The Tyranny of the Senate Republican Minority: Confront Republican "phantom filibusters"

[Better Believe It]

The tyranny of the minority
By PETER FENN
March 19, 2009
Peter Fenn is founder of Fenn & King Communications, a Democratic political consulting firm. He worked on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was a top aide to then-Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho).


President Barack Obama has it right — there is a lot to change about Washington. The problem is, not much will get changed unless we confront the runaway filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

I remember, as a Senate page in the 1960s, the great debates on civil rights that would go on night after night. The rows of uncomfortable beds rolled in made Army barracks look luxurious. As a new Senate staffer in 1975, I also remember the heated debate over the effort to change the vote on cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 votes, to shut off debate. Most of us thought that was a good thing, changing the Senate’s Rule 22, which was adopted in 1917. We believed it would be easier to stop obstructionists from paralyzing the Senate.

Thirty years later, boy, were we wrong. I joke that you need 60 votes to rename a post office. The “phantom filibuster,” as University of Connecticut professor emeritus David RePass calls the mere threat of a filibuster, has tied the Senate in knots.

There are really three alternatives. The first is to confront the filibuster as it was intended: to demand continuous debate on an issue, causing a major confrontation with the minority. This would tie up the Senate and provoke a political standoff. The second is to invoke the so-called nuclear option and end the filibuster altogether. The third is to further lower the number of votes needed — say, to 55 instead of 60. This option still leaves the Senate with the problem of a continuous supermajority to pass legislation.

As long as one party or faction feels compelled to constantly require 60 votes to pass anything, the short-term option may be to call its bluff and bring in those lovely cots to sleep in just off the Senate floor. The lawmakers can all look like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Or they can look like obstructionists who are impeding real change for the nation.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20178.html


Cots filled the Old Supreme Court Chamber during the ’60s civil rights debates.

[hvn_nbr_2]

1. There used to be a price for doing a filibuster.

The price included staying there on the Senate floor talking 24/7 and using those cots that you talk about. But there was also the bigger price of public perception as a minority disrupted the public's business or steadfastly stood in the way of the majority's tyranny, depending on your viewpoint, but there was price in public perception as, day after day and night after night, obstructionists obstructed. The phantom filibuster is, purely and simply, a phenomenon of political cowardice. If they want a filibuster, make them actually filibuster and make them bear the consequences of how the public's perception plays out.

[onenote]

12. there was no price

If you want to make up history go ahead. But the facts are that filibusters were usually successful and there almost never was an immediate price to be paid. For over 35 years, between 1927 and 1962, cloture was never successfully invoked to stop a filibuster. In 1957, LBJ as majority leader couldn't break a filibuster led by members of his own party blocking civil rights legislation and ended up watering down the bill to get it passed. Was there any immediate fallout from that? No. In fact, a subsequent Civil Rights bill in 1960 also was successfully filibustered -- it passed only after it was watered down and notwithstanding LBJ's efforts to break the filibuster by forcing continuous debate. It was only after JFK was assassinated that Dirksen and LBJ were able to put together a bipartisan coalition to block the southern dems from successfully filibustering the 64 Civil rights Act --- the first time that a filibuster of a civil rights bill was broken. Was there an immediate fallout? No. It was over a decade before the cloture rule was further amended to lower the threshold for cutting off debate.

As for how the public perception will take it -- chances are the spin will be that the Democrats are refusing to compromise and are willing to shut down the Senate from considering important business rather than do so. Is that bullshit? Of course. But if you don't think that's how it would be spun, you have more faith in the media and less respect for the ability of the repubs to shape media messaging than I do.

[onenote]

13. there was no price

If you want to make up history go ahead. But the facts are that filibusters were usually successful and there almost never was an immediate price to be paid. For over 35 years, between 1927 and 1962, cloture was never successfully invoked to stop a filibuster. In 1957, LBJ as majority leader couldn't break a filibuster led by members of his own party blocking civil rights legislation and ended up watering down the bill to get it passed. Was there any immediate fallout from that? No. In fact, a subsequent Civil Rights bill in 1960 also was successfully filibustered -- it passed only after it was watered down and notwithstanding LBJ's efforts to break the filibuster by forcing continuous debate. It was only after JFK was assassinated that Dirksen and LBJ were able to put together a bipartisan coalition to block the southern dems from successfully filibustering the 64 Civil rights Act --- the first time that a filibuster of a civil rights bill was broken. Was there an immediate fallout? No. It was over a decade before the cloture rule was further amended to lower the threshold for cutting off debate.

As for how the public perception will take it -- chances are the spin will be that the Democrats are refusing to compromise and are willing to shut down the Senate from considering important business rather than do so. Is that bullshit? Of course. But if you don't think that's how it would be spun, you have more faith in the media and less respect for the ability of the repubs to shape media messaging than I do.

[Political Heretic]

2. A G R E E D!!! NRP just repeated the LIE the other dya that it takes 60 to pass a bill.

BULLSHIT!!!!

[joeglow3]

3. I don't know how I feel about this

I was pretty damn happy to have it 4 years ago and I am pretty there will come a day I wish we have it again. I love how quickly, in politics the parties just change sides. Reminds me of a volleyball match.

[Better Believe It]

4. 7 Senate Democrats joined 7 Republicans (the gang of 14) and gave up the right to filibuster

against Bush's extreme right-wing Supreme Court nominations in 2005.

The Republicans threatened to prohibit Senate filibusters by changing the rules using the so-called "nuclear option".

That threat scared the hell out of Senator Reid and other Democrats so they surrendered to that threat by promising not to filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court nominations. So Bush's Supreme Court nominations were approved without confronting a real on the floor Senate filibuster by Democrats to defeat the nominations.

So I'm frankly puzzled by your happiness.

How did Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court make you happy?

[joeglow3]

6. Would you have liked the alternative?

Could you imagine what we would have gotten if they did use the nuclear option? People need to recognize what a reasonable goal is a reach for it. You are being unrealistic if you thought we were going to do any better than we did then.

[Better Believe It]

7. You mean stopping those two extreme right-wing Supreme Court judges? You better believe it!

If when Democratic Senators didn't even threatend an actual filibuster and went way beyond that by surrendering to Republican demands what wonderful things do you think were gained .... outside of approving two reactionary Supreme Court appointments by George W. Bush?

Oh ... how bout that .... it looks like so-called "blue dog" conservative Democratic Senators were the driving force beyond that "deal".

Should we be surprised?

[joeglow3]

9. Now that imagination time is over...

...we WOULD have gotten MUCH worse if the nuclear option was exercised. Sometimes, you have to win the fights that you can win instead of wasting your time and energy on those you will never win.

[Better Believe It]

10. So you like to surrender to our enemies without even putting up a good fight

That's the ticket!

The conservative "blue dog" Democrats you defend and functioned as Bush "enablers" and once again are preparing the articles of surrender to the Republican minority.

Do you think the EFCA will be passed if the Republicans are permitted to engage in a phantom filibuster?

The Republicans won with the mere threat of using the so-called "nuclear option". Now all they need to due is threaten a phantom filibuster to defeat the Democratic majority.

I'm sorry you think that a Democratic on the floor filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court picks would have been futile.

Do you think Senate Democrats would have tired and run out of filibuster gas in five minutes? If that's so, you think highly of the Republican obstructionists and their legislative talents.

Enough lame excuses for Democratic inaction and weakness in the Senate. Of course, you may prefer a docile and tame "opposition party" that doesn't fight for the people.

[onenote]

14. the gang of 14 compromise had nothing to do with the approval of bush's scotus nominees

You're dreaming if you think that they would've been successfully filibustered. Let's review -- the deal struck by the gang of 14 simply allowed votes to go forward on certain specific nominees that had been filibustered (and expressly did not apply to certain other filibustered nominees). In the end, only around half of the nominees that had been filibustered actually ended up getting confirmed. Moreover, the deal expressly recognized the right to filibuster, stating only that
filibusters of judicial nominees should be limited to extraordinary circumstances,but recognizing that it was up to each signatory to exercise his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist. When Alito was nominated, the attempt to filibuster failed with cloture getting 72 votes. If the 7 Democrats in the gang of 14 had supported the filibuster, it still would have failed. But the fact is that it wasn't the deal that caused them to vote for cloture -- considering who the 7 are, its highly unlikely they would've filibustered Alito. Heck, two of them even voted for him for confirmation.

[ieoeja]

5. There is an easier method.

Reid can simply refuse to place any other business on the agenda until the legislative action in question is put to a vote. Open up a Senate session at 9:00am. Ask for a vote on cloture. Close the session at 9:05am. Repeat daily.

Citing Illinois as an example is admittedly poor timing, but at least our legislature did make this sort of attempt. When the (now impeached ex-)Governor refused to sign a budget that contained only 99% of his demands and called the legislature into special session, each and every day for several months a single member of each house would walk in, call the session to order, then immediately close the session for the day.

Gov Blagojevich did outlast the legislature. But at least they tried. And Blagojevich came out looking like a complete ass in the bargain.

[Better Believe It]

8. Why close the session at all? Force the Republicans to set up cots and filibuster

No more fake "call-in" filibusters!

[burning rain]

11. Said it before and I'll say it again...

better just to change the rules -- which can be done with a simple majority -- and disallow the filibuster, period. It has sometimes stood pregressives in good stead, but has far more foten been used for reactionary ends; ending it would on balance be a positive thing.