Yes, it ought to go without saying that it is pretty rare in modern times for one party to control as many as sixty seats in the U.S. Senate. And that means that progressive solutions are impossible most of the time. A lot of what has passed during the Obama administration had progressive elements, but none of it was passed on progressive terms. The best bill was the Credit CARD Bill of 2009, which I consider to be a very solid piece of progressive legislation. The Stimulus Bill was also a solid piece of progressive legislation. Both the health care bill and the Wall Street Reforms had major progressive advances in them. But all of this legislation would have been better if the Senate only required a simply majority to pass bills.
But it’s not even that fact that really disturbs me. What disturbs me is that a president with control of 59 seats in the Senate can’t even bring up bills on pressing issues that he campaigned on, like climate change, ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and immigration reform. He can’t even get his nominees a vote.
That’s why the Senate rules need to change.
Because, for some reason, I don’t recall getting a choice in whether or not the Republicans could hold our country hostage for their political gain.
Yeah… it’s become absurd. And anti-democratic.
Besides the evident abuse of the filibuster, what’s driving me insane is that every senator has the power to put a hold on a nomination for any reason.
The last outrageous: the democrat Mary Landrieu litterally blackmailing the President of the United States, saying that she’s putting a hold on the nomination of the new budget director because she wants the President to lift the restrictions on oil drilling.
The noble idea of the “checks and balances” has been pushed much too far.
I think it is simply impossible to govern a modern media state without a parliamentary system.
Time to dust off the “Nuclear Option”.
Changing the rules will require a two-thirds vote won’t it?
That means that there needs to be 67 votes. That’s about the Democrat’s upside.
Either the Democrats win big in the Senate, or the Republicans lose so badly on their obstruction that some Senate Republicans cross over to vote for a rules change.
If the conventional wisdom is correct, we are in for two more years of gridlock at best. And you don’t want to contemplate what’s at worst.
Are you sure you don’t know enough people in Oklahoma to beat Coburn? Enough Kansans to beat Tiahrt? Enough Utahn’s to beat the Tea Party candidate? Enough Alabamans to beat Shelby? Enough Georgians to beat Isakson? Enough South Carolinians to beat DeMint? (We can deal with Greene when the Senate comes to seat him if his court case is still alive.) Enough Floridians to elect Meek. (I don’t trust Crist to align with the Democratic caucus and if he does he might be another Lieberman.) These “safe seat” Republican Senate candidates need to get a scare; otherwise, they will pursue the same “winning strategy”.
If the national Democratic committees are playing rope-a-dope, it’s getting close to time that they have to start punching. But I don’t think they are. I think that they think that they are already punching. Or they are punch drunk.
No, you only need 50 votes plus the tiebreaking VP to change the rules on the first day of a new Senate session. But even then I don’t see full filibuster reform happening, at least not at the beginning of the next cycle. Unless we run the table as you seem to think is possible, there’s still going to be enough Conservadems voting no. Some minor reforms, on the other hand, like the ending of secret holds seem possible. I also thinking changing the rules to require the ful Republican caucus (or whatever group is filibustering) to be present on the Senate floor during the entirety of the filibuster would be a good change.
My mistake. I forgot about the first day 50-vote rule. But even that rule can be changed on the first day of a new Senate session.
Run the table. Possible, not probable. Right now probable looks like 52-53 Democratic seats. But with a lot of work… and some luck. And lightning striking in some races. And a more honest media….
So if the Senate has a 52 Democratic caucus majority, that means that Lieberman, Nelson, and Landrieu defecting are all that is needed to block it.
Right, and we can assume they will. Why would they want to change the rules? They certainly don’t care about whether the Obama agenda passes, and amending the filibuster would decrease their power.
But even if we end up with, say, 56 or 57 seats, we may be just short of the actual 50 yes votes to change the rules. In addition to the obvious conservadems, I believe both Feinstein and Tester have expressed doubts about changing the filibuster in any way. My guess is that the older Senators like Akaka and Inouye of Hawaii (both of whom are, by the way, pretty useless overall IMO) are too enmeshed in the Byrd-style vision of the old Senate to want to change the rules. Rockefeller has said he’s reluctant, although he’s a bit of a unique case since he’s progressive on some issues but has strong parochial interests re: heavy industry whom he’d probably strongly support with, say, a cap-and-trade filibuster. And you never know, there might even be pushback from some of the genuinely progressive Senators who like to act like iconoclasts: Feingold (if he survives) and Sanders come to mind.
I’ve got to say, even I feel some reluctance about changing the rules. We’re not a majoritarian democracy – we never have been, weren’t designed to be, and minority rights are a really, really important consideration any time you change the rules. I don’t know if full-scale filibuster reform is the right move, but obviously its abuse is a big problem right now and something has to be done.
With all due respect, Boo, since when does Obama “control” 59 senate seats? There are 57 Democratic seats and 2 Independents but I’m pretty sure Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Joe Lieberman have never been on the president’s team. Hell, Landrieu just blocked a nominee because we won’t help her pollute the Gulf fast enough.
I agree the rules need to be changed, though, that would neutralize the aforementioned turncoats.
Maybe changing the filibuster and the rest of the pointless pomposity is no longer enough. Liberals and teabaggers might find one common cause in a drive to abolish the Senate. Sometimes there’s nothing left but to put the sick animal out of its disgusting misery.
Well, that is a nice pipe dream, but it is never going to happen. The Constitution will never again be amended; certainly not in any substantive way or through the processes that it has enshrined. Due to that fact, this country will become increasingly undemocratic and will eventually simply stop working. Excessive power is wielded by small, generally rural (and therefore red) states in both the Senate and presidential elections; as we are discovering in this election cycle, those states are essentially up for grabs by moneyed interests. For change to happen, and the US to reform its government and make it effective in the 21st century and for a population in excess of 300 million, under-represented states like California will eventually have to stage some form of revolt.