can justify the filibuster. First, as I mentioned the houses of Congress have the authority to make their own rules. Second, making it more difficult to get big changes done isn't such a bad idea. Without such measures, any time we did get a big law enacted, the law would never survive long enough to be given a fair shake. There would be very little stability in our government--it would keep shifting with the political winds.

And of course it is purely a question of degree. We want our government to shift with the winds, but not too much or too quickly.

 

[Nova Land]

So what say you? Is Obama correct? Or is Obama correct?

1. I believe Obama was correct in his April 13, 2005 senate speech in which he opposed Republican attempts to eliminate the filibuster. (The link I have provided gives the complete text of the speech.)

I am basically very conservative. I do not like a system in which changes can be imposed quickly and easily. One of the things I like about US system of government is that it sets up many hurdles which those attempting to accomplish things must get over before major changes can be made.

Even though the filibuster has often been used to slow down or prevent the implementation of things I personally find desirable, I believe that is a price worth paying in order to prevent a rash majority from imposing popular but horribly misguided policies. I therefore believe the filibuster is a good thing to have as part of the system and that it should not be eliminated. I agree with what Barack Obama said in 2005.

2. I believe Obama is correct in his October 27, 2010 remarks in which he says that use of the filibuster has gotten out of hand and needs to be reformed.

The excerpt you quoted comes from a conversation Obama had with a group of liberal bloggers. (The link I have provided gives the complete text of what Obama said.)

In his remarks Obama notes that when the Republicans were in power many of these same bloggers urged Democrats to filibuster; and he points out that, while eliminating the filibuster might make it easier for Democrats to pass things which they support now, it would also make it easier for Republicans to pass things in the future which Democrats are strongly opposed to.

At no point does Obama say he wants to eliminate the filibuster. He does indicate he would like to get back to the filibuster being an exceptional action rather than a routine one. I think that makes good sense.

And the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. The filibuster ... may have arisen purely by accident because somebody didn’t properly apply Robert’s Rules of Procedure and forgot to get a provision in there about what was required to close debate. And folks figured out very early, this could be a powerful tool. It was used as a limited tool throughout its history. Sadly, the primary way it was used was to prevent African Americans from achieving civil rights.

But setting aside that sordid aspect of its history, it was used in a very limited fashion. The big debates, the big changes that we had historically around everything from establishing public schools to the moon launch to Social Security, they weren’t subject to the filibuster.

And I’m sympathetic to why the minority wants to keep it. And in fairness, Democrats, when we were in the minority, used it on occasion to blunt actions that we didn’t think were appropriate by the Bush administration.

And in fairness, there were a whole bunch of folks here who were already writing blogs at the time who were saying, filibuster, block them, do anything you can to stop them.

And so if we’re going to call for reform, it’s got to be with open eyes and an understanding that that also means that if Republicans are in power, it’s easier for them to move their agendas forward.

But my general view is, what that does at least is it opens it up to serious public debate. Things don’t get bogged down in the kinds of procedural nonsense that makes it just hard for us to do business...

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

In both of the speeches you quoted, Obama is speaking sensibly. He is correct on both occasions.

On one side of the debate, we have President Obama, who wants to do away with the filibuster...

Ah! There's the problem. Even though the Daily Kos diary you used as a source is entitled President Obama endorses filibuster reform, and even though in that excerpt Obama clearly talks about fixing how the filibuster is used, you apparently misread his remarks as saying he wanted to eliminate it. If you take the time to read his remarks more carefully, perhaps you'll see that is not what he's calling for and that there is no contradiction between his stance in 2005 and his stance in 2010.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that you sort of contradict yourself. The two bits I bolded really mean the same thing. I think the valid point you're making is the one I made--it really is a matter of degree or balance, and not a matter of something that is unjustifiable in principle.

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much.

ETA: And I think the biggest thing that checks that "too much" is knowing that although you're in the minority now, you hope to be the majority soon. Similarly, the majority always has the "nuclear option" but is reluctant to use it knowing they'll be in the minority again.

I do think if the Republicans carried it much further than they did, Democrats would have had to use that option. As it turns out, they were still able to pass a LOT of legislation and some of it of the kind called "historic".

 

[Nova Land]

My bolding:

We need to have mechanisms such as the filibuster which permit people with strong misgivings to keep things from being passed too hastily. But it should not be something so easy to do that it is used routinely, simply as a tool for obstructing one's political opponents.

I agree with your overall point, but I wanted to point out that you sort of contradict yourself. The two bits I bolded really mean the same thing...

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much...

No, I mean two distinct things. My apologies for not expressing this more clearly in my post (and my thanks for your giving me the chance to try to clarify this point).

I support the use of the filibuster to block passage of policies which the majority favors but which a minority strongly feels are ill-considered. In doing so, the minority is thwarting the wishes of the majority -- who may or may not be their political opponents. It is quite possible that the majority is composed both of Democrats and Republicans -- and the minority may be as well.

If a completely Republican minority thwarts a completely Democratic majority (or vice versa) because the minority strongly opposes the policy the majority is proposing, that's one thing. If a completely Republican minority thwarts a completely Democratic majority (or vice versa) because they see partisan advantage in doing so, that's another.

In the past, as Obama notes, the filibuster was used on a limited basis -- and on matters for which there genuinely was strong feeling regarding the policy at issue. Increasingly in recent years, though, various obstructionist tactics are used to block even things which the obstructors do not strongly object to (and, in many cases, even admit to supporting).

It is one thing to use procedural maneuvers to block policy or a presidential appointment because one thinks the policy or the nominee is extraordinarily bad. I support the use of tactics such as the filibuster to do so, even if these tactics are used against policies I support or nominees I approve of. Those engaging in such efforts are acting in what they think is the best interest of the nation.

It is another thing entirely to use procedural maneuvers to block policies or presidential appointments with the aim of hamstringing the administration, in order to increase the likelihood the administration will not be able to solve the problems facing the nation and will thus be voted out in the next elections. Those engaging in such efforts are acting in what they think is the best interest of their party. I do not support the use of procedural maneuvers in this way, regardless of which party is doing so.

In the 1950s and early 1960s -- when there were still many liberal Republicans and many conservative Democrats, and when votes did not come down so often along party lines -- this was perhaps an easier distinction to grasp. Today, when the voting is so often on party lines, it may be harder for politicians to see the distinction between doing something because they think it is good for the country and doing something because they think it will be good for their party. But I think it's an important distinction to maintain.

I may be misreading Obama's remarks to the bloggers, but that to me is the point he is making when he talks about the votes on many key programs of the past not being subject to the filibusters. In the past, politicians were more able to work together across party lines and agree on programs which would help the country. But in recent years, politicians seem much more inclined to use procedural maneuvers against a program or nominee simply because doing so will hinder the opposing party -- not because the program or nominee is intolerably bad.

It would be one thing to tolerate the once-in-a-blue-moon use of procedural maneuvers for partisan advantage as the price of having these maneuvers available to use when genuine matters of concern came up. But when genuine matters of concern are the exceptional cases and partisan advantage uses have become daily occurrences, then it's time to think about reform.

That took me quite a few more words to express than I'd intended, for which I apologize. But I hope the distinction I was trying to draw between keeping things from being passed and obstructing one's political opponents is a little clearer now.

 

[SezMe]

We do want the minority to be able to obstruct the majority (i.e. their political opponents), but we don't want them to do it too much.

I'm not convinced either way, but I'll take a devil's advocate position here. Why should the minority be able to obstruct the majority on legislation. It is not that way on anything else, even in the Senate. For example, votes in committee are by majority rules.

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well? After all, they now work on a simple majority. What political principle would advocate for minority obstruction rights in one body but not in the other?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In doing so, the minority is thwarting the wishes of the majority -- who may or may not be their political opponents.

I disagree with you here. If they disagree on matters of politics, such as policy and legislation, then they are in fact political opponents. Another way of looking at it is that if politicians are opposed to one another, they are by definition political opponents.

I think you're trying to make "political" carry a more restrictive meaning that it conventionally does. It generally refers to anything to do with government. Using Merriam Webster's definitions, you're using only definition number 2 and ignoring the primary definition.

But even so, if you're using "political" to refer only to partisan politics, I would say that alone is not a reason to oppose the use of the filibuster. It really could be that the party invoking it is right and the majority party is wrong. Party allegiance is often what leads to the "strong" feelings of opposition you are OK with.

If there are basically 2 positions on an issue and 2 parties, it makes sense to me that the positions will line up pretty well with party affiliation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not convinced either way, but I'll take a devil's advocate position here. Why should the minority be able to obstruct the majority on legislation. It is not that way on anything else, even in the Senate. For example, votes in committee are by majority rules.

I've already answered this. It's basically the idea of slowing down radical changes in law. Think of how silly it would be if every time the majority of Congress changed from one party to another we completely changed our tax code, our approach to health care, etc.

The health insurance reform law has measures that go into effect over the next several years. It seems wrong to me that a simple majority could repeal it right away. People would never be able to make any sort of long term plans, and no project that extended beyond a fiscal year would be practical.

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well? After all, they now work on a simple majority. What political principle would advocate for minority obstruction rights in one body but not in the other?

I already answered this one too. The authority to set the rules is given to the houses of Congress. I would not want, for example, the judiciary to decide that the House should have the filibuster rule or that the Senate should not. That would be unconstitutional, IMO.

As I said, I'm in favor of the majority in the Senate having the authority to choose the "nuclear option". I think this means that if the filibuster is abused too much, that it will have to go away.

I do think right now it's about the right balance. Despite the GOP's frequent use and threat of use of the filibuster during the last two years, the Democratic Party accomplished a great deal legislatively. I think the fact that they enjoyed a supermajority for part of the time is partly why the GOP used the filibuster--basically to go on record as voicing strong objection knowing that they were actually impotent to block things. (Of course, I would have preferred it if they'd actually participated rather than almost exclusively just voicing their objections!) But I think that's about what you get when one party has at or near a supermajority.

I suspect we'll see more compromise and less filibustering (or threat of filibustering) in the next Congress.

Also remember the majority has similar "undemocratic" rules at its disposal--such as reconciliation. These are the rules that both sides have agreed to abide by. They have the authority to change them.

ETA:

Also, does this mean that you advocate for a 60% margin in House votes as well?

This isn't an accurate description of the filibuster rule. Remember, the majority can change the rules (get rid of the filibuster) by a simple majority. It just means when they are in the minority, they too will have to abide by the new rules.

 

[Cain]

The solution is rather simple: We should either abolish the senate or reform it along democratic lines. It's an insanely antiquated, unrepresentative institution, and before the sheeple come along to say the Holy Founding Fathers never intended for it to be democratic, I agree. The Constitution is a political document borne out of compromises made at the time. States also negotiated over how to count slaves (as three-fifths of a person for census purposes), when to end the slave trade (1808), and what to do with fugitive slaves. The Founding Fathers also did not want the direct election of senators, or anyone other than property owning white males to vote. **** the Founding Fathers.

Too bad it's almost impossible for people today, right now, to generate free-standing arguments for this ridiculous maldistribution of power. The same goes for the Electoral College. We need "important" people to make a serious move for radical change, at least shift the debate to a respectable point -- like democratic theory at the beginning of the 20th century.

We can make reasonable arguments on behalf of keeping super-majorities for certain issues. But you are going to struggle if you say Wyoming's fewer-than-one-million-people should be able to cancel-out California's 36 million.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, it shouldn't be demolished.

When the GOP controlled Congress and there was talk of getting rid of the filibuster, it was a stupid idea.

Now with the Dems in control, it is still a stupid idea. And I say that as a Democrat.

Keep the filibuster, and start insisting that the Senators act like adults for a change. Getting rid of the filibuster would only make the partisanship in Congress worse, in my opinion.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I also think if they lose the majority in both houses, Democrats should learn a lesson from Republican strategy when *they* were in the minority. Even though the GOP was relying on the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to attempt to block legislation, they were able to turn public attention to the equally unsavory details of the legislative process (various kinds of deal-making, use of reconciliation, etc.)--all things the Republicans used themselves to push through extremely large and controversial legislation when they were in the majority. So even though people generally dislike the filibuster, public attention was on the negative view of the normal legislative process.

So if the GOP attempts to fulfill its promise to repeal the health insurance reform law, the Democratic party should make sure that process is as transparent as possible as they try to block repeal efforts.

QFT

 

[cwalner]

Keep the filibuster, and start insisting that the Senators act like adults for a change.

Regrettably, I fear there is a fatal flaw in that plan