I don’t have much to say about the Senate Democrats’ move to end filibusters on presidential appointments. IMO the Republicans have overused their holds and filibuster capability on appointment. I believe that presidential appointments should, as has traditionally been the case, be accorded particular deference.
However, I don’t think it’s a great triumph for democracy, either. A century ago there were no limits on debate in the Senate and we were plenty democratic. More so than now if anything.
And there will inevitably be consequences. The Democrats may not hold the Senate in 2014 and they may not hold the White House in 2016. I see this entire sorry subject as a continuation of the loss of decorum and breakdown of fundamental working relationships in the Congress.
A little ironic – the purpose appears to be to use regulations to achieve end goals they could not pass via Congress. Regulations that thus far haven’t been able to get past the DC circuit. They could have used the filibuster rules to get simple majority on bills instead, in which case I might disagree with you.
Paging Professor Turchin. Paging Professor Turchin…..
Wherever you have a majority, there is an impatience for power. These majorities often rationalize their higher numbers as also having a higher authority to force their will onto all people, seeding the ground with more intolerance towards any POV but their own . That’s why I’ve come to consider the Constitution to be a brilliant document, in how it incorporated a sufficient number of stumbling blocks to frustrate a majority, deterring their zeal from expeditiously changing government in a drastic fashion — one way or the other.
Even when these sometimes archaically-considered Constitutional stipulations have produced Congressional gridlock and stalemate, they nevertheless have provided a safety zone for minority concerns/rights to be heard, maintaining some tangible threshold of say in the governing process. Furthermore, through the years, a minority party’s push-back power has been an important preventive mechanism helping to realign the tempting imbalances of power or policy extremes that tend to accompany a majority rule — keeping in mind and heeding the cautionary adage that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
What happened yesterday, with the nuclear option being imposed by the dems, is a trespass on keeping the scale of democracy from tilting too far in it’s compliance with the wishes of the party in power. IMO, it’s a breach that will only ratchet up ill feelings between the opposing parties, giving way to extremism rather than moderation. It’s political bullying at it’s finest, initially serving to quiet the republican’s efforts to dissuade presidential/ judicial appointments from being too radical on the left. However, should the see-saw of power favor the right someday, then they will not yield to political temperance, as they did in 2005, but follow the path the dems have now taken. .
The filibuster was an accident. Does any other country even have something like it? Next, they need to eliminate lifetime judicial positions.
Steve
I’ve no problem with the filibuster, save that I think a senator should be on the floor of the Senate speaking and not be phoning it in from poolside someplace.
@steve, all deliberative bodies have rules concerning when to cut off debate. I don’t think the filibuster was an accident or odd, but rules can require a bit of good faith to work properly.
I recall complaining that the actual language of the ACA did not get released to the public until the Senate had sixty votes, which meant that there were approximately three days before Christmas Eve to make sure the law did not have any problems unforeseen by the drafters.
“I recall complaining that the actual language of the ACA did not get released to the public until the Senate had sixty votes, which meant that there were approximately three days before Christmas Eve to make sure the law did not have any problems unforeseen by the drafters.”
Whew! Good thing there weren’t any unforeseen problems.
PD- This author suggests it really was an accident, or at least it was not created intentionally.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_the_filibuster_was_invente.html
Earlier drafts of the ACA had been out for months. It was possible to know 99% of what was in the bill. Of course, if there had not been a threat of filibuster, this would not have ben an issue.
Steve
Steve,
If the filibuster had only been an ‘accident,’ why would it have held up for some 200 plus years? Also, if the filibuster was such an ‘accident,’ why did the president and all his powerful minions stridently oppose it in 2005, calling it a ‘grab for power?’ I don’t think you can have it both ways in such a relatively short span of time — first being for the rule, when someone else was in the WH, and then being against it, 8 years later, when your own party wanted to party with the rule.
As for me, I thought the R’s were crazy to have considered it in ’05, and I think the dems are ruthless in suddenly passing it, in ’13. It sets a bad precedent, and will only provoke increased hostility between the parties. IOW, now people can go for the political jugular.
“I recall complaining that the actual language of the ACA did not get released to the public until the Senate had sixty votes
Remember, though, Drew, the ACA didn’t have 60 votes, so another Reid Maneuver was enacted, called Reconciliation. All the way along the PPACA was crow-barred through Congress and the public consciousness until is slithered into being passed. Now they’re doing the same thing by changing, twisting and unilaterally delaying this ‘settled law’ until after the ’14 midterms — politically stalling the real s**t from hitting the fan.
I suspect that the Democrats have had a revelation, and they expect to not have a majority after 2014. As the election draws near, they will have a difficult time maintaining the majority they presently have.
Of course, I could be wrong, and the president is able to turn shit into gold.
@steve, I’ll repeat what I wrote, “all deliberative bodies have rules concerning when to cut off debate.” You can have a leader decide when to stop debate, you can ask for unanimous consent, you can give people a set amount of time. You can also move debate to committee, and have all of the debate at that stage, with no debate on the floor.
Closely related, there are quorum rules that require the attendance of so many people in order to vote. Abraham Lincoln once famously jumped out a window to try to prevent a vote for want of cloture. IIRC Wisconsin had a minimum quorum rule on certain types of important issues that required a super-majority to be present, which is why the Democrats left the state. So, I don’t find super-majority requirements odd in order to vote, but they are subject to abuse.
I was trying to think of something that would match the intensity of some of the thread recently.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=LED+Zeppelin+When+The+Levee+Breaks&Form=VQFRVP#view=detail&mid=74CB67498F5A3BBE63E574CB67498F5A3BBE63E5
And if this young lady could put some soul into it, take the antiseptic nature of the performance out……….holy cow.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=YouTube+Van+Halen+eruption&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=youtube+van+halen+eruption&sc=2-26&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=7CC4032A1FF1ADFEB1937CC4032A1FF1ADFEB193
And now, with heart, not robotic. The performers touch.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Van+Halen+Eruption+Girl&Form=VQFRVP#view=detail&mid=9359114A1A9BAE1349499359114A1A9BAE134949
I’m done.
PD- Prior to the Senate following Burr’s advice, they followed the same rule as the House with the prior question rule. It was only much later after adopting this change that they realized what it meant. Super majority rules are not uncommon, we set up several in our corporation, but this one was not established as a result of deliberation or intent. Given that our system does not work as foreseen by our founders, I dont see the filibuster as a positive rule, but then I am on record as saying I would prefer that we had more of a parliamentary type system so that the party in power can both govern and be held responsible.
Steve
All of these moves to shift power to the executive branch may have a silver lining. Events change national mood and one day we may have a RIGHT THINKING president who will open the door for state, federal, and local law enforcement agencies to sweepingly solve all the social problems brewing in this country for fifty years now in only a few months. He will announce that he has no interest in enforcing or prosecuting police brutality, rights abuses, sweeps or detentions, only restoring law and order. And with precedent this administration has set, no one will be able to object.
I don’t really have a problem with this rule change. But Steve, eliminate lifetime judicial nominations? Very bad idea IMO. It would turn those positions into political offices and make the judiciary even more political than it already is.
Everything the Obama administration does Steve seems to find reasons to condone it. While most everything the republicans do, he views as being under the rocks of poor policy: not showing enough ‘political risk;’ not indicating enough empathy for the poor; if the laws are unfair or harsh, not effecting enough people to worry about; or, if all these excuses fail then blame everything on the wealthy who the republicans want to shield (even though Hollywood celebrities and so many moguls and billionaires are dems, who guard their money prudently in overseas accounts).
First, seeing no wrong in this health care reform, and now finding a silver lining in the latest Senate overture to gain more power, is beyond illusionary partisan rationalization. If the proverbial shoe were on the other foot, I think Steve would be changing his opinion, joining me, as I would be just as critical of the R’s if they were creating policy changes like the dems currently are! BTW, Steve, back in 2005, were you routing for the R’s to throw the nuclear option switch too?
@steve, I find the Burr story unconvincing. When Burr gave his Farewell Address in 1805: He had burnt his bridges with (A) the Republicans, by attempting to steal the Presidency from their leader, Thomas Jefferson, for which a Constitutional Amendment had already been quickly passed to prevent; and (B) the Federalists, by killing their leader, for which he had been indicted for murder and was a fugitive from justice in his home state. We don’t know for certain what Burr said in his Farewell Address, but the notion that he stood in any position to persuade is far-fetched.
My view: The early Senators saw themselves as a House of Lords, a minority check on the popularly-elected by the most esteemed of society. Being elected by politicians, they were older, and less active in proposing legislation. They were concerned with titles and appearance. They did not open their proceedings to the public and kept no official reports. Diaries and letters indicate that they Senators tried to stay in session until 2:00 p.m. initially to keep up appearances, but dropped their “day” to an hour or two for want of interest.
There is a disagreement as to whether the Senate used the motion on the previous question to end debate and force a vote, or to end debate as a means of delaying a vote. I think it was the latter, which means removing it would have the opposite effect of those who think the former. But in any event by 1830 it was perceived as politically inappropriate to introduce a rule to force a vote, as Henry Clay attempted, since it was perceived as stifling debate. This was the Golden Age of the Senate that people recall and desire, not the earliest days.
But back to the ACA, we have a law that the Administration is arguing in court was not well-written and should not be interpreted literally. Having the actual language of bills circulated for review would be the best way to avoid having to ask the Courts to bail-out or rewrite the law. Having debated the _topic_ of healthcare for several months is not the same as debating the actual law.
OTOH, I agree w/ steve that judicial terms needs to be reduced. A ten year term would be fine; perhaps a twenty. Or perhaps increase the minimum age. A large part of the high stakes drams of judicial appointments is the possibility of helping control a branch of government for generations.
jan- Yes. I think the filibuster is a bad idea. As I have said before, I prefer the advantages of a parliamentary system. Those elected can govern. They can also be held accountable.
Steve