Political Animal
Blog
According to Politico’s Manu Raju, Republicans are threatening to “shut down” the Senate if Harry Reid proceeds with limits on the use of filibusters as part of the Senate rules promulgated at the beginning of the next Congress in January:
Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering: banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conference committees from ever meeting. He also may make filibusters become actual filibusters — to force senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions.
Republicans are threatening even greater retaliation if Reid uses a move rarely used by Senate majorities: changing the chamber’s precedent by 51 votes, rather than the usual 67 votes it takes to overhaul the rules.
“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.”
“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.”
This raises the rather obvious question of exactly what Republicans could do to make the Senate less functional than it already is under the de facto 60-vote requirement for all legislation that they have so recently introduced?
If Senate Democrats back down in the face of this threat, they will risk a potentially permanent power shift to small-population states unlike anything we’ve seen since the 1960s. More practically, it will be a rare moment when conservative obstructionists do not hold at least 40 Senate seats.
Progressives need to put some serious pressure on Democratic Senators to make filibuster reform a non-negotiable agenda item. It’s a bigger deal in the long run than tax rates or spending levels, and will have a large bearing over the leverage each party has in negotiations over tax rates or spending levels. Certainly threats from Republicans to obstruct the work of the Senate if the filibuster rules are changed should be greeted with the derision they deserve.
Facebook
Twitter
bluewave on November 26, 2012 9:27 AM:
The Republicans are so anxious to take on the complexities of the tax code, and so reluctant to alter the sacred text of the Senate rule book. Throw the whole damn thing out and start over from scratch. Upperdown vote, all that crap. Tired of having reasonable initiatives with broad popular support stymied for years on end.
This is why we can't have nice things.
boatboy_srq on November 26, 2012 9:34 AM:
This raises the rather obvious question of exactly what Republicans could do to make the Senate less functional than it already is under the de facto 60-vote requirement for all legislation that they have so recently introduced?
I suppose they could hold up all legislation, including the stuff they want, just to be unusually spiteful.
Ronald on November 26, 2012 9:42 AM:
The Republicans are already planning on holding the Senate hostage again already- filibuster reform or no.
Hell- just look at people like McCain who wanted yet another special committee to investigate Bhengazi, and who threatened filibustering Rice's nomination just because.
They've already messed the Senate up.
It is kinda funny to hear Republicans squealing about 'Minority Rights' though. Probably one of the first and only times we'll hear that sort of complaint from the 'old white guy' set. ;)
c u n d gulag on November 26, 2012 9:49 AM:
'“It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO.
And just how will anyone be able to tell?
Isn't a shut-down Senate, 'B-A-U?'
bigtuna on November 26, 2012 9:55 AM:
It would be nice if the Dem message machine could paint this picture clearly, loudly, and often.
Just say:
"All we are seeking is that the senate be allowed to consider bills in committee, and to bring bills to the floor, to debate, openly. "
It has been infuriating that the MSM kept up with the "bills" voted down" message, when in fact the news should have read:
" a minority of the senate once again prohibited a debate from occuring"
rrk1 on November 26, 2012 10:22 AM:
The Senate is an anachronism long past its sell-by date. It over represents smaller states and overrides the one-man-one-vote rule. 51 Senators do not represent 51% of the population by any means. Thus large urban states on the coasts and upper mid-west are under represented and at the mercy of the blood red south and west. Weighted voting could solve this problem, but that will never happen without a constitutional convention. Of course, such a convention could also do away with the Senate, and produce a parliamentary form of legislature/government, which would likely serve the country better than the corrupt and constipated system we have now.
Harry Reid, not unlike our president, has not shown any inclination to play hardball with the obstructionist Rethugs. Why does anyone think either or both of them are going to change now? Welcome as that would be. The Democrats blew it two years ago when they could have changed the fillibuster rules, and didn't. The Rethugs promptly all but locked the doors in their effort to defeat Obama, and Reid was asleep as ever. Obama blew his genuine mandate, although he has an echo of one now, in 2009 with his arrogant and naive dedication to a bipartisanship that was impossible. Has he learned his lesson?
Another two or four years of making the country ungovernable, and the wheels will come off the car.
stormskies on November 26, 2012 10:23 AM:
Remember the 'nuclear option' the Repiglicans used to scream about ? The whole idea of our country is in fact majority rule. The way it is now the minority controls the majority in the Senate. Of course this had lead to total fucking dysfunction.
Nothing could be worse than it is now. The simple change of the filibuster rule is really a simple fucking change. It would simply require the like of Senator McConnell to stand there and yap it's turtle face off versus his preferred secret activity which is in fact pole dancing with his tutu on.
howard on November 26, 2012 10:31 AM:
Every single remaining gop senator is a thug.
JackD on November 26, 2012 10:36 AM:
The only way the Republicans could shut down the Senate would be if the Democrats let them do so. There is a Democratic/independent majority.
sjw on November 26, 2012 10:40 AM:
Have the showdown. Republicans talk tough, but they'll simmer down once the rules change is in place. Cf. how they recently talked tough abut Susan Rice and about raising taxes: now they're singing a different tune.
T2 on November 26, 2012 10:43 AM:
remember before the Election (which re-elected a Democrat president and put 55 Dem votes in the Senate)? Back when the GOPers, in their Denial State, fully expected the likes of Akin and Mourdock to help shift the Senate to GOP control with Romney/Ryan sitting in the White House? They were bragging to any and everybody that as soon as they "took over" they'd use reconciliation to dump Obamacare on a 51 vote majority? To dump pretty much everything Obama has passed using a variety of "tricks" and a 51 vote majority? Yeah, when they thought they'd have 51 votes, the GOP had a whole stack of things to ram through. But then, we had an election, and now its back up to a 60 vote threshold again. Screw them, Harry.
Stefan on November 26, 2012 11:18 AM:
I wonder if the Republican response will force an all or none outcome. If the Republicans threaten to use whatever filibuster power they have left to punish the majority for said reform, does this mean that Reid et al will have to go for all or nothing? If so, wouldn't be awesome if they chose the all all as opposed to the nothing? And even awesomer, if they went for the all because the Republican threats forced their hand? A boy can hope. Another metaphor I wanted to use, if you go after the king, you'd better kill him.
Josef K on November 26, 2012 11:45 AM:
Oh, dear god.
It strikes me that this would prove counterproductive to the GOP, as it would be clear that they, not the Democrats, are the ones deliberately shutting down the government. It didn't work out so well for Gingrinch's caucus, and I daresay it'll likely work out worse for McConnell's as the latter bunch is both more extreme, has a longer history of said extremism, and doesn't have an actual agenda to offer as a counterpoint to the Obama Administration.
This is going to be a mess whichever way it goes. The part that irks me the most is that the ones causing it aren't likely to feel any remorse or consequences of it all.
Quaker in a Basement on November 26, 2012 12:36 PM:
I say bring it on.
The general public doesn't understand the filibuster and really doesn't much care about it. If the GOP wants to instigate a big fight about it, their explanation of the issue is going to be problematic. Cornyn, et al, are posturing.
James E. Powell on November 26, 2012 12:39 PM:
One of the reasons that the Republicans lost in 2012 is that their party took extreme positions and engaged in extreme tactics. Their base voters love this stuff because they see everything as a fight to the death to save America. But the ordinary, average American voters do not; they are alienated by this behavior.
Add to this the fact that the ordinary, average American voters have no clue that the filibuster prevents majority rule without any particular reason or rationale to support it. Americans by habit and by inclination will support majority rule. Culturally, it's our default mechanism for resolving all disputes.
So the Democrats ought to shout 'majority rule' over and over as they simply get rid of the filibuster. At the very least, they ought to get rid of it for presidential appointments.
Dave on November 26, 2012 12:55 PM:
Just switching the burden from the majority needing 60 to override to the filibuster side actually needing 41 votes would help a lot. As it is now, Senators can filibuster without even taking a public position or recording a vote.
karen marie on November 26, 2012 3:31 PM:
Have you called your senators? I have. I also called Harry Reid, to let him know I support his proposals, and John Cornyn and Tom Coburn, to let them know they should stop acting like children.
Doug on November 26, 2012 5:51 PM:
Let me get this straight, if Sen. Reid and a MAJORITY of the Senate agrees to return to the filibuster rules that were in place prior to the "reform", the Republicans are going to shut down the Senate? Over "...banning filibusters used to prevent debate from even starting and House-Senate conferences from ever meeting. He (Reid) may make filibusters become actual filibusters - to force Senators to carry out the nonstop, talkathon sessions"? Really?
Popcorn, please.
Peter C on November 26, 2012 6:07 PM:
Bring. It. On.
The Senate cannot get more dysfunctional than it already is. The Republicans can't get anymore annoying. Make them own their obnoxiousness. Make it pay a political price!
Dan Tyler on November 26, 2012 6:43 PM:
Dianne Feinstein needs to hear from her constituents on this issue. I think she's ready to hang with her good old boy buds like Mitch McConnell.
Crissa on November 27, 2012 2:39 AM:
Republicans always yell about wanting to not turn the rest of the country into California...
...And yet, in the Senate and its disfunction, they have.
Dangal on November 27, 2012 6:39 AM:
Democrats loved and defended the whole concept of the filibuster in 2002-2006 when Republicans controlled the Senate. They used it more often and broadly than had ever heretofore had been done. They were pretty pro-obstruction then. Senator Schummer (NY) particularly defended the concept calling it something like, an opportunity for cool consideration of policy, rather than the rampant mood swings of the masses through the House.
The minority party always reveres sacredness of the filibuster rules. Be carefully what you wish for.