How the tables have turned. Just five years ago, when chatter about a “permanent Republican majority” was still on the lips of hopeful pundits, Ann Coulter was hailing the prospect of abolishing the filibuster as the common-sense “constitutional option” — and Bill Frist nearly exercised it in the name of passing a few judges. The evil Gang of 14, filled with evil RINOs — John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham — did something very evil and preserved established historical rule. Most pundits identifying themselves with “the base” lambasted this decision, but prudent commentators praised them: we might be in the minority again soon, and this is a power we might want.
Well, we are in the minority again, and it is a power we want. If we’d exercised that option back then — just a few years back, with the very same members of the Senate we’re counting on now — what could we say? “Do as I say, not as I do”? “The filibuster for me, but not for thee”?
Thank goodness for RINOs like McCain, Snowe, and Graham. We owe them a lot of thanks right now for their foresight.
16 responses so far
1 joemarier // Jan 21, 2010 at 9:18 am
They were only talking about abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees, on the principle that providing advice and consent on judicial nominees is a constitutional function not unlike passing a budget (where the Senate rules are waived under reconciliation), and constitutional functions trump Senate rules.
But, since it’s preserved, I’m sure we’ll be able to keep the Republican coalition together on judicial filibusters!
Sincerely, the Queen of Sheba.
2 mlindroo // Jan 21, 2010 at 9:56 am
> They were only talking about abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees,
> on the principle that providing advice and consent on judicial nominees is a
> constitutional function not unlike passing a budget (where the Senate rules
> are waived under reconciliation), and constitutional functions trump Senate rules.
In retrospect, the Dems would have been wise to let the Republicans pass a few right-wing judges in return for a deal that would have severely restricted the use of the filibuster, starting in 2015 or some other “neutral” date a decade from now…
It’s not good if the minority party can block just about any reform as long as they have 40 votes in the Senate (which, BTW, is sufficiently undemocratic even without the filibuster…). The filibuster has been increasingly abused since the mid-1990s. It would surely be better if whatever political party is in charge actually is free to implement its ideas, as long as the opposition can easily repeal the unpopular stuff after winning the next election.
MARCU$
3 WillyP // Jan 21, 2010 at 10:38 am
Yes, this article contains untruthful revisionist history.
I remember distinctly that the abolishing of the filibuster was proposed only for judicial nominees. Conservatives would not think of outlawing the general parliamentary filibuster. Nobody would have supported that outside the ignoramuses.
4 Kanzeon // Jan 21, 2010 at 11:56 am
Even more important than the fact that the deal was brokered solely for judicial filibusters, is the fact that a deal was brokered.
Both sides made concessions. The Republicans had their picks go to the floor. The Democrats agreed to limitations on the filibuster. The Senators who brokered the deal agreed to run interference.
Here is a chart outlining use of the filibuster:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/18218.html
Are the parties going to do anything to bring the use of the filibuster down to traditional levels? Can we count on the RINOS and the DINOS to save the institution?
5 Kanzeon // Jan 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm
WillyP:
“Nobody would have supported that outside the ignoramuses.”
Always a pleasure to read your open-minded posts.
6 WillyP // Jan 21, 2010 at 12:07 pm
OK Kanzeon,
What non-ignorant political group would support an outright ban on the use of filibuster? The use of filibuster, if I had to conjecture, probably dates back a thousand years, or more.
Therefore, unless someone lacked all historical sense knowledge of practical politics – an ignoramus – they would never realistically call for a ban.
Hence, my original concern – that the post was misleading, and distorted actual history… or, untruthfully revisionist.
7 WillyP // Jan 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm
explaining myself to you is like explaining myself to a young child. yet, you cannot possibly misinterpret my typically blunt opinions and beliefs to the extent suggested by your comments. or is it just that straight-talk is jarring to your liberal ears?
8 sinz54 // Jan 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm
mlindroo:
In fact, such a proposal has now come up on some of the lefty blogs:
Abolish the filibuster to get health care reform passed, with the understanding that Republicans might control the Senate again someday and we would get some more right-wing judges on the Supreme Court and other courts.
Health care reform in exchange for Chief Justice Ann Coulter.
That’s a price that some liberals said they’re willing to pay–which tells you how much they want that health care reform passed.
9 WillyP // Jan 21, 2010 at 12:35 pm
sinz, good point!
10 Kanzeon // Jan 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm
WillyP:
The filibuster dates back to Rome. But can find no evidence that it is used extensively (or at all) in governments throughout the world. It is only a factor in politics in the US and UK. In fact, a quick google doesn’t turn up any references to use of the filibuster in Europe, outside of the UK and France. The first real filibuster in the US was in 1830, long after the founding. It’s something I’ve never looked into before, so I may have missed something.
There has been extensive debate on the point. There is no reason to belive that a modern government needs a filibuster. A few minutes research will reveal that people support abolishing the filibuster who are not ignoramuses and not making frivolous arguments:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021431.php
There is nothing ignorant about calling for the abolition of the filibuster. It’s just a position that you don’t share.
11 WillyP // Jan 21, 2010 at 2:28 pm
kanzeon,
Why don’t you define liberal for me. I define a a modern liberal as a statist who also favors the ideal of moral license. I tend to define myself as a modernized, classical liberal.
As for why the filibuster has a history of usage in the U.K. and U.S., that seems kind of obvious, doesn’t it? You cannot filibuster a King. And although I have not (and will not) research the historical instances of filibustering, remember that it is an idea before it is a word – indicative of stalling legislation by parliamentary maneuver. Just because it has not been called a “filibuster” and does not have the technical aspect connoted by the modern word, does not mean that tactics have not been used throughout history under different governmental structures.
Finally, from your linked article
“Lieberman, of course, is a shell of his former self, and now embraces the tactic he once denounced. ”
See? Do you think any politician has a serious problem with filibustering when it is for their cause? Of course not. It’s clear that both sides embrace the filibuster when opportunistic, and throughout American history, have indeed.
Finally, the reason Conservatives were outraged at Democrats way back when is because they used filibuster to stall voting on judicial NOMINEES. In other words, delay appointments until after the election so that the President could not put ideological allies on the court. This seems to me unconstitutional. The President has an express duty to nominate people to the bench, and the Senate can inform, and ultimately vote up or down – they cannot refuse to vote. THAT procedure was UNPRECEDENTED. I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand.
12 Kanzeon // Jan 21, 2010 at 2:43 pm
WillyP
“I define a a modern liberal as a statist who also favors the ideal of moral license.”
Is there anyone else on planet earth that accepts your definition? Words have meanings other than the ones you make up as you go along.
13 balconesfault // Jan 21, 2010 at 2:44 pm
THAT procedure was UNPRECEDENTED.
Tell that to Abe Fortas.
14 Kanzeon // Jan 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm
WillyP:
I guess you can’t use the google, the bing, the dictionary, the wikiepdia, the ask, the yahoo, or the library in a discussion. You can only use the-make-stuff-up-as-I-go-and-be-a-petty-whiner-when-challenged. For brevity, let’s call that “the Willy.”
At least we can agree on ONE term.
15 WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:04 am
Fine – I admit it: I’m a hack.
But at least I’m not a shill for a president who is destroying the country.
16 kevin47 // Jan 22, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“I remember distinctly that the abolishing of the filibuster was proposed only for judicial nominees. ”
It was pretty ill-defined, insofar as it was primarily a negotiating tactic to get Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown to the bench. I don’t think it was given consideration. I think McCain did some fine work in building a path to the nominations of Roberts and Alito, which was the focus more-so than preserving the filibuster.
I still disagree that judicial nominees (or political appointments generally) should be subject to filibuster, though I favor the filibuster’s existence and use in other instances.
You must log in to post a comment.