Potential for the filibuster
I'm pretty much for scrapping the filibuster, myself. And I share a lot of David's and Matt's concerns. But as Matt notes, the rules of the Senate are not set in stone--there are more options before us, in other words than "filibuster as due process" and "no filibuster". Josh Patashnik, for instance, offers the kernel of a very smart idea.
Filibusters should be sort of like instant-replay challenges in NFL games--you only get a certain number of them, so you only use them when it really matters. Unfortunately, given the level of partisanship in Congress, it's difficult to envision Republicans voluntarily refraining from using filibusters on routine matters (though it's worth pointing out that the Democrats used the filibuster fairly responsibly when they were in the minority). It's also hard to see how one could craft some sort of procedural reform to limit the filibuster's use so that it really does register intensity--though I'd be interested to hear any ideas our dear readers have.
I think there's something to this. After all, if the filibuster had been eliminated in 2002, then Social Security would be privatized, the bench would be stacked with heinously conservative judges, Medicare would likely be a shell of its former self, etc. etc. Democrats, in other words, would enter the presidency in 2009 with a lot of terrible policies to undo. Frankly, I'd prefer a less-stable system if it offered the possibility of creating real positive, permanent change from time to time. But first, the Democratic senators themselves will have to agree to give up protective power for the years in the future when they're back in the minority. It's tricky. And that's exactly where the idea of limiting the number of filibuster threats comes in.
But it would have to be paired with some sort of majority concession--specifically, an agreement to limit the number of times a filibustered bill can be reintroduced unamended. Without a countervailing provision, the existence of the filibuster itself would become symbolic. If, for example, the Republicans had been allowed only 5 filibusters each year during this session, then Harry Reid could have just reintroduced the same withdrawal legislation 10 times and eaten up the GOP's entire allowance. That's basically the same as eliminating the filibuster altogether--which seems like a non-starter.
At any rate, if something like this is more likely to earn the support of a majority of the Senate than a full repeal, I think it's worth exploring. The rules as they exist today are extremely frustrating and equally undemocratic.
Comments
The filibuster is just a side effect from the 'tradition' that unlimited debate is a good thing. Hence, another 'tradition', unanimous consent is required to proceed to voting. Both traditions belong in the scrap heap (or in UK terms, the dustbin) of history.
Either you belive in democratic procedures or you don't. Wavering (or hiding) Senators luv all the procedural roadblocks to progress because they can be 'for' something and also 'be against' something - for instance, voting against cloture while saying you support the underlying bill.
The only thing that can legimately, in a democracy, be done to counter a recalcitrant minority is to have a solid majority. The current system allows members of the majority to vote with the minority while claiming to be a good party member who is in favor of good laws. It confuses everyone on the outside (and clearly many on the inside as well. Bright Lines!
I'd take the risk with eliminating unlimited debate, unanimous consent to proceed, and the by-product filibuster. I'd call the plan to eliminate them the 'truth in lawmaking' policy.
If the parties want (or need) to better enforce party discipline (actually only the Dems, the Repubs have all they need), then so be it. Primary contests, removal from key committees, halting campaign finance support by the party - whatever it takes.
For the future: The public should be aware and assured that electing a person to office will result in somewhat predictable outcomes that a candidate of either party will generally adhere to - the party and candidate platforms. Party affiliation counts today, whether it was originally intended to or not. Because the Constitution nowhere mentions parties doesn't mean that they aren't today the foundation for governing - and I need not mention that corporations are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution either.
Reform or Die!
But consider what would happen if the GOP minority had 5 filibusters (with limits on reintroduction): they'd still be able to stymie health care, labor law reform, a decent energy bill, and two more things as well. Even with only one filibuster, they could block universal health care. Remember that a conservative minority in the Senate (albeit under different rules) was able to block civil rights legislation for decades, thanks to the filibuster. Moreover, you're wrong about the filibuster saving Social Security: the GOP never got close to a vote on the issue, and there is no way Bush would have raised the issue heading into the 2004 election. Nevertheless, if you could pull the whole Democratic caucus together in support of this reform, it would be a step in the right direction.
Post A Comment