More on Filibuster Reform
4/6/12 12:57![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWe talked about the filibuster a couple weeks ago, and one small thread in particular got me a little more than the others. There was an accusation that Reid was buckling on "the mere threat" of filibusters, and one question that I had remained somewhat unanswered: "how many filibusters have the Republicans actually followed through on at this point? Isn't Reid just preemptively calling for cloture here?"
I had some suspicions, and it sounds like my suspicions may have been somewhat warranted:
Now, I'm more than willing to hear how this is wrong, how these writers have the procedures all wrong, but assuming they're right, what does this tell us about the system itself? Is it the filibusters that are the problem, or is it the exploitation of Senate Rule 14 that's actually the problem here?
I had some suspicions, and it sounds like my suspicions may have been somewhat warranted:
So Republicans are to blame for all those cloture petitions to end filibusters, right? Wrong. The fact that the majority has filed so many cloture petitions is as much a symptom of its own efforts to block the Senate from working its will as anything the minority has done. Consider this example.
On March 19, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation (S. 2204) to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers. The normal process would have been for this legislation to be referred to committee for action.
Majority Leader Harry Reid bypassed the committee process, however, and using something called Rule 14 had the bill placed directly on the Senate calendar. Two days later, he started the process to call up the bill by moving to "proceed to it" and immediately filed a cloture petition to end debate on that motion.
The following Monday, the Senate then voted 92-4 to curtail debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The next day, as soon as the bill was before the Senate, Mr. Reid offered five consecutive amendments and one motion in order to effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions.
He then filed a cloture motion to close out debate on the bill. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture on a party-line vote and moved on to other business, leaving the Menendez bill adrift.
Now go back to the Politico story and ask yourself how exactly Republicans filibustered this bill?
Now, I'm more than willing to hear how this is wrong, how these writers have the procedures all wrong, but assuming they're right, what does this tell us about the system itself? Is it the filibusters that are the problem, or is it the exploitation of Senate Rule 14 that's actually the problem here?
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 17:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 17:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 17:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 17:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 19:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 18:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 18:55 (UTC)Senate Rule 14: No Senate bill, other than a Senate supplementary appropriation bill, and no Senate joint resolution shall be introduced in the Senate after the forty-first day of a regular session unless permission to introduce the bill or the joint resolution be given by a Senate resolution, setting out the title to the bill or the joint resolution and adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate members present. When permission is requested to introduce a bill or joint resolution under the provisions of this rule, quadruplicate copies of the bill or the joint resolution shall accompany the resolution when introduced.
A standing committee of the Senate may originate a bill or resolution and report the same after the forty-first day.
The forty-first day of the regular session held in the year one thousand nine hundred seventy-seven and every fourth year thereafter shall be computed from and include the second Wednesday of February of such years.
So basically, because the bill included a tax, it was brought directly to the floor.
What would have happened if it had gone to committee? It might have died. But if it hadn't, the process is exactly the same. The Senate considers Amendments. Eventually a vote is held.
Thomas does give a slightly different record of events. 51 Amendments were introduced (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d112:./temp/~bdar9m1:1[1-51]%28Amendments_For_S.2204%29&./temp/~bdTB8t|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|). And the final Amendment has Vitters requesting the floor for the remainder of the 112th Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r112:3:./temp/~r11268qUYH::).
Now a filibuster isn't a thing that you invoke. A filibuster is taking the floor without stopping. If Vitters doesn't yield the remainder of his time to the Senate, it's a filibuster. To move forward, either Republicans give back the floor or cloture must be invoked. It doesn't have to be a big to-do. Cloture can and should usually be quick process. They're not talking. They forgot the procedural gimmick to move things along, but we can still do it.
Republicans admitted it was a filibuster by refusing to vote for the cloture ruling. There's nothing preventing them from voting for a cloture ruling, even if Reid is jumping the gun.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 19:37 (UTC)lolz forever.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:32 (UTC)I may have linked to the wrong one, it's possible.
Republicans admitted it was a filibuster by refusing to vote for the cloture ruling. There's nothing preventing them from voting for a cloture ruling, even if Reid is jumping the gun.
See, you said this before, and I get it procedurally, but I don't see how it translates to action. If you don't want a bill to pass, why vote for the cloture motion? If you're not filibustering, and Reid calls for cloture anyway, why should the Republicans be called out for filibustering?
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:51 (UTC)By trying to use the cloture motion as shorthand for the bill, you are in fact requiring a supermajority for any bill to pass.
It's not the filibuster that's a problem. It's requiring a supermajority to pass bills. The filibuster just requires a supermajority because the only thing that *can* stop a filibuster is a cloture motion. That's the problem with the filibuster. The resulting cloture motion.
By refusing to yield the floor, the Republicans are stalling legislation. Refusing to yield the floor is a filibuster. Vitter took the floor, and then did nothing. He just didn't give it back. If he fully intended to give it back, then it wasn't a filibuster. But you have prove that he intended to yield the floor.
So what you're saying is that Republicans are filibustering. But it's cool because they don't want the bill to pass. So they should totally use Senate rules to stop the bill from passing, since they don't have a majority of the vote to kill the bill another way. And fine. That's a position to take.
But stop saying that it's not the filibuster. It's completely the textbook definition of a filibuster. The peeing in a bucket and reading out of the phone book is actually not required.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 21:00 (UTC)By trying to use the cloture motion as shorthand for the bill, you are in fact requiring a supermajority for any bill to pass.
I'm not actively trying to do this if this is directed at me. But parliamentary maneuvers, from objecting to unanimous consent to offering amendments, are all typical, well-established techniques to slow or stop bills.
By refusing to yield the floor, the Republicans are stalling legislation. Refusing to yield the floor is a filibuster. Vitter took the floor, and then did nothing. He just didn't give it back. If he fully intended to give it back, then it wasn't a filibuster. But you have prove that he intended to yield the floor.
Your search string for that situation didn't save after 30 minutes, so I can't figure out the specifics, but if you don't yield the floor, your time simply expires and you're out of order, no?
So what you're saying is that Republicans are filibustering. But it's cool because they don't want the bill to pass. So they should totally use Senate rules to stop the bill from passing, since they don't have a majority of the vote to kill the bill another way. And fine. That's a position to take.
What I'm saying is that it appears Reid is using cloture rather than the Republicans using the filibuster. That we never even get to the point of a filibuster, because the cloture motion is simply filed. You want to call it a filibuster simply because the Republicans are voting against cloture - the only option they're being given in order to have any input on the legislation given the filling of the amendment tree and such. I'm not sure that's right.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 22:24 (UTC)You cannot actually quantify the number of filibusters that happen. It's impossible. But that doesn't actually matter, because the complaint isn't that there are too many filibusters. It isn't that Senators are talking too much, and carbon emissions.
It's that politicians are ramping up their use of parliamentary maneuvers to require that everything needs a supermajority to pass.
Parliamentary maneuvers are meant to be used sparingly, and allowing majority rules to rule for the majority of the time.
All this handwringing is talking past the complaint. And maybe Democrats should be more specific. But I believe that Democrats are being quite clear that we're at the point we're not getting legislation done. And that parliamentary maneuvers are to blame. The filibuster is just the most well-known, which is why it becomes shorthand for the entire argument. But that isn't the lynchpin of the argument.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 22:48 (UTC)Actually, the complaint is that the Republicans are being too obstructionist because they're filibustering everything. The last post about this actually claimed to quantify that the Republicans were doing more filibusters than ever before.
It's that politicians are ramping up their use of parliamentary maneuvers to require that everything needs a supermajority to pass.
Parliamentary maneuvers are meant to be used sparingly, and allowing majority rules to rule for the majority of the time.
So when the majority is filling the amendment tree and then filing cloture repeatedly, do we then blame the minority for those actions?
But I believe that Democrats are being quite clear that we're at the point we're not getting legislation done. And that parliamentary maneuvers are to blame. The filibuster is just the most well-known, which is why it becomes shorthand for the entire argument. But that isn't the lynchpin of the argument.
The Democrats are, you're saying, blaming the Republicans for what the Democrats are doing?
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 22:53 (UTC)I mean, it would be rather underhanded. But the Republicans are the ones that are voting against the cloture motion, not the Democrats. If they want to stop the tide, all they have to do is stop voting against cloture.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 23:00 (UTC)That appears to be what's happening.
I mean, it would be rather underhanded. But the Republicans are the ones that are voting against the cloture motion, not the Democrats. If they want to stop the tide, all they have to do is stop voting against cloture.
But again, there's no reason to vote for the cloture motion, as Reid has removed all other avenues of minority influence, and then points the finger at the Republicans for "obstruction." It's a fairly deft political maneuver, for sure, but isn't it about time the blame shifts to where it belongs?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 00:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 00:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 00:55 (UTC)Yes it is - to the obstructionist Republicans who cheer at every bit of bad news about the economy while making sure that legislation can't be passed. Their tireless devotion to making Obama a one-term President while tanking the country should be punished appropriately.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 04:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:10 (UTC)The filibuster is basically shorthand for procedural roadblocks (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm).
Voting against cloture is in their best interest, but it's also a procedural roadblock. That it makes sense isn't an excuse. If Republicans were actually willing to bring bills up to a vote, they would do so even after the cloture motion failed. That's what typically happened prior to today's Congress.
Filibuster doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. So this line of argument is really pointless. If you don't want to call a filibuster a filibuster, the central complaint still exists. You like gridlock, so you don't care. But that doesn't mean that those of us who don't like procedural gridlock can't complain about it because you don't like the way we use the word filibuster, which is slang for procedural gridlock.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:23 (UTC)The minority isn't being offered that power by the President of the Senate, either, though. By the definition you're using, a simple vote against an action is a filibuster, which means the word has truly lost all real meaning.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:39 (UTC)If it's the first, it's filibustering. If it's the second, it's a simple legitimate vote.
Procedural maneuvers designed to delay an up or down vote is filibustering. It is filibustering to refuse to vote for cloture because you're worried you'll lose in the up-down vote.
Whether or not it does good, it's filibustering. That's what the word means.
Again. Filibustering can be good. But it really is a matter of degrees. Filibustering a bit to require more deliberation and compromise. Fine. Filibustering to the point that you go six weeks before a bill can pass Congress is all kinds of fucked up. If you want to debate that it's not fucked up, fine. But actually make that argument. Arguing the definition is pointless.
You've basically ignored the Senate's definition for a word we're using trying to discuss Senate procedure. How can you justify that?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 02:44 (UTC)If it's the first, it's filibustering. If it's the second, it's a simple legitimate vote.
What is it if the majority is ensuring that there's no time to consider a bill?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 08:48 (UTC)You're not sure?
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 23:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 23:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 23:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 01:20 (UTC)The mechanism has always existed, but the norms of the Senate in which procedural hangups were only brought up in extreme circumstances meant that it didn't fundamentally restrict politics.
If we went back to those cultural norms, the problem wouldn't exist.
The decision to make every bill a partisan grudgematch is the problem. Democrats knew that giving up the filibuster would be a huge loss, so they created the Gang of 14. One last hope that they could keep up those longstanding norms.
If the Senate can't act like the gentlemen they swore they'd be when they put these parliamentary roadblocks in place, they don't get nice things like the filibuster. That doesn't mean there aren't any circumstances in which they can't have them. But these are not those circumstances.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 00:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 10:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 12:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 03:14 (UTC)Make sense. The new thing that everyone does is abusing metrics to construct an argument that can't hold normally.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 07:57 (UTC)When the houses and the president are in agreement, bad things happen, laws get passed that are entirely partisan in nature and that serve the interests of the nation very poorly.
When there is "gridlock", the bills that get passed are an actual "compromise", and the interests of the nation are served *better* (although admittedly not necessarily *well*). An example I would raise would be the "debt limit" debate. Many look to that as an example of governmental dysfunction, but personally, I look at that debate and resultant deal as an example of checks and balances operating *exactly* as the founders intended, and exactly as they ultimately should. The republicans got very very minimal spending cuts through, no surprise there, but the democrats did not get to casually spend infinite money, hooray.
When that level of debate begins to impact "continuing resolutions" and "omnibus spending bills", there is some hope that a real recovery may begin.