"Those who had the decency to vote for cloture even though they opposed her appointment..."

Why don't we first carefully re-examine the Senate record of the last decade or two before we get too het up about this?

Yes?

There's a simple change that would return the filibuster to its traditional place: Instead of requiring 60 "yes" votes to end a filibuster, require 40 "no" votes to keep one going. Then the party that wants to filibuster has to camp out on the Senate floor in their sleeping bags, which would put the burden and inconvenience where it belongs.

Can't agree with you on this one Hilzoy. The filibuster is probably the most important device in our legislature for maintaining minority rights, even when one party uses it to block any and everything it can.

The way for the majority to make political hay from real or perceived obstruction is through the ballot box by convincing voters it is being misused. Without it, the Senate would just be another House of Reps where majority always rules.

"Her" nomination? I thought Harold was a "he". Not that it really matters...

tomj: Eep! Thanks. (I think my head must have moved on to Dawn Johnsen without telling me.)

I used to think as you, Comrade Stuck, but no longer. Three things convinced me. First, the realization that the filibuster, by blocking passage of legislation, most often tends to benefit the status quo; it tends to benefit conservatives more than liberals, and it's absolutely catastrophic in the face of urgent circumstances that demand bold, decisive action, as in the case of climate change. (To be fair, I think humanity as a whole isn't equipped to, and won't be, responding proactively to global climate change, but that's no reason to excuse the US Senate from criticism.)

Second, the realization that, in the limit case, senators representing a mere 11% of the population can halt any legislation. That is an enormous amount of power to concentrate in such a potentially small number of legislators.

Finally, having looked at the history of the use of the filibuster, the evidence seems to bear out that it's a tool used by the powerful against the weak, not vice versa. I would be interested to be corrected on this, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I also agree that removing the filibuster is a bad idea. The senate is broken because of the people who inhabit the senate, and those people inhabit the senate because we voted them in and thereby helped to create the political culture there, so the solution to the problem is clear, though probably not that easy to get to.

I used to think as you, Comrade Stuck, but no longer

When the wingnuts regain power someday, and they will, I predict you will be glad the filibuster still lives.

OMG! Every vote is a friggin' constitutional crisis to you Hilzoy! Is every friggin' decision subject to a 50%+ vote? Why in the hell do we elect a president and give him/her veto power on every vote you think requires a majority of each house of congress? A presidential veto forces a 2/3 vote in each house, much more than the odious rules of the Senate. Give a break...chill...get some perspective.

Truth is that it takes at least 50% of each house to pass any legislation, less than 50% can't pass sh*t.

You confuse what is required to stop legislation and what is required to pass it.

Like it or not, we are stuck with the filibuster for the time being. The Constitution gives each House the authority to determine the rules of its proceedings. Beyond that, the Constitution does not make mention of a simple majority, or a super majority to pass legislation. So....whatever the rules each House makes, are the rules we all play by. Since one of the Senate rules for operating is that they require 2/3 majority to change the rules by which they operate, we are not going to see the filibuster go away any time soon.

One of the biggest arguments in favor of the filibuster, regardless of which party is in the majority, is that it extends to the minority party the right of extended debate. Over time, filibuster rules have been changed when it was apparent that it was being abused, and not used for its intended purpose of extending debate. So, while it is a permanent feature of the Senate, it is not engraved in stone as is.

As a minority protection, it isn't going to go away. Changing the rules requires more votes than the Obstructionist Party will provide in the immediate future. We play the hand we are dealt.

This means voting in more and better Democrats.

When the wingnuts regain power someday, and they will, I predict you will be glad the filibuster still lives.

Your assertion might carry more weight if you'd care to address the substance of my arguments that the filibuster is not a progressive tool.

Any sign of movement on Bob Groves (Census)? We could use a full-time director over here, if for no other reason than to have someone whose job it is to gently point out to Michele Bachmann that she's dumber than a box of rocks.

Reporters who should know better routinely write that some bill or nominee cannot get "the sixty votes needed to pass", as though it were standard operating procedure for the Senate to require qa supermajority.

On NPR yesterday morning, they were talking about the possibility that the Senate might bring healthcare to the floor "under an arcane procedure known as reconciliation" where it would need "only 51 votes" to pass.

There's our liberal media, telling us that passing something with a mere majority is 'arcane.'

Why does this remain a problem? The dems need 1 vote for cloture--I can't imagine that all republicans when put to a vote will vote to filibuster every bill. I imagine 95% of the time Snowe...et al. will vote for cloture when forced to a vote. Why keep up this charade--just run them over and let them complain.

Has an actual filibuster occurred? I like the filibuster, for all the reasons mentioned above, but if the Republicans can get their way just by threatening it, ON EVERYTHING, of course they will. Reid needs to block off 1-2 weeks and devote it to housetraining these fucking Republicans.

Make them waste time, in front of cameras, before a midterm election where they look to lose even more seats, verbally masturbating to block the agenda of a very popular president. The republicans aren't to blame here. Its like blaming dogs for pissing on trees. Fighting progress is just what they do. Reid is the problem, always has been and always will be until he's voted out of Majority leader position or office.

The way for the majority to make political hay from real or perceived obstruction is through the ballot box by convincing voters it is being misused. - Comrade Stuck

I'm with Comrade on this one. The problem is not the rule. It is the fact that the Republican party is firmly comtrolled by extremist capitalists in an age of not-so-plenty. It's also media control by the right and it's an ignorant populace.

Part of what makes a democracy stable is its inability to move fast. The cloture rule, the disproportionate allocation of Senators by state rather than by population and the tendency to elect older more conservative Senators all play into this dynamic. The solution is to convince people that the Republican party has become an absolute poison.

in the limit case, senators representing a mere 11% of the population can halt any legislation. - dob

I'm guessing that the 11% represents the population of the 20 smallest states, and therefore 40 Senators. In fact, if you allocate half the population of each state to each of its current senators, the Republican party represents about 36%, though the Blue Dogs mostly come from rural states as well. So, while the logic may be true, it doesn't represent what is actually happening today.

it [filibuster] tends to benefit conservatives more than liberals

I would sub status quo for conservatives. I consider the Republicans dangerously radical, and it's ironic to consider "conservation" issues liberal.

the evidence seems to bear out that it's a tool used by the powerful against the weak, not vice versa.

That may well be true, but now you're talking about the influence of money, which would be an even bigger problem if the power party had 51 votes, and no cloture rule.

I like the "40 votes" rule, although that would be a very tough hurdle if our side had to meet that requirement. How about the good old-fashioned Senator Wayne Morris filibuster where the filibustering senator had to stand and continue to talk. It didn't matter what the senator was saying: he (or she) could read from the phone book, the bible, or the Federal Register. Additionally, one senator could yield to another senator, in a tag-team manner. That way, if a small minority felt a crucial matter was being pushed through, they would organize a filibuster that would slow things down while others took the issue to the public. The drama makes the filibuster a powerful tool in the hands of a politically weak but deeply committed minority. Imagine what a few committed civil libertarians and war skeptics might have done in the run-up to the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

Your assertion might carry more weight if you'd care to address the substance of my arguments that the filibuster is not a progressive tool.

That's because it's not a progressive tool, and wasn't meant to be. as is our entire form of government the founders gave us. The Constitution and the Republic they formed was built for stability and for change to occur slowly and for the minority to have a real say. That it has at times hurt the weak and vulnerable isn't because of the filibuster, it is because a very large majority in the country didn't care about those people. When social norm began to shift, so did the politicians who do the lawmaking.

Slowness has it's problems, the tradeoff is not having rapid potential destabilizing changes. With the very polar ideologies in this country I think the founders got it right.

I'm afraid we're stuck with the filibuster; as jcricket points out, it would take a 2/3 vote to get rid of it. Plus, it's an extraordinarily incremental, conservative institution that guards its traditions, especially its stupid ones.

They have lowered the cloture threshhold from 67 to 60 in relatively recent institutional memory; reducing it further, to 58 or 55, might not outrage Sen. Byrd too much.

The reconciliation process is the path of least resistance, though, and I expect we'll see it put to increasingly heavy and creative use over the next few years.

That's because it's not a progressive tool, and wasn't meant to be. as is our entire form of government the founders gave us.

The filibuster isn't mandated by the constitution, it's a senate rule.

The filibuster isn't mandated by the constitution, it's a senate rule.

Sure it is, by extension. The Constitution mandates the Senate to make it's own rules and to satisfy the Extended Debate clause the filibuster was created. Before it was created, the minority party was able to just about bring senate business to a halt by extending debate, or blabbing on EVERY piece of business before the senate, so to keep things going they adopted the filibuster, which I believe originally called for 67 votes for cloture.

Shorter Hilzoy:
Filibuster is bad because Democrats won.

FEXZDK

Incredible site!

Beautiful site!

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

Perfect site, i like it!