More filibuster

Here's what Sen. Kent Conrad told The Young Turks:

Yeah, I think there’s a growing consensus that we ought to [require official filibusters]. And let me be clear, I’m not saying we don’t have an ability to speak out. Clearly we do....The leader has had to file cloture now over 40 times already this year. And cloture, as you know, is a special procedure to stop debate, to stop filibusters, in order to reach conclusion on legislation. I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don’t intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster.

I think there are great argument for eliminating the filibuster altogether (it turns out I think there are great arguments for a lot of wildly impossible things). But if this sort of thinking is really what's animating Republican obstructionism, and they readily admit this in private, then it should be investigated as if it were an abuse of office. The point of blocking legislation, if you're a senator, should be to impede what you consider to be a bad piece of legislation. It shouldn't be that you're worried about the political success your opponents might reap from it. In a better functioning Senate, Kent Conrad would say who this Republican colleague is, and that colleague would be called to testify before Feinstein's Rules committee to answer questions about who's leading the obstruction racket, and whether its motivations have to do exclusively with elections.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

I'm ready to signup for new Rules in the next Congress that reign-in fiibusters. The rules are not laws, and not subject to executive veto.

For starters, no filibusters on procedural motions (like a motion to proceed to consideration of a bill).

The Senate is structured to give smaller states a way to not be railroaded by larger states. The filibuster was added to the Senate rules to preserve the right of a minority to not be gagged and rushed to a vote. I'd give them some minimum amount of time on substantative bills to make their point if they won't consent to unamimous consent to cut off debate - and perhaps a maximum that is larger if they get some percentage of votes to extend debate (1/3 or 2/5ths).

On appointment consent, that's a harder issue regarding filibusters. Perhaps saying that all key appointments require 2/3 (the amount for a veto override) would give the Senate a veto as well, but only for a certain group of appointments (SCOTUS, Courts of Appeal, Cabinet and Sub-Cabinet, etc., but not for regular federal court appointments. Or, more creatively, perhaps all new first-level judicial appointments would be approved for only four years, and then be required to obtain re-consent with a higher majority.

It is time to readjust certain of the balances to reflect that political party loyalty votes are now routine (and were not really considered likely by the founders), and minority rights versus the ability to govern needs a new balance.

There's some danger in this that we become subject to short-term but wide swings in political conservative/liberal preference, but I'm not prepared to say the British have it wrong in now being more democratic than is the US.