End the filibuster?

[lpetrich]

The book:
Kill Switch | Adam Jentleson | W. W. Norton & Company - "The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy"

Ro Khanna on Twitter: "One of the truths we should tell is that the filibuster was the brainchild of John C Calhoun, a father of the Confederacy, to protect slave states. Doing away with the filibuster is a moral issue, not just a practical one. Check out @AJentleson book as well." / Twitter
then
Adam Jentleson on Twitter: "@RoKhanna Thanks Congressman. It’s true, the filibuster was not invented until after the Framers had all passed away. They (including Madison) warned against giving a minority veto power. Calhoun reshaped the Senate to boost the power of reactionaries. For more: (link)" / Twitter

Kill the Senate Filibuster or Watch Biden’s Agenda Die
With this nice tidbit:

I didn’t realize that the positions of majority leader and minority leader came so recently in historical terms. How has the Senate evolved in the last hundred years?

The Senate created those two positions because the institution was growing and finding its workload expanding dramatically. From the time the Senate was created in 1789 until the 1920s, it didn’t have leaders. It was generally organized by party, and the committee chairs controlled what bills were reported out and made it to the floor. The number of senators grew as more states were added, and the parties wanted to have a caucus secretary who would keep track of things but not really exercise control over bills.

The Senate has a position comparable to House Speaker: the President pro tempore. But the Majority Leader has emerged as the de facto leadeer, and a co-prime minister along with the House Speaker.

Today’s Senate doesn’t have deliberation. I don’t mean that in a cynical way, but the Majority Leader and Minority Leader make the important decisions. Senators are not going to the floor to convince anyone to change their mind.

That’s exactly right. The two main forces that have shaped the Senate are the rise of the filibuster and the rise of a top-down leadership structure. It’s the combination of those two things that’s what is really suffocating the Senate. People think of the filibuster as Jimmy Stewart talking for hours in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but that’s not today’s filibuster.

It's a Taste of Armageddon filibuster: putting in a hold.

 

[lpetrich]

So if the Senate eliminates the filibuster, when would that likely happen?

It would happen when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object, when Democrats have a bill they absolutely want to pass and Republicans are absolutely opposed. Where I think that’s likely to happen is civil rights and voting rights, which could involve D.C. statehood. If Democrats don’t do this, you would rightly be able to judge the Biden administration a failure. It has to happen.

I agree. That may require some arm-twisting of some of their more conservative members of their Senate delegation.

At the very least, they should restore the original form and put an end to those Taste-of-Armageddon holds.

Aren’t the Senate Republicans motivated toward less aggressive obstruction to avoid the Democrats completely eliminating the filibuster?

They may try to cooperate on a small number of issues and maximize the credit they get for that toward a narrative of bipartisanship, but the political reality is that Republicans would benefit in the 2022 midterm elections by making the Democrats fail. That’s what drove their obstruction against President Obama, and retaking the Senate in the 2022 midterms will quickly become their top priority.

 

[lpetrich]

5 ideas for Senate filibuster reform Biden and Manchin could get behind - Vox

1) The “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” rule

The Good Old Days of talking and talking and talking.

2) 41 to block, instead of 60 to pass

3) More exceptions to the filibuster rule

4) Overcome the filibuster with a vote in two Congresses

Something can be passed if it gets a simple majority over two individual Congresses, as they are called. The current one is the 117th, and the one that just ended is the 116th one.

5) Lower the filibuster threshold

To 60 or 55.

 

[lpetrich]

More Democratic politicians are turning against the filibuster, because it has made Congress a  Polish parliament (expression), much like what the  liberum veto had done to Poland's early-modern parliament. From that Wikipedia article,

"Polish parliament" is an expression referring to the historical Polish parliaments (Sejm walny).[1] It implies chaos and general disorder, and that no real decision can be reached during sessions.

Every single member of the Polish parliament during the 17th and 18th century had an absolute veto (Latin: liberum veto); as a result, legislation could only be passed unanimously. Originally, the procedure was used for technical issues such as points of order, but as diverging interests discovered they could disrupt their opponents' agenda singlehandedly, the process came to be abused. Today, the expression is mostly used to describe an assembly that is too easy for minorities or individuals to disrupt and/or has too many parties present for meaningful and orderly debate and decision-making to take place.

Then noting versions of "Polish parliament" in several European languages.

Poland's neighbors conquered that nation over the late 18th cy. in the  Partitions of Poland - Poland disappeared off the map in 1795, and did not become independent again until after WWI.

 

[lpetrich]

Pramila Jayapal on Twitter: "What will end up in McConnell’s legislative graveyard?

The Equality Act
HR1 and voting rights
Justice in Policing Act
Climate action
Immigration reform
Equal pay and paid leave

And much, much more. The only path forward for our agenda is to end the filibuster." / Twitter

More Democrats Join Effort to Abolish the Filibuster - The New York Times

A growing number of Senate Democrats are warming to the idea of eliminating the filibuster as they encounter Republican resistance to President Biden’s legislative agenda, forcing the White House to cut deals on issues like the minimum wage and pandemic relief payments.

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to end debate on major bills. Opponents want to do away with that preliminary hurdle, which has been used by both parties as a tactic to stymie contentious legislation, and allow proposals to pass with the simple majority of 51 votes required when all senators are present.

The House Passes a Major Voting Rights Bill—and Creates a Helluva Battle in the Senate – Mother Jones

Nearly identical legislation passed the House in March 2019, but it was blocked in the Senate by then–Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who called it a “power grab” for Democrats. It has become an increasingly urgent priority for Democrats this year, following Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the insurrection at the Capitol, and the wave of GOP-backed proposals to restrict voting rights in key states, such as Georgia. The GOP wish list includes rolling back mail-in voting, restricting ballot drop boxes, limiting early voting, and repealing automatic voter registration.

HR1 is unlikely to get any Republican votes in the Senate, let alone the 10 that would be necessary to overcome a filibuster.

And Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a chief sponsor of the voting rights legislation, tells me she supports killing the filibuster to pass this legislation.

“I would get rid of the filibuster,” Klobuchar says. “I have favored filibuster reform for a long time and now especially for this critical election bill.”

In the past, Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, has indicated she was open to eliminating the filibuster, but these comments to Mother Jones are her most definitive statement to date.

Her fellow MN Senator:
Senator Tina Smith on Twitter: "I’ve made up my mind.

We need to move this country forward, and that’s why I’ve decided to come out in support of eliminating the filibuster." / Twitter

Senator Tina Smith on Twitter: "The Senate needs to abolish the filibuster. It’s undemocratic. I’ve spent a long time thinking about this and I hope you read my thoughts: (link)" / Twitter
Noting
U.S. Senator Tina Smith - Posts | Facebook

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and to be honest I started out believing we should keep the filibuster. Without it, I reasoned, what would stop a conservative president and Congress from doing terrible damage to women’s health care, voting rights and civil rights. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the filibuster has long been the enemy of progress. In fact, it’s been a highly effective tool to thwart the will of the people.

Sen. Tina Smith supports ending filibuster - StarTribune.com

"I believe that the filibuster should be abolished in all cases, not just for any particular piece of legislation," Smith said. "We have already abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations and the Supreme Court, and to me this is a very important step that we need to take in order to make sure that the Senate can function and can do the work that we need to do."

 

[ZiprHead]

Where in the Constitution is the filibuster in any form or name mentioned?

Alexander Hamilton described supermajorities as detrimental in Federalist 22.

 

[Rhea]

I like this idea of 40 (or 41) to stop instead of 60 to go. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and I think it is more conducive to compromise and productivity.

I also like the two congresses to pass idea. That is seen in some state legislatures and works well there, too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I like this idea of 40 (or 41) to stop instead of 60 to go. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and I think it is more conducive to compromise and productivity.

In principle that is true, but in practice it is not.

It effectively gives more power to even fewer people. Already it is true that the Republican/conservative side of the population is over-represented in the Senate, and effectively giving 40 senators as much power as 60 makes it even more lopsided. So much for "democracy".

 

[Rhea]

I like this idea of 40 (or 41) to stop instead of 60 to go. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and I think it is more conducive to compromise and productivity.

In principle that is true, but in practice it is not.

It effectively gives more power to even fewer people. Already it is true that the Republican/conservative side of the population is over-represented in the Senate, and effectively giving 40 senators as much power as 60 makes it even more lopsided. So much for "democracy".

Currently it only takes one to filibuster, and even if they are the only one, they get to force the opposition to come up with 60 to stop it.
I feel this proposal forces the disrupters to come up with 40 who will stand in front of a camera and say, 'I'm with them," to start the disruption.

I feel that is less power to the disrupters. What am I missing?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I like this idea of 40 (or 41) to stop instead of 60 to go. I've seen it discussed elsewhere and I think it is more conducive to compromise and productivity.

In principle that is true, but in practice it is not.

It effectively gives more power to even fewer people. Already it is true that the Republican/conservative side of the population is over-represented in the Senate, and effectively giving 40 senators as much power as 60 makes it even more lopsided. So much for "democracy".

Currently it only takes one to filibuster, and even if they are the only one, they get to force the opposition to come up with 60 to stop it.
I feel this proposal forces the disrupters to come up with 40 who will stand in front of a camera and say, 'I'm with them," to start the disruption.

I feel that is less power to the disrupters. What am I missing?

Ok. Sorry. I may not have realized what you are referring to. If the idea is that the filibuster stays but only if you can get 49 senators to openly back the idea on the record then it is indeed better than a single senator gumming up the works.

But it still can prevent actual compromise from happening.

 

[Rhea]

Currently it only takes one to filibuster, and even if they are the only one, they get to force the opposition to come up with 60 to stop it.
I feel this proposal forces the disrupters to come up with 40 who will stand in front of a camera and say, 'I'm with them," to start the disruption.

I feel that is less power to the disrupters. What am I missing?

Ok. Sorry. I may not have realized what you are referring to. If the idea is that the filibuster stays but only if you can get 49 senators to openly back the idea on the record then it is indeed better than a single senator gumming up the works.

But it still can prevent actual compromise from happening.

Yes, we agree.
I am behind this on the assumptions that we can't muster enough votes to get rid of the filibuster, but we CAN change it to force it to do the things they claim it was intended to do while preventing it from being able to do the things that it was never intended to do.

The 40 not 60 plan says basically, we don't need to muster up sixty votes to STOP your filibuster until you muster up 40 votes on the record to START it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Currently it only takes one to filibuster, and even if they are the only one, they get to force the opposition to come up with 60 to stop it.
I feel this proposal forces the disrupters to come up with 40 who will stand in front of a camera and say, 'I'm with them," to start the disruption.

I feel that is less power to the disrupters. What am I missing?

Ok. Sorry. I may not have realized what you are referring to. If the idea is that the filibuster stays but only if you can get 49 senators to openly back the idea on the record then it is indeed better than a single senator gumming up the works.

But it still can prevent actual compromise from happening.

Yes, we agree.
I am behind this on the assumptions that we can't muster enough votes to get rid of the filibuster, but we CAN change it to force it to do the things they claim it was intended to do while preventing it from being able to do the things that it was never intended to do.

The 40 not 60 plan says basically, we don't need to muster up sixty votes to STOP your filibuster until you muster up 40 votes on the record to START it.

I think that’s a good idea. My “49” was a typo.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrats confront a harsh political choice: Save the filibuster or pass Biden's agenda

The Republican "epiphany" he hoped for hasn't materialized. And many of his big plans are headed for a dead end in the Senate.

President Joe Biden is waking up to a haunting new reality that will test his determination to pass his legislative agenda, as progressives in the Democratic Party say prospects for bipartisanship are bleak and instead agitate to end Republicans' power to block bills.

...
Republicans say Biden is barely trying to work with them. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who isn't running for re-election, laughed when he was asked about cooperation with Biden, saying, "We're yet to see any reach-out on his part."

Democrats expect Biden to make a more concerted effort to find common ground with Republicans after the relief bill. But some say it's a fool's errand that will waste time they can't lose.

The Republicans are likely getting ready to do to Biden what they did to Obama over his presidency -- obstruct him and call him a left-wing extremist.

Biden predicted a GOP 'epiphany' after the election. Trump's standing in the way. - datelined Nov. 26, 2020

Some Democrats worry the president-elect's talk of bipartisanship sets him up for failure.

President-elect Joe Biden predicted that Republicans would have an "epiphany" after President Donald Trump lost. Three weeks after the election, there's no sign of it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., still hasn't acknowledged Biden as president-elect. And, like most Republicans, he hasn't condemned Trump's unprecedented attempts to overturn the will of the voters.

MMC eventually did, after the Electoral College members voted.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrats confront a harsh political choice: Save the filibuster or pass Biden's agenda

About Kyrsten Sinema,

Sinema, who became a senator in 2019, said in a letter to a constituent that preserving the filibuster "is not meant to impede the things we want to get done."

"I support the 60-vote threshold for all Senate actions," Sinema wrote in the letter, which was dated Feb. 12 and obtained by NBC News. "Debate on bills should be a bipartisan process that takes into account the views of all Americans, not just those of one political party. Regardless of the party in control of the Senate, respecting the opinions of senators from the minority party will result in better, commonsense legislation."

Panglossian nonsense.

She has seen what obstructionists the Republicans have been over Obama's Presidency.

Pressures grows on Biden to take on the filibuster - The Washington Post

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), also a moderate, told The Washington Post he could envision the Senate changing the filibuster if bills are floundering. “We’ve got to figure out whether leadership on both sides wants to have obstruction or if they want to come together and try to get some things done,” Tester said.

Murshed Zaheed on Twitter: " in last few days - first it was Sen. Klobuchar, then it was Sen. Smith, and now Sen. Stabenow is speaking out to end the filibuster. It’s inevitable- hope Schumer gets it done sooner rather than later " / Twitter
noting
Hugo Lowell on Twitter: "New: Senate Dem Debbie Stabenow says Dems now need to have a serious discussion about nuking the filibuster — “there are really important things like voting rights that can’t be done through reconciliation.”" / Twitter

 

[laughing dog]

I think a doable and reasonable compromise is to end the procedural filibuster (which is basically a threat to filibuster) and allow the traditional filibuster (i.e. make someone actually do the work).

 

[ZiprHead]

I think a doable and reasonable compromise is to end the procedural filibuster (which is basically a threat to filibuster) and allow the traditional filibuster (i.e. make someone actually do the work).

You think compromise with republicans is possible? The democrats have been watering down legislation to "compromise" with republicans for years then never get one republican vote. Fuck the filibuster.

 

[lpetrich]

I think a doable and reasonable compromise is to end the procedural filibuster (which is basically a threat to filibuster) and allow the traditional filibuster (i.e. make someone actually do the work).

Yes, that would be good. Not as good as ending it outright, but it will still eliminate the "Taste of Armageddon" filibuster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think a doable and reasonable compromise is to end the procedural filibuster (which is basically a threat to filibuster) and allow the traditional filibuster (i.e. make someone actually do the work).

You think compromise with republicans is possible? The democrats have been watering down legislation to "compromise" with republicans for years then never get one republican vote. Fuck the filibuster.

Exactly. The Republicans have shown they are completely unwilling to compromise these days. Until they start behaving they should be marginalized.

 

[Jayjay]

While the filibuster should be abolished, the dems have a razor thin majority to make that call. Every Democratic senator, the two independents, and the VP would need to be on board. I doubt any Republicans would vote for the rule change.

 

[laughing dog]

I think a doable and reasonable compromise is to end the procedural filibuster (which is basically a threat to filibuster) and allow the traditional filibuster (i.e. make someone actually do the work).

Yes, that would be good. Not as good as ending it outright, but it will still eliminate the "Taste of Armageddon" filibuster.

That compromise is simply returning to the original form and use of the filibuster. It may be the case that there are 10 Republican senators who are willing to return to the old ways (i.e. be real conservatives).