In an attempt to repair the broken Senate, Sens. Tom Harkin, Tom Udall, and Jeff Merkley are proposing a package of modest filibuster reforms that could be past by majority vote at the start of the session. Here's Ezra Klein summarizing the details:
But before we get into what might change, let's say what won't change: The 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster won't change. The right to unlimited debate, to speak until your knees buckle and your voice gives out, won't change. In reality, the rights of the minority won't change at all. In some ways, they'll even be increased.
Here's how the filibuster would change: Motions to proceed can't be filibustered because to do so is filibustering the debate itself. Filibusters themselves have to feature continuous debate and discussion. After a filibuster against a nomination is broken, there will be only two hours of post-cloture debate, as opposed to 30 hours, because nominations don't have amendments that need to be debated.
And there are changes to the Senate rules more broadly, too. Holds can no longer be secret, and the minority gets the right to offer at least three germane amendments on every bill (which addresses the Republican complaint that they are often denied the opportunity to offer amendments)
In essence, these would greatly accelerate the business of the Senate. This could make viable strategies such as forcing the other side to do a genuine filibuster as well as free up time towards any number of governing tasks. Put simply, being a legislature for a country of more than 300 million people is hard work and takes time to do right.
Both Klein and Ruth Marcus note that this may just prove to be the first shot in a set of filibuster changes. Marcus tries to spin this into a horror tale. My comments added in brackets:
Imagine the start of the 113th Congress in January 2013. House Speaker John Boehner's first act, once again, is to repeal what he calls "Obamacare." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, invoking the Udall precedent, moves to change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, and his caucus - over howls from the Democratic minority - agrees. The Republican Senate then votes to repeal the health-care bill, which is promptly signed . . . by President Palin. [This is generally called democracy. Matt Miller can explain more.]
…The filibuster could end up being a useful Democratic tool to block legislation that passes the Republican-controlled House and could, with a few Democratic defections, garner a bare majority in the Senate. [There's this thing called a veto. In addition, rules making is about the long game not the present circumstance.]
…But one little-noticed aspect of the Udall plan is that, as part of eliminating the filibuster on the motion to begin debate, it would guarantee Republicans more opportunity to offer amendments. Sounds fair - except that in practice more amendments translate into more chances to force endangered Democratic senators to take unpleasant votes. In short: more fodder for 30-second campaign ads. [Protecting seats is not a higher priority than implementing good policy. If the Democratic Congress could have done more to improve the economy, that would have swamped the impact of whatever ads the Republicans wanted to run.]
This filibuster fight is about whether we want our country to have a functioning legislative branch again. The new era may be scary but ultimately we have to have confidence in our policies. The last ten years have exposed a broken system, an executive branch that reserves the right to detain off the battlefield without charge, assassinate American citizens, and torture without threat of accountability, and the last two years have shown that it is barely possible to govern this country with a supermajority. As Miller argues, if we do not move towards a majority-rule system now we can see our future in California, budget crisis after budget crisis while no party has the tools necessary to fix things.
Recent Comments