Government by serial crisis

[JoeTheJuggler]

But there must have been some unwritten rule or rules that amounted to "you're not allowed to always be obstructionist".

I don't know. If that rule were something we valued more than the right to be sometimes obstructionist, it would only take a simple majority in the Senate to execute the "nuclear option" and do away with the filibuster.

So if it's an unwritten rule, it's lower in priority than other unwritten rules.

 

[Toke]

I wonder if it would help if that filibuster had to be carried out instead of just mentioned as a threat, doesn't it involve something like phone book recitation for 10-20 hours?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder if it would help if that filibuster had to be carried out instead of just mentioned as a threat, doesn't it involve something like phone book recitation for 10-20 hours?

The Senate can make its rules whatever it wants to, as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution.

The rule adopted in 1975 is that it takes a 3/5 majority to pass a cloture motion. I don't think there's any requirement anymore that anyone actually orate to delay cloture--it just depends on the votes.

Here's a bit of the history of the filibuster in the Senate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Early_experience

 

[Toke]

I see, plenty of ways to delay or hinder legislation.

 

[egslim]

I don't know. If that rule were something we valued more than the right to be sometimes obstructionist, it would only take a simple majority in the Senate to execute the "nuclear option" and do away with the filibuster.

So if it's an unwritten rule, it's lower in priority than other unwritten rules.

Note I was talking in the past tense.

There was a time when filibusters were not as common as they are now, despite the written rules being the same. Ergo, there must have been an unwritten rule against regular filibustering.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Note I was talking in the past tense.

There was a time when filibusters were not as common as they are now, despite the written rules being the same. Ergo, there must have been an unwritten rule against regular filibustering.

I understand. There have been times when Congress worked together and could compromise, and times in our history (like the present) when it was distinctly not willing to do so. However, that's not the unwritten rule I was addressing.

There has never been an unwritten rule that said "you're not allowed to always be obstructionist"--at least not since there has been a filibuster of one kind or another. And if you think Congress--or even the Senate-- has always been more cooperative in the past than this one, you've got an exceptionally short view of American history.

Remember, the filibuster is just a Senate rule. So the biggest check against its overuse is the "nuclear option"--getting rid of it (as happened in the House). And a deterrent is only a deterrent if you're willing to follow through with it. So unless or until that happens, there is no such unwritten rule.

I would say in the House that unwritten rule does exist, since they did away with the filibuster.

 

[Corsair 115]

You mean that concept popularized by Hitler?

How'd that work out for him?

It was working out quite well for him... up until he decided to invade Russia. It all went downhill from there.

 

[Bri]

Remember, the filibuster is just a Senate rule. So the biggest check against its overuse is the "nuclear option"--getting rid of it (as happened in the House). And a deterrent is only a deterrent if you're willing to follow through with it. So unless or until that happens, there is no such unwritten rule.

Past attempts to get rid of the filibuster has been filibustered by the minority party. The "nuclear option" isn't just a check against the overuse of the filibuster -- it would get rid of it forever. Neither party seems to want that.

I think egslim has a point though, that the GOP has recently set records for obstructionism, which does show a willingness to filibuster even smaller issues. This differs from the past when the "unwritten rule" was to limit the filibuster to issues your party is most concerned about.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Past attempts to get rid of the filibuster has been filibustered by the minority party.

That's not accurate. The point of the "nuclear option" is that a simple majority can pass it. [ETA: It would basically do away with any rule that requires supermajorities other than those specified in the Constitution.]

The "nuclear option" isn't just a check against the overuse of the filibuster -- it would get rid of it forever. Neither party seems to want that.

The threat of the nuclear option is supposed to be a deterrent against abuse of the filibuster. The fact that the Democrats aren't willing to follow through with the threat (for the reason you cite) means it has become impotent as a deterrent.

Of course, to my knowledge, the last two Democratically-controlled Senates haven't even threatened the nuclear option despite absurd overuse of the filibuster.

I think egslim has a point though, that the GOP has recently set records for obstructionism,

As long as you forget about certain periods of our history. Don't forget, states actually once seceded from the Union! There followed the bloodiest war of our history. You don't get more obstructionist and unwilling to compromise than that!

I'm not giving the GOP a pass on their horrible behavior lately. Brinksmanship ought not replace discourse. I'm just pointing out that this isn't the worst it's ever been, and that it's nothing new.

 

[Bri]

That's not accurate. The point of the "nuclear option" is that a simple majority can pass it. [ETA: It would basically do away with any rule that requires supermajorities other than those specified in the Constitution.]

A majority can pass it, but won't.

The threat of the nuclear option is supposed to be a deterrent against abuse of the filibuster. The fact that the Democrats aren't willing to follow through with the threat (for the reason you cite) means it has become impotent as a deterrent.

The Republicans have also threatened to use it but never have. It's entirely impotent because neither party will ever use it.

As long as you forget about certain periods of our history. Don't forget, states actually once seceded from the Union! There followed the bloodiest war of our history. You don't get more obstructionist and unwilling to compromise than that!

I'm referring specifically to the use of the filibuster. The Republicans have recently set records on the use of the filibuster (approximately doubling the previous record).

I'm not giving the GOP a pass on their horrible behavior lately. Brinksmanship ought not replace discourse. I'm just pointing out that this isn't the worst it's ever been, and that it's nothing new.

It's by far the worst in recent history in terms of numbers of filibusters. Similarly, there have recently been records broken on the number of presidential nominations blocked or stalled.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'm not giving the GOP a pass on their horrible behavior lately. Brinksmanship ought not replace discourse. I'm just pointing out that this isn't the worst it's ever been, and that it's nothing new.

I don't know if it is simply rhetoric but a number of members of congress claim that the partisanship became particularly problematic after Newt became speaker. I really don't know. Anyone know of any articles that make the argument?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know if it is simply rhetoric but a number of members of congress claim that the partisanship became particularly problematic after Newt became speaker. I really don't know. Anyone know of any articles that make the argument?

I don't know of any articles, but that is pretty much the way I remember it. Newt pretty much introduced the current round of government brinksmanship (remember the government shut down he pretty much single-handedly caused in December '95-January '96?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's by far the worst in recent history

I'd agree with that. But as with difficult and divisive times in the past, we'll get through it.

I think with the press this has been getting (especially the repeated threats of government shut down and playing politics with the debt ceiling), those who pander for votes will have to start cooperating, or at least acting like they're cooperating. It's only a small segment of the electorate that still wants to hear ultimatums and uncompromising pledges, IMO.

But again, there have been plenty of voters who wanted just that--and they got what they asked for!

 

[RandFan]

I'd agree with that. But as with difficult and divisive times in the past, we'll get through it.

I think the press this has been getting (especially the repeated threats of government shut down and playing politics with the debt ceiling), those who pander for votes will have to start cooperating, or at least acting like they're cooperating. It's only a small segment of the electorate that still wants to hear ultimatums and uncompromising pledges, IMO.

But again, there have been plenty of voters who wanted just that--and they got what they asked for!

I'm still not sure what the GOP plan is for lowering unemployment other than "get govt out of the way of business". I guess taxes we're not lowered enough in 2001 and 2003.