The Procedural Filibuster

[Balta1701]

Yea, and we're probably going to be looking at the same #'s for Obama. You just don't hear about crap unless it's controversial. What about Hamilton who just got nominated? Just another example.

here is the actual data, which of course disagrees.

Consider, for example, the judicial nominations process during President George W. Bush's last two years in office, 2007 and 2008. Bush was deeply unpopular at the time, and he faced a Senate firmly under Democratic control. Still, a large number of Bush nominees sailed through. The Senate voted on more than one-third of Bush's confirmed nominees (26 of 68) less than three months after the president nominated them. This was possible because Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moved uncontroversial Bush nominees directly to votes on the Senate floor after they cleared the Senate judiciary committee. Twenty-three of the Bush nominees were confirmed on the Senate floor within a week of passing out of the judiciary committee. The story was similar in the first two years of Bush's presidency: A Democratic majority in Congress confirmed 100 of Bush's nominees in 17 months, even after delays due to a change in party control of the Sen. after Senator James Jeffords left the Republican Party in May 2001.

 

One might expect that Obama would have a much easier time getting his nominees confirmed than Bush. After all, Obama remains popular, and his party controls a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate. And Obama has been exceedingly careful in his judicial picks. His team is searching high and low for nominees who fit the bill as consensus candidates: so much so that his pace for judicial nominations, of 22 so far, is far behind Bush's.

 

Despite all this, Senate Republicans still won't give Obama's judges a vote. The three Obama judges confirmed to the lower courts—Gerard Lynch* from New York and Jeffrey Viken from South Dakota in addition to Lange—each spent weeks pending on the Senate floor and endured a confirmation process that lasted more than three months. Two additional nominees, Andre Davis of Maryland and David Hamilton of Indiana, cleared the Senate judiciary committee way back on June 4—144 days ago. Yet their floor votes are still pending.

 

Davis and Hamilton have spent longer in this particular form of limbo than any Bush nominee confirmed from 2007-08. Yet Davis cleared the judiciary committee by a bipartisan vote of 16-3 and can't remotely be considered controversial. Hamilton has the strong support of his home state Republican senator, Richard Lugar. Beverly Martin, an appeals court nominee supported by Georgia's two conservative Republican senators, was unanimously reported out of the Senate judiciary committee by a voice vote more than 46 days ago. She, too, has not received a Senate floor vote. Five other Obama nominees, all well-qualified and without any serious opposition, similarly await floor action.

The classic example of how IOKIYAR is 1993. Prior to that year, in general a judge would only be blocked if both of the Senators from the state in question agreed to do so. Then, suddenly, for some reason, in 1993 Orrin Hatch decided that it would only take 1 Senator from a state to block a judge. In 2001, the home state veto that had been easier to use during the clinton years totally vanished and couldn't be used at all.

[DukeNukeEm]

Simple majority to bring a bill to the floor. Problem solved.

[Balta1701]

Simple majority to bring a bill to the floor. Problem solved.

How does that solve the problem? Every trick, holds, filibusters, is still in play on the way out of the Senate.

[DukeNukeEm]

How does that solve the problem? Every trick, holds, filibusters, is still in play on the way out of the Senate.

If a majority is required to bring a bill to the floor, it would make sense if that majority would oppose discussing any other bill. Trying to filibuster would effectively shut down the Senate. Makes the person filibustering look really bad.

[longshot7]

If the Minority wants to filibuster, they should have to maintain their membership on the floor and shut down the rest of the Senate in the process.

 

Agreed. let them read the phone book for hours on end.

[kapkomet]

Agreed. let them read the phone book for hours on end.

Like I said, of course it's ok from 2006-2008. Or whenever there's a Republican president.

[Balta1701]

Like I said, of course it's ok from 2006-2008. Or whenever there's a Republican president.

Who do you think was doing the Filibustering from 2006-2008?

[bmags]

Who do you think was doing the Filibustering from 2006-2008?

hahaha

[kapkomet]

Who do you think was doing the Filibustering from 2006-2008?

Do you miss the point on purpose? I think so.

 

[Balta1701]

Do you miss the point on purpose? I think so.

I think you're missing the point...2006-2008 it was your guys doing the filibustering to prevent the President from having to use his veto pen.

[kapkomet]

I think you're missing the point...2006-2008 it was your guys doing the filibustering to prevent the President from having to use his veto pen.

So in that case, it didn't stop anything that wasn't going to be stopped anyway. So what.

 

In 2009, it's used to stop things that should have a lot more debate to it then a simple majority getting shoved up our ass.

 

[Balta1701]

In 2009, it's used to stop things that should have a lot more debate to it then a simple majority getting shoved up our ass.

Because this health care debate...that hasn't gone on NEARLY long enough!

[kapkomet]

Because this health care debate...that hasn't gone on NEARLY long enough!

It hasn't. I hope it takes the next three years.

 

[bmags]

from Yglesias:

 

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...ster-is-bad.php

 

At the end of the day the main problem with a supermajority requirement has little to do with specific partisan or ideological concerns. One simply needs to note that bicameralism, plus an independently elected president, plus the congressional committee syste, plus a fairly robust system of federalism, plus a fairly robust institution of judicial review constitutes a political system that already has a ton of veto points. The main aggregate impact of all this piling-on of veto points upon veto points is to make it easier than it should be for interest groups to block broad-view reforms.*

[kapkomet]

By the way, I've not once said that I'm for the filibuster rules as they are. I'm just saying that everyone wants to play like their side is better, and they're not.

[StrangeSox]

Except some times they are, like in this case, because Republicans have taken this tactic into overdrive.

 

Stop playing the "everything is always equal, therefore all criticism is invalid" card.

[kapkomet]

Except some times they are, like in this case, because Republicans have taken this tactic into overdrive.

 

Stop playing the "everything is always equal, therefore all criticism is invalid" card.

And they should. Largest spending Congress in the history of the United States, largest government entitlements in the history of the United States, some of the largest punative corporate measures in the history of the United States, but they should just stop the tactics that the other party has used in the past when it suited them just fine to do so. Right. And in a lot of cases, the majority of the American people don't want these POS bills as written. They want a form of some of them, but definitely not as written. But I'm sure the polls (leaning questions that get you the responses Congress wants) tell you otherwise, right?

 

The difference is now it's in the open that Congress uses this; in the past it was the threat they would use it.

[Balta1701]

some of the largest punative corporate measures in the history of the United States

If we pile enough money on top of the banks...the weight of the money will squeeze on top of them and that will make them truly suffer. Now that's punishment.

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, I've not once said that I'm for the filibuster rules as they are. I'm just saying that everyone wants to play like their side is better, and they're not.

Stop with the "everyone". Hasn't been true yet, doesn't get more true even if you keep saying it.

 

[kapkomet]

Stop with the "everyone". Hasn't been true yet, doesn't get more true even if you keep saying it.

Well, there's a lot. You're right, not "EVERYONE", but most folks like to play this game.

[Texsox]

By the way, I've not once said that I'm for the filibuster rules as they are. I'm just saying that everyone wants to play like their side is better, and they're not.

 

I agree with what I believe Kap means. "Everyone" is in this case seems to be just about everyone. I have seen too many people that seemingly have wanted the country to fail, to prove that the other guy sucked. And it flipped about a year ago from Dems to GOPs.

[StrangeSox]

it's ok to break congress if it suits your politics, i guess.

[kapkomet]

it's ok to break congress if it suits your politics, i guess.

That's right. No matter what party you are.

[Rex Kickass]

I just think that a procedural filibuster should have a lower threshhold to break - say 55 votes or so.

 

If you wanna keep it for 60 for actual non-stop bloviating, I'm all for it. I just don't think someone should be able to shout FILIBUSTER and we have to move on

[Rex Kickass]

If a majority is required to bring a bill to the floor, it would make sense if that majority would oppose discussing any other bill. Trying to filibuster would effectively shut down the Senate. Makes the person filibustering look really bad.

 

I think its sort of the point. It makes using what is essentially a nuclear option in itself much more an option of last resort. When the filibuster is used as intended, its essentially a game of legislative chicken. Who can hold out longer, the senator or senators bringing the nation's business to a stop, or the majority leader and his party refusing to move on to other business until the opposition senator or senators shut up and let the bill come to a vote.

 

There are risks on both sides to essentially an in-house shutdown.