Supermajorities don't (and shouldn't) define the Senate

[ProSense]

Supermajorities don't (and shouldn't) define the Senate

By Steve Benen

We don't yet know exactly why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave up on ambitious reforms of filibuster rules...Whatever the reasoning, however, it's important that folks understand that when Reid says protecting the filibuster is necessary to keep the Senate from being like the House, he's wrong.

"I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid (D-Nev.) told me this morning, referring to the number of votes needed to halt a filibuster. "With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn't and shouldn't be like the House."

I get the argument -- the rambunctious House operates by majority rule, while the staid and serious Senate seeks consensus by requiring supermajorities for everything. Without the filibuster, the Senate is little more than a smaller version of House.

Except, this just isn't true, and Reid's explanation rings hollow. If his principal concern is with "the history of the Senate," he should be more inclined to pursue real filibuster reform, not less.

<...>

The Founding Fathers considered making the Senate a supermajority chamber, but they decided against it. As we noted on the show last month: "They rejected that big time."

"In a Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote that a super majority Congress would in practice serve to, quote, 'embarrass the administration, destroy the energy of government, and substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.'"

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682208-supermajorities-dont-and-shouldnt-define-the-senate

[PoliticAverse]

1. "I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold,"

Indeed every bill needs a 60-vote super-majority now and, in the final analysis,
Reid is happy with that.

[ProSense]

2. Yeah, whatever happened to doing what's best for the country? In any case,

Democrats are lining up to justify Reid's move

<...>

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) was pleased that the deal looks like the proposal he put forth to avoid enacting further-reaching reforms with 51-votes.

“Look, we just can’t have a situation in the Senate where the majority can decide what the rules are at any time,” Levin told reporters. “Those aren’t rules. … That just becomes like the House of Representatives. So we avoided using a nuclear option which, I guarantee you, would’ve led to a meltdown in the Senate. It would’ve made the gridlock we’ve seen so far look like a Sunday school picnic.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said the package would make the Senate more efficient.

“I think these are useful efficiency measures that will allow the work of the Senate to proceed more quickly and more deliberately,” she said. “But it does fall short of the real reform I was hoping for.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said he believes the deal will make it harder for senators to place secret holds on legislation. “I am with my colleague, Jeff Merkley, on the substance,” he told TPM. “But I think Senator Reid has done a very significant bit of reform.”

- more -

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/dems-rally-around-reids-scaled-back-filibuster-deal.php