| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems' filibuster days a distant memory |
| 2010-02-19 |
| In the wake of Republican Scott Brown's election to the Senate in January, Democrats and liberal-leaning pundits began to grumble, yet again, about the need to eliminate the filibuster in order to accomplish anything on Obama's agenda. Claiming Republican obstructionism is at all-time highs and the watered-down healthcare reform bill is of historic importance, many people are calling for an end to the historic tradition of unlimited debate in the upper chamber. Those people are as idiotic as the memory-less goldfish in Little Plastic Castle, for whom the titular castle is "a surprise every time". It wasn't that long ago that the obstructionist shoe was on the other foot: Republicans were, rather recently, in control of both chambers of the legislature and the executive branch, and had a strong urge and a supposed public mandate to change the country in their ideological image. What stopped them from eliminating the estate tax, passing a gay marriage amendment and confirming some judicial nominees liberals deemed more likely to make decisions based on ideology than law and legal precedent (among other liberal causes)? The filibuster -- and the threat thereof. For instance, in 2005, after much gnashing of teeth and several other successful filibusters by Democrats, Republicans threatened to push through the so-called "nuclear option" to end Democratic filibusters of several judicial appointments -- one reason currently cited by Democrats for wanting to eliminate the filibuster in 2010. According to Republicans, the public wanted an end to the filibuster -- an argument made by retiring Senator Evan Bayh -- and the use of the filibuster and threats thereof by Democrats was unprecedented. Instead, a group of 14 bipartisan Senators brokered a deal among themselves to bring some more moderate-seeming candidates to a vote and reject others and the "nuclear option", ending that effort to eliminate the filibuster. Where were today's liberal opponents of the filibuster then? The vice-president, Joe Biden, who today claims he's never seen a time when cloture votes were necessary to pass legislation through the Senate, was voting against cloture. So were Even Bayh, and Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin, all of whom are fans of ending the filibuster today, when it makes passing their legislation more difficult. The fact of the matter is that a filibuster doesn't end a bill's chances -- a fact Harry Reid well knows, after he forced Republicans to actively engage in a filibuster in 2007 and then passed the legislation anyway. In fact, Reid knows that Republicans don't even have to talk all night to have a filibuster -- they need only stay up all night on the floor and demand a quorum call to prove the presence of a regular majority of the Senate when no one is speaking about the legislation at hand. Republicans could work in shifts for a period of time to force the Senate to make sure a quorum was present in order to all the chair to call for a vote but, eventually, they'd either just look foolish and stop, or slip up, or find themselves with a quorum when they called for one. The fact that Reid (and, apparently, the White House, which loves the veneer of bipartisanship for increasingly opaque reasons) isn't willing to take the Republicans up on their threats isn't a problem with the filibuster, but with Reid's intestinal fortitude and unwillingness to sacrifice a chuck of the Senate's time to ride it out. If the watered-down healthcare bill was really that historic -- and the grumbling about the filibuster more than just political posturing -- then it would seem worth it, even to the minimally attentive American public. The fact that riding out a filibuster on healthcare isn't important to Reid when riding out one on Iraq war funding was, less than three years ago, says a great deal about how important the legislation is to Democrats, and even more about how they plan to position their lack of substantive policy actions in November. Commentators like Ezra Klein of the Washington Post have argued that getting rid of the filibuster is the "right" thing to do, because rolling back gay rights, repealing taxes willy-nilly and installing ideological demagogues in lifetime judicial appointments is more democratic-minded than allowing the minority party any right to determine their country's policy agenda. I'd rather let a healthcare reform bill that lacks too much in the way of reform (and a great deal of popular support) fall by the wayside than a Senate rule that meant my friends in same-sex relationships might someday be able to enjoy the federal benefits of marriage. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 I suspect that they will change their mind on the filibuster after November. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-02-19 18:09 |