The Jury Talks Back

2/6/2009

Does Change Apply to the Filibuster?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Amphipolis @ 6:01 am

Now is the best time for the Senate to adjust the filibuster. No, they will not eliminate it. That would go against centuries of Senate tradition. They can just change it to better reflect the will of the people – reduce the cloture vote requirement from 60 to 57 or 58. The Senate did a similar thing back in the 1970s.

The fear is there. The crisis is there. The intensity is there. They may never get a better chance.

10 Comments

  1. That’s not gonna happen. The Democrats realize that no political majority is permanent; sooner or later, there will come a time when they are in the minority again.

    Comment by aunursa — 2/6/2009 @ 6:09 am

  2. I should have said, “The sane Democrats…”

    Comment by aunursa — 2/6/2009 @ 6:09 am

  3. aunursa, I hope you’re right. I have my doubts:

    Note what they did to the rules in the House
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/07/house-faces-early-partisan-fight-over-rules/

    I don’t see them thinking much beyond the next few years.

    And I believe they are planning to change the calculus so sooner or later will never come -
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/McHenry_Rahm_power_grab_on_Census.html

    The ACORN stimulus investment is expected to pay off.

    With total control of government, what is to stop them from changing everything? The suppression of dissent is obvious. Even the friendly press is shut out.

    Their precedent is the New Deal. The change they talk about is permanent. The filibuster must go.

    Comment by Amphipolis — 2/6/2009 @ 7:21 am

  4. They ought to move it to a 2/3 membership + 1, which it was long, long ago, IIRC.

    Comment by htom — 2/6/2009 @ 8:52 am

  5. No, they won’t change the filibuster rule — at least not for the stimulus.

    Opposition to the stimulus plan is growing among independants, but its also strongly favored by Dem special interests. But if Republicans simply filibuster the stimulus, it lets them off the hook. Why would they want to change the rules that give them plausible deniability?

    Comment by Sean P — 2/6/2009 @ 5:24 pm

  6. It will never happen because the disgruntleds would then simply air the Senate’s dirty laundry in public and nobody wants that.

    Comment by nk — 2/7/2009 @ 6:16 am

  7. The use of filibuster against Judicial nominees should be challenged as unconstitutional. The use of filibuster against legislation is different than its use against confirmation votes. The filibuster is derived from, “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings”. If the Senate allows itself the filibuster and uses it to block legislation (legislation being “In House”, the work of the Legislature), so be it.
    The presumption to use it to stop a confirmation vote (Not an “In House” action, but a duty of the Legislature to the Executive and to the Judicial.) is an arrogant abrogation of their duty.

    Comment by Sonar — 2/8/2009 @ 3:05 pm

  8. Thanks to Collins and my own Specter, I suppose the filibuster does not have to go, yet. That is, unless some Democrats oppose the stimulus bill.

    I see a filibuster change as inevitable. All they need is a crisis, a bare majority, and a lack of restraint. I have seen almost no evidence of restraint.

    I think it can be done quickly with almost no warning. Some Saturday morning we will wake to find it a fait accompli. Then we will struggle with how to explain to the ignorant masses why some obscure rule change that has already happened and that has precedent is a bad thing, and why it was good to restrain majority rule to 60 percent. It would be a steep up-hill battle.

    Republicans should be prepared to walk out of the Senate en masse should this happen. They would have only one chance to counter attack. I hope they are prepared.

    Comment by Amphipolis — 2/9/2009 @ 6:13 am

  9. I see a filibuster change as unlikely. The Senate leadership is very different from the House leadership, and I think they’re much more aware of the fact that political winds change and preserving the power of the minority protects them in the future.

    Comment by aphrael — 2/11/2009 @ 1:04 pm

  10. The filibuster rule is different than what it used to be. Not too long ago, if a senator wanted to filibuster, he actually had to stand there and read from the phonebook or the complete works of shakespeare — just like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He had to hold his pee in for as long as possible and they had assistants with buckets just outside in the hall. It was a big, annoying, long and difficult procedure. It was painful and boring.

    The filibuster rule has been changed since then. Now, all the minority party has to do is state their intention to filibuster.

    I think if they change it, they should change it back to the real deal. That way the threat of filibuster would actually have to be painstakingly carried out.

    Comment by socrates — 3/8/2009 @ 1:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.