I really think the key is that the filibuster has to be used against something that the Establishment wants. Like, as I’ve mentioned before, if the filibuster was stopping some military appropriation then the Sensible People would be calling for, in unison, manufacturing consent is real, for simple majority rule in the US Senate. In my lifetime that 60 vote requirement is used almost entirely to protect entrenched financial interests. The filibuster can’t be used, for example, to stop TARP, to ensure liberal appointments within the Obama administration, pass decent health care reform, you get the picture…the filibuster can be used to weaken and corrupt every decent progressive notion out there, whether its the public option or cap and trade.

Furthermore, its quite clear that both major parties like it that way. It occurs to me now that a lot of dems were hoping that Al Franken lost so that they would still have those bad republicans excuse. This is why I’ve been pushing my 5/25 plan for third party/independent types that we should fundraise and fight for. You need real fighters. I don’t see this senate doing anything like that…You need a new party, new people.

Agree!

One more thing: how about just limited change? How about a 51 vote majority in the senate for the first year of the presidency? This way a president can at least get his or her ideas through congress without poisoning…You could have it go into effect in 2012…I could see this senate doing something like that now. Afterall, you wouldn’t want to empower our side unconditionally. How would our private deals with Big Pharma stay intact?

where were the DEM’S during bush, scared to stand up someone should have fillabustered the whole 8 years

Thanks you again, Jon. Of course!

As you may know I’ve blogged a lot about getting rid of the filibuster myself: Here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The last piece is probably the best one from the standpoint of making a more general case for getting rid of the filibuster.

I’m not up on the Senate’s procedural rules, but I believe if a majority of the house and a majority of the senate agree, a bill gets passed by what they call “reconciliation”. Under the circumstances of a Democratic majority in the house and a Democratic majority in the senate, they should have no trouble getting legislation through.

I believe reconciliation is considered a “nuclear” option which was considered as a way to get Bush judicial appointments through. It is considered “bad form”. Perhaps it is this mind set that needs changing.

I can’t help thinking, given the importance on image and public perception that is paid by the political and business classes in this country, what is needed is to force those filibustering to actually go through the actions of a filibuster: Take the floor in the Senate and hold it 24/7 until the action they want comes to pass. If the whole country could clearly see the disrupters on TV and in the news, actively wrecking the country and shutting down the government, then the political retribution to the overuse of the filibuster would be swift and complete.

And that’s a message to all of the senators, even the Ron Wydens and Russ Feingolds and Al Frankens, not just to Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid has frequently, and I think rightfully, been tagged with allowing this stuff to go on because he secretly agrees with the torpedoing of some of the legislation it creates. But Harry Reid isn’t the whole senate, and we don’t see the senators we believe support the failed bills calling for him to make Mitch McConnell come clean and stand up and read a few shopping lists. Shouldn’t they also shoulder some of the blame for not forcing Mr. McConnell out into the sunshine where his fangs will melt and his head will explode?

Senator Durbin on the prospects for climate change legislation.

“At this point I’d like to see a complete bill but we have to accept a shitty bill to be realistic,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said last week.

The big problem with the filibuster is that no one is actually forced to go through one. The mere threat of a filibuster is enough for the Senate to simply drop a bill. I can’t remember the last time that a Senator (or group of Senators–does it have to be just one, or can they sub out?) was forced to actually stand on the floor of the Senate and drone on and on and on until the opposition cried “uncle”. (Does anyone know? When was the last true filibuster?) I doubt Joe Lieberman and the GOP (sidebar: doesn’t that sound like an 80s band?) would last for 24 hours of a true filibuster. If I were Harry Reid, I’d just say, “You want to filibuster? Fine. We’ll be over at the State of the Union address while you’re talking. Let us know when you’re ready to quit.”

By effectively saying “it’s ok if the filibuster ruins another important bill this time, but we really should think about fixing this in the future,” you take all the wind out of the push for Senate reform.

…as intended.

The problem, as I see it, is there is no really straightfoward way to fix the filibuster until the Senate organizes for the next session in January 2011.

There are lots of suggested workarounds, including the so-called nuclear option. What makes these workarounds is that within a session you need a supermajority of votes to change the rules of the Senate. At the organizing of a session, you need only a 51-vote majority. So Nelson, Liebereman, Landrieu, Lincoln, Conrad, and 6 Republicans are going to give up the filibuster that gives them minority power? Ya think?

So, Jon, what is your suggested means for accomplishing this immediate fix in the Senate?

I believe the Senate has gone on too long being whip-sawwed by the threat of filibuster. The threat alone has derailed a lot of good ideas. I think the Democrats should call the bluff and make the Republicans filibuster a couple of these issues. The longer they talk at center stage, their lack of creative problem-solving ideas will become apparent. They will wear the “Party of No” like a sweatshirt.

I say bag the Senate entirely, move toward a single house parliamentary system. Add the senate’s current 100 seats to the house, then apportion 535 seats to the fifty states according to population, maybe stretch it to the same level (via the same means) as the electoral college where 270 votes prevails. No filibuster.

Must read:
Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery
The comments are amazing. I just had to get this in here…somewhere.
Sorry for the OT

Here is a great article on this very subject:
“Cost of living’s a killer in the health-reform deal
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger
December 27, 2009, 10:22AM”

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/12/cost_of_livings_a_killer_in_th.html

The 60-vote threshold is nothing but an enabler for the weak senators who are more fearful of losing their positions (as if they could not find employment post-Congress) than of our losing our Country. Unfortunately, what President Obama and about 1/4 of our Democratic “Representatives” didn’t fully understand about the 2008 election is that WE WANT WHAT THEY OFFERED–CHANGE! The reality is that there have been MANY wonderful changes made to undo the bush debacle and restore America to what we should be. BUT Congress, the Executive Department, Justice, Education, Interior, etc…all of our government agencies should have swept in and swiftly–within this first year–changed EVERYTHING that is possible to be changed by signatures alone. THIS is what We the People need and want. THIS is what would have ensured a Democratic majority for at least a few generations. Instead, business as usual…let’s not piss off the immoral and ethical Senators and Congressmen/women–God forbid.
And finally…the most important system that MUST be changed: Campaign Finance. This may not be a simple thing to change…I’m not sure who/how this should be done, but until we remove the need to lick the boots of the wealthy and the corporations, we’re screwed.

That would require a constitutional amendment. Restoring the Senate to its properly defined simple majority rule would just require a small amount of backbone from Democrats.

What Tarheel said, although it’s rare that I disagree with him. Jon, what is your proposal/plan to getting the people with the most power to willingly give up that power before 2011 when new rules are established?

They can end the filibuster the first day they return from break with 50 votes (Biden) as President.

All they have to do is have the backbone to do it.

Not gonna happen. But the filibuster will end this way, I predict. Because if there’s one thing the Republicans do have, it’s backbone, when it comes to shoving their legislative bullshit down our throats.

But the Democrats can, within Senate rules, end the filibuster for good with 50 votes within a session. All they need is the desire to do so.

The abuse of the filibuster has completely broken our government.

jon, eli made a great point the other day;

each and every democrat has veto power right now thanx to liarman since we only have a one vote advantage against filibuster and liarman set the bar for oposing bills and not voting for cloture

Thanks Kassandra.

Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be “persons.”

Here’s how you get rid of the filibuster within session.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate’s rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

How about moving away from the increasingly restrictive archaic two senators per state regardless of population,economic or political weight or bearing?

Move to allowance of higher population states having more senators. This would better reflect democratic process and open U.S.Senate to reflect better the overall population of United States.

Break up this 100 member U.S.Senate with population based democratic representation. Each state getting two senators as base line. States with higher populations or more concentrated urban populations having more U.S.Senators. Based on U.S.Census this could be geared to total population of each state divided by agreed upon formula. Each state having two U.S.Senators regardless of population but higher population states gaining more U.S.Senators based on number of House seats each state currently is given.

The U.S.Senate need not be restricted by 19th century precepts of two senators per state anymore than it was by practice of appointment to U.S.Senate by the state legislatures and/or governors.

Americans should be able to field and elect more than current 100 U.S.Senators which may help break up the political stalemates that afflict U.S.Senate here in early 21st century.

The filibuster dysfunction along with the sell out of politicians to corporate profit at the expense of the public good has led to a weak Health Care Reform Bill. An active citizenry needs to focus on both corporate corruption and the filibuster debacle.

Yeah…that will apply to us as well. Jose Padilla being the classic example. I guess it take a “brilliant Constitutional scholar” to break the thing.
Just as it took his economic team to “study the Great Depression” so the could get it right this time.
No FDR class traitors here, that’s for sure.

Corporations are persons, they have inalienable rights, but some people are not persons, and if push comes to shove, maybe none of the people are persons.

Well, it’s good to have that straightened out isn’t it?

Well, yes, but that requires more than a change in procedure.

The Senate is anti-democratic by design.

Jesus H. F. Christ.

Where are all those fucking Obama apologists now.

God damned god damned god damned.

Any person can be labelled an enemy combatant too, so any and all rights we used to have under our Constitution are now GONE. Poof. Just like that. And Obama is the one that got the Supremes to do it.

This is worse than bad.

Contrary to popular wisdom, the Senate is adaptable, and it is performing exactly as it was designed. The House was designated as the “peoples’ house” with short terms making it more difficult to accumulate power over a period of time. The Senate was designed as the House of Lords. They represent the interests of the wealthy (corporations and banks are included in that class).
With terms three times longer than representatives, the legislative representatives of the wealthy can accumulate power over time, and provide a stable and malleable counter-force to the “will” of the people.

Since America declared and declares itself a classless society, the Senate would then need to classified as peoples’ representatives, for appearances sake. But make no mistake, the Senate IS the U.S. House of Lords.

And where in the HELL is the MSM on this?

I mean you’d think ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION CAN NOW BE TAKEN BY ANY PRESIDENT AT ANY TIME; YOU CAN BE DEEMED A “NON-PERSON” SIMPLY BY A STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT would be headline news.

It is to me.

shadow, that’s an informative post, I have one issue though;

Contrary to popular wisdom, the Senate is adaptable, and it is performing exactly as it was designed.

you know, we’ve had cars that performed exactly as they were designed, they were death traps never the less and we fixed that design

that’s what we need to do here

Its’ VERY frightening. I wonder every time I post anymore how many list I am on.

Thanks for this information. Very helpful.

Frankly, I no longer see the point of arguing that health care is a right, when habeas corpus isn’t even a right any longer. Or any of the other supposed ‘rights’ granted to us in the Constitution if they can be taken away by a single man at any time simply by declaring we’re no longer a person.

Does anyone realize this was precisely what our forefathers FOUGHT AGAINST? Giving one man this much power? What The Fuck has happened to our country?

We’ve got to watch the SC here pretty closely. I know that they have a case coming up to allow corporate secret funding of their candidates.
The constitution is GONE

Fascism

Jon: you’ve surprised me with this column. Since you’ve been at FDL I’ve read all of your work and depend on you for some of the best progressive analysis around.

It seems like you’re being rather traditional (too much Ezra Klein) in your analysis here.

The Senate is working exactly the way that the special interests, lobbyists and Beltway Establishment want it to work: to thwart the will of the people and act as a bulwark against progressive reform.

To change the filibuster rule would require some extraordinary stratgery by progressive Democratic senators and Bernie Sanders. Plus, they would have to go against the Obama White House and Rahmbo.

Not. gonna. happen.

The first obstacle is to get the powerful and privileged to hand over some of their power to someone else. Good luck with that.

The second obstacle is that you are fundamentally requesting a foundation level restructuring of our form of government and doing so in a highly orchestrated and a mutually agreed to partisan environment. Even more luck with that.

Now, if we were not Americans, but Pakistanis or Iranians, we could take to the streets. Americans, on the other hand, have been couch-broken, both mentally and physically. I see little hope on the horizon.

This is outragous! I agree with OFG. Where is MSN on this? Not a peep, not a friggin’ sound.

Habeas Corpus was suspended by Lincoln during the Civil War to protect and save the Union (as well as he should have)…. I think the Supreme court later ruled that this was wrong, but hey — the man did save the Nation and freed the slaves. Detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII by Roosevelt — SAME THING !! When this nation faces extraordinary opposition to our way of life from domestic and foreign (pledge of oath of office) –ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. I want a President (Dem/Pub/Ind) to show those enemies “hell on earth” !!

Which underlines the silly of WashingtonDC going around the planet spreading “democracy” or is it American Empire?

Noam Chomsky currently has a good piece on American imperialism under the 12/24/2009 date entries at http://www.zmag.org Znet site worthy of a read.

Perhaps it would be desireable to make the U.S.Senate more anti-ignorant by design? Bring in more Americans who might better displace the likes of Lieberman or other Luddite or corporatist puppet D Party or R Party U.S.Senators.

I know well the history. And know also that it was wrong.

What, slavery can come back too, right? I mean, that’s OK too, since it was once done and ruled ok.

And good luck with that whole “you want a President to show them hell on earth” when it’s you or one of your loved ones that a (Dem/Rep/Ind) President decides to bring “hell on earth” down on. Yeah, real good luck with that. I mean you won’t have ANY recourse once he signs a piece of paper. Hope you enjoy the torture.

Fine and well, would someone paint me a picture of how getting rid of a fig leaf for both wings of the corporate party will get accomplished, – I’d really like to know.

I know. Or a Constitutional Convention. And either would take years, which calls for interim intervention of some sort. Still, the Senate is NOT a necessary adjunct, and a Parliamentary setup is far more efficient than the mess we have. Gotta start somewhere, sometime, to effect repairs. Today would be fine with me.

The filibuster rules are fine just the way they are.

I suspect that January 2011 will be gut-check time for the Senate Dems. If, as is likely, they start the year with a majority, but less than 60, the Goopers will have a de facto veto on everything. So, if the Dems want to pass anything, they will have to amend the rules to provide for a lowered cloture bar (maybe along the lines of the Harkin proposal–57, then 54, then 51 at 3-day intervals). They will have unassailable grounds (not that they won’t be) for doing so, since the Repubs, if given the opportunity, will vote en masse against everything for the balance of the coming year. Even based on what in 09, a compelling case has been made for preventing the minority from having a veto.

The next question will be, where do the Dems set the bar? Will they allow a little headroom between their numerical count and their cloture threshold? Or will they continue to enable the likes of Nelson and the 3Ls to hold everything hostage?
Time will tell. But how this plays out will answer definitively whether the Dems wish to be the a party of governance or not.
One other thing: this cycle is a great opportunity to flush a few wet Dems such as Lincoln and Reid, in order the STRENGTHEN the case for a sub-60 cloture threshold. If you can move the center of gravity of the Dem caucus to the left, you can actually INCREASE its ability to function effectively.

Of course there is a dysfunction between this and the hyperbole about Rahm abounding on this site. Clearly there was a a 50+ for public option in the Senate which was killed at 59+ by Lieberman who should have been defeated in his “independent” run for the senate but for the bad judgement of some on this site who allowed Lieberman to portray Lamont as an extremist. What a quirk that Lieberman killed the public option and instead of blaming Lieberman, this site now blames Obama and Rahm. Give JH her own TV show and get on with it.

Blaming Lieberman’s election in 2006 on FDL is almost as whacky as blaming Lieberman for the health care bill that Obama will sign. Almost.

I guess and it would only be a guess that you call youself Old Fat Guy for some reason. I would respectfully suggest that to blame Obama instead of Lieberman for the non passage of the public option is bizzare. Juist like the bizzare behavior exhibited by some associated with this site in the context of the Lieberman/Lamont elections.

I am truly amazed at the witless comments amount the Senate being so unfair due to differences in state populations (that’s where the House is in effect). Based on the 1790 census of the 13 original states Virginia had almost 13X the population of Delaware — it was fair then and continues to be fair in the 21st century because the Senate is supposed to be the counterbalance to the more progessively/will of the people House of Representatives so that wild, hairbrained ideas get equal scrutiny of the equalized Senate. In other words, an effective check on larger states running roughshod over smaller states. I am a staunch Republican but I can see no evil worse than what the Dems did to Robert Bork an his Supreme Court nomination — which I consider the start of the modern era of the filibuster as a weapon of mass destruction in the Senate –WORKS BOTH WAYS !!

Yes, I use the name for a reason. I’m male, I’m well past 40 years of age, and I’m overweight.

And I would just as respectfully suggest that letting Obama off the hook for this health care bill is bizarre given the deals he made with PHARMA and the health insurance industry prevented real reform in the first place, and led to his administration opposing things like the Public Option, and reimporting of drugs.

IMO, and in the opinion of Senator Russ Feingold, Obama got the health care bill he wanted. And it is not a bill that I want. And I don’t give a rat’s ass what Lieberman wants or doesn’t want, because as this thread shows, we never needed his vote anyway.

Staunch Republican that believes the President can do whatever he wants. Authoritarianism. Big shocker there from a staunch republican.

Authoritarianism, however, most certainly isn’t what those forefathers had in mind, however. In fact, they rebelled against a King.

Have a great day. And good luck with that whole torture thing if it should happen to you.

Bork was a complete and total nutcase, as was anyone who was willing to vote to confirm him. Too bad there wasn’t enough brainpower in the Senate to keep Roberts and Alito off the bench as well. It shouldn’t take a filibuster, only the power of rational thought — something the Senate never has enough of.

Hey OFG, let it be said, right. Obama caused Lieberman to cancel out the public option and expanding Medicare. Now for the Pharmacy companies, consider engaging in a little civil disobedience and some well thought out lawsuits, the intelligentia can use the Internet. But this absolutely bizzare assertion advanced on this site that Obama wanted Lieberman to oppose the public option is way over the top.

Well, if you really want to fix things, let’s get rid of the goddamned Senate altogether. Or else neuter it like the House of Lords. It is an unnecessary, undemocratic concession to ‘states rights’ with no place in the 21st Century.

I agree that something must change,senators and congressmen need to fear something other than fear of losing the next election. If that is what comprises their souls, then all is lost. This democracy was a good idea, a republican form of government and the bill of rights were good improvements on how humanity can advance. Now we need something that is even bigger than the corporate/government structure.
People are naturally conservative by nature. Careful, cautious even timid (Obama), that does not make anybody a political conservative. This is the type of bullshit that conservatives pass off as truth.
A cloture debate does not really identify what is not a debate, but a struggle.
But, I also think political goals are not my concern. The struggle is bigger than anyone’s puny politics, people need to grow up and be human beings and not to keep pretending t … Even politically, how long can Obama sit at the same table with establishment mobsters in and out of government? What can he say to me, after Afghanistan that will convince me to vote for him or even to vote at all? What does cloture have to do with that? And what does it have to do with the SCOTUS that is hopelessly mired in feudalism and sanctions fascism?
I believe the battles over HCR, economic reform, immigration reform and gay rights are part of a greater struggle where one group of people(conservatives) is pitted against the improvement of humanity. People who are against this improvement are able to circumscribe their human gift of thought because of capricious notions based on sentimental wishful thinking and selfish garbage. That includes the ones who compromised on the latest HCR bill and voted yes. The ethic contained in the Golden Rule is universal to all beliefs, even non belief, yet rejected by conservatives who are bent on preserving a feudal ethos.
The HCR bill and upcoming energy, climate and immigration issues as well as civil rights for gays, assumes that a compromise is possible in this struggle. Compromise is not possible with uncompromising denial.
What progressives need to do is make this struggle clear to themselves and others, or their goals will not be clear goals. They have to move on; the struggle will attract a leader, if it deserves one.
Being aware of the repetition of history means nothing because ”I told you so” does not produce change. That is why people neglect the lessons of history.
Saying that you do believe in any bill or don’t believe in it, is beside the point when these issues are part of humanity’s struggle.
If the US is about democracy coupled with a republican form of government, then these issues need to be the central focus and not a source of peripheral comment or criticism. We progressives are avoiding this specific initiative in favor of arguing about who is right or wrong an any issue. That just copies conservatives and their absurd sense of symmetry indicating a balance of ideas between left and right.
Conservatives, who signed on to The United States Constitution, have been trying to renege on that agreement ever since the founding of The United States .
Coupled with sentimental fantasies that characterize all ignorant points of view, they demand respect for this claptrap after it is patiently addressed over and over to the detriment of progress. It does not mean that willful ignorance and refusal to accept change deserves respect.
The ‘return the constitution to the store policy’ may include sympathy but… a political system that seeks compromise with these types of cynical protests is itself compromised.
//////////

The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

The American voter must IMPOSE term limits by NEVER REELECTING ANYONE IN CONGRESS, AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION! In other words, don’t let anyone serve more than one term. That’s the only way to teach them that the voter is boss! The “one term limit” can be eased AFTER citizens get control of Congress.

Congress will never allow us to constitutionally term limit them by an amendment. Our only choice is to NEVER REELECT them. All of them!

The number of ‘good guys’ left in Congress is negligible, so if we threw ALL 535 members out, we wouldn’t do as much damage as the good we would gain by by turning Congress into a bunch of honest, innocent freshmen.

Some of the reasons in favor of this approach:

• It gives us a one-term-limited Congress without using an amendment
• It encourages ordinary citizens to run for Congress
• It is supported by 70% of the country (see Rasmussen and Cato polls)
• It is completely nonpartisan
• If repeated, it ends career politicians in Congress
• It opens the way to a “citizen Congress” of guys like you and me
* It would open a torrent of fresh ideas to improve our government
• It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
• It doesn’t cost money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
• It takes effect immediately on Election Day
• It is the only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to “Throw the Bums Out”
• When the ‘pros’ stop running, ordinary citizens will run and win
• If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually,without a doubt.

NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
Email nels96@gmail.com for your free NEVER REELECT bumper sticker

The Senate is constitutionally a nondemocratic body. Each Senator represents a different number of people via the state they come from.

Thus, it is possible for Senators representing states with 18% and some change of American people to comprise 51 votes in the Senate and to prevail over 82% minus some change of the population.

The filibuster ups this to some 38%, which is still not a majority but is better than 18%.

The next time a bill restricting abortions passes the Senate with 55 votes representing 30% of the population, you all are going to scream bloody fucking murder demanding a return of the filibuster.

SItuationally driven grasps at structural solutions that stand ignorant of the nature of the structure involved are destined to crank out crappy results.

thanks for the insight because like it or not, our governmental procedures may not be liked by certain groups on certain issues — but as the old saying goes –”not perfect, but the best of all that is out there”

The next time the Republicans have 55 Senators they SHOULD be able to legislate, and, since no bill becomes law without passing BOTH houses, there’s still the House that would have to go along with that “what-if” scenario you describe.

So, no, I won’t be screaming for a return of the filibuster if that happens. The Constitution is very clear on what votes in the Senate require supermajorities, and passing a single bill IS NOT one of them.

Plus, IMO, ending the filibuster will have the added advantage of making the House, which is democratically represented, more relevant. Right now, the only bills that become law are those that can get 60% Senate support, making the House almost entirely irrelevant.

Should we schedule a call-in day and protests to end the filibuster?

“In my lifetime that 60 vote requirement is used almost entirely to protect entrenched financial interests. The filibuster can’t be used, for example, to stop TARP, to ensure liberal appointments within the Obama administration, pass decent health care reform, you get the picture…the filibuster can be used to weaken and corrupt every decent progressive notion out there, whether its the public option or cap and trade.”

I agree. The filibuster is not really the PROBLEM, the filibuster is primarily the EXCUSE. The Democratic Party–the same party that rolls over and doesn’t filibuster when the Republicans are the majority– is the PROBLEM.

So, in this Dem majority Congress, removing the filibuster removes ONE excuse.

I wouldn’t be so quick to give Ezra Klein any credit at this point. His whole MO with the HC Bill has been to displace blame onto “Congress”–which is just Dem shill code for “Republican Party of No”– and off of the Bam administration and the failing Democratic Party that spawned it.

Ezra Klein may say “blue dog” once in a while, but his whole HC reform position was corporatist right from the start–which makes him the future of the Republican Party.

There’s no question that we’re seeing the inherent authoritarianism of upper middle class (so-called) “liberals” coming of age.

Cute, ain’t it?