Contact
Subscribe
The Senate filibuster is good for New Mexico
“And what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers – the House and the Senate – but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the fathers intended.” – Then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2005 on Republican efforts to end filibusters of federal judges
“I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” – Then-Sen. Joe Biden in 2005 on Republican efforts to end filibusters of federal judges
Joshua Baca
Last week, Sen. Tom Udall, on this Web site, highlighted his efforts to make Washington work for New Mexico. He primarily focused on what he called “obstruction in the Senate” and an effort to end the use of a filibuster. A filibuster delays or blocks legislative action in the Senate and can only be overcome by a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes. It exists to encourage debate, deliberation and compromise.
Most New Mexicans are more concerned with the unemployment rate, budget deficits and a lagging economy than Senate parliamentary procedure. But the truth is Washington is not working for New Mexico because of extreme partisanship, backroom deals and Democratic efforts to ram through legislation with little or no Republican support.
Senator Udall and the current Democratic leadership are responsible for the hyper-partisan environment that exists today. They decided to rule Washington with an iron fist and refuse to accept any proposals or ideas that do not fall in line with the liberal orthodoxy.
This was most evident during the health care debate as Senate Democrats pushed forward to pass health care reform at any cost and without Republican input or support. They inserted special deal after special deal to clinch the votes of wavering Democratic senators and ignored commonsense Republican alternatives.
The outcome: a 60-40 vote on Christmas Eve to overcome a Republican filibuster. When the minority party is shut out of the lawmaking process, as they have been since Senator Udall was elected to the Senate, the only tool at their disposal is the filibuster.
The filibuster is what’s unique and good about the Senate
Senator Udall portrays the filibuster as a negative, obstructionist tool that is counterproductive. But in reality it is the heart of what makes the Senate the upper chamber. It enables deliberation and encourages compromise, which produces better legislation because it allows all views to be represented. The Senate was intended to be different from the House, where the rules allow the majority leadership to silence dissenting views.
The filibuster is a good thing. It’s democratic and it’s what makes the Senate so unique.
Contrary to what Senator Udall described as “abuse of Senate rules,” the Wall Street Journal noted that the Republican filibuster on financial sector overhaul bill on Monday “marked the first time Republicans have successfully voted to stall action of a major legislative priority of the Obama White House.”
The filibuster has since ended, but despite the fact that Republican Senator Richard Shelby had been working with Democratic Senator Chris Dodd on a compromise, Senator Udall released a statement calling Monday the vote “Obstruction of Wall Street Reform” in an effort to score political points against Republicans. Overall, Senate Democrats have succeeded passing the Obama agenda on a party-line vote until now.
Up until January, Senator Udall and Senate Democrats enjoyed a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority that came to an abrupt end after Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate. Prior to that, Senate Democrats shut out Republicans from the legislative process because they had the 60 votes needed to obtain cloture, or in other words, move the legislation through the Senate strictly on a party-line vote.
When members of the minority party stick together they can have an impact on legislation and force the majority to compromise, which is obvious with the financial services reform bill. Now, conveniently, Senator Udall and his colleagues want to change the rules of the game to suit their political needs.
A New Mexico senator should know better
In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, the Connecticut Compromise created a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber, the Senate, would have equal representation. The lower chamber, the House, would elect representatives based on population. Ultimately, the purpose of this compromise was to ensure that smaller states with less population wouldn’t be drowned out by larger states with larger population.
Eliminating the power of one senator to filibuster any legislation would undermine the purpose of the Connecticut Compromise and make New Mexico equal to New York. Not only is this proposal bad for democracy, it is bad for New Mexico, and a New Mexico senator should know better.
It’s fair to ask Senator Udall if he would be promoting these radical changes in the Senate rules if he was in the minority party and a Republican occupied the White House.
I agree with Senator Udall that the ways of Washington are in desperate need of change. But changing the rules of the Senate to suit his political fortunes is why Washington is so badly broken.
Joshua Baca is a former congressional staffer and campaign operative for former U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson and served as a United States Senate page to U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman. He is a current public affairs professional and campaign consultant in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Follow Joshua on Twitter at twitter.com/beltwaybaca.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
21 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dr.J – Being a Republican registered as a Democrat does not constitute bipartisanship.
I should add, judyinnm, that as a long time regstered Democrat, I am not trying to defend all the Repubs do. Of course they disagree with many of Obama/Pelosi/Reid policy positions and wish to derail them, but no more so than the Dems did to Bush over many years when the Repubs were in power. Therefore I see no big difference, partisanship is partisanship, left or right. The difference now is that professional partisan politicians, like Senator Udall, want to change the rules to suit their own personal agendas and desired outcomes. In my opinion that is wrong, and if I had seen much evidence of the Dems trying to work in a bipartisan way, I would be critical of the Repubs. But the Dems need to do as Gandi suggested, “Be the change you want to see in the world”. They just want to change rules to enable and codify bullying and partisanship, not change the way government operates in its’ current hyper-partisan, polarized way. That is too hard for them I suspect, but if they really were statesmen and cared for the citizens, they would try another way than rule changes.
judyinnm, funny but if you were to substitute “republican” for “democrat” and “democrat” for “republican” in your assertions (except for the last sentence, where you would need to substitute Maddow or Olbermann for Rush), they would then mirror my opinions. Interesting how partisan biases make us view the world, but neither views are facts or “truth”, merely our opinions. Perhaps you should read the Federalist #10 by James Madison. He suggested that there are “two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction.” One was to destroy “the liberty which is essential to its existence”—something that is anathema to our democratic system. The other was to give “to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests,” which is impossible. Thus he said: “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” That is why we call all this politics, not science or math or any other fact based subject matter. We will see which view is more popular come November.
Dr J – The Republicans and their supportersare all about giving lip service to “bipartisanship”. I think that word does not mean what you and the other conservatives think it means. It doesn’t mean that the Democratic majority shouldn’t pass any legislation that is not written soley by the Republicans and their corporate sponsors. (The word “bipartisan” did not enter the Republicans’ vocabulary until they lost their majority in both Houses of Congress.)
Everything the Democrats propose receives a knee-jerk, emphatic “no ” from the Republicans;. Is it because they are upset and angry that the “permanent majority” they once thought they were going to enjoy for the foreseeable future did not materialize? They seem determined to punish the American people for disappointing them. Terms such as “Obama’s Waterloo”, and Republican politicians’ support for Rush Limbaugh’s hope for Obama’s “failure”, and total disregard for the concerns of the American people (as opposed to their political fortunes) really don’t help instill a sense that they think “we’re all in this together”.
Well said gm, but I think you meant the $50 BILLION slush fund Dems wanted (paid for by the consumers, not the banks) for constant bailouts will be stripped due to Repubs using their authority to block cloture. A true positive improvement for the bill, thanks to “obstructionism”. And judyinnm, you said: “Senator Udall knows that the Democrats will not always hold a majority in the Senate – and he has stated that he recognizes this fact; ” My party is currently in the majority…One day we will be in the minority. But my position will remain the same….”
Right. It might be more credible if the good Senator had ever had a reputation or track record for even the slightest bipartisanship, rather than the party-line-partisan, ideologue behaviour he and his family have exhibited over the history of their rules.
Amazing that with 59 Dem votes in the Senate and and overwhelming majority in the House folks here still want to blame Republicans for blockages. I suppose one has to believe everything proposed by Dems is always the right thing to do and everyone should support it. For my part, I want many of their bills blocked. I’m just not smart enough to be a liberal. I have the mistaken notion that government doesn’t create jobs or wealth–private industry does that.
I say again, if the voters next November want a bigger Dem majority, they’ll vote accordingly. Does anyone think there will be a big vote of approval of Obama/Dem policies?
My understanding is that the eventual financial reform bill will not have the $50M slush fund the Dems want which is one of the changes Rs want. i should also mention that Goldman Sachs employees alone contributed $1M to Obama’ campaign in ’08. $2 M by Univ of CA employes—liberal bastion. Wall Street contributed $4 M to Dems and $1 M to Rs. Where do the Wall St people think their friends are?
justaUNM, yes, the UK is a constitutional monarchy, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_con_mon_cur_con_mon_mon_sel_by-monarchy-current-monarchies-monarch-selected
And I was talking about the last immigration bill that died on the Senate floor in June, 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/world/americas/29iht-29immig.6403376.html
And again, my point was that many times the 60 vote rule is used in a bipartisan way, not by the Repubs to block what the Dems want to do. If the bill you reference has never made it out of committee since 2005, I would doubt it is because the Repubs are blocking the will of the Dems by using the 60 vote rule. Perhaps you might remember the Dems had 60 votes until very recently. Why weren’t they pushig it out of committee and onto the floor? They had the power.
Oh, and BTW Mr. Baca – In the Senate, New Mexico is equal to New York by virtue of having an equal number of senators as New York, with or without a filibuster rule..
New Mexicans and most Americans are concerned about jobs and the deficit; but nothing can be done about either as long as the Republicans block each and every effort the Democrats and Senator Udall undertake to alleviate these problems. How is it a democratic principle that One out of one hundred senators is able to block a vote to extend unemployment insurance, and stop jobs at a Carlsbad park project. How does this make the filibuster good for New Mexico?
You say, ” Eliminating the power of one senator to filibuster…..would…make New Mexico equal to New York”. That sentence makes no sense; nor does it support your you entire premise that the filibuster is good for New Mexico – if eliminating the power of ONE senator to filibuster makes NM equal to NY, how is that BAD for NM, considering the difference in populations? (Sounds like a really good deal for our small state, not so good for their huge state.) There is no mention of the filibuster in the historical events you mention – it only became a Senate rule, put in place by senators, in the middle 1800′s. If the senators have the right to make their own rules (and they do), they have the right to change those rules.
Senator Udall knows that the Democrats will not always hold a majority in the Senate – and he has stated that he recognizes this fact; ” My party is currently in the majority…One day we will be in the minority. But my position will remain the same….our democracy requires a congress that can respond to the issues of the day…without, as my colleague Senator Robert Byrd said, ‘being bound by the dead hand of the past’.”
Senator Udall is not advocating House Speaker Hastert’s position of earlier in this decade, when Hastert declared that no legislation would be voted on unless it had support of “the majority of the majority” – if a piece of legislation required bipartisan support to pass, it ws dead. (You do know that the House or Representatives once had a filibuster rule too, don’t you? They got rid of it.)
gm, funny you should mention that health care reform is a “monstrosity” — because it was based on conservative ideas [http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/19/heritage-backs-away/]
The reason Republicans blocked health care reform was not because they disagreed with it on principle — but because they are the Party of No and want to block anything that Obama and the Democratic majority want to pass.
Hell, even John Boehner is taking credit for parts of the health care reform bill now [http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/boehner-in-feb-hcr-has-no-gop-ideas-in-it----boehner-today-populart-parts-of-hcr-were-gop-ideas.php]
“The delay in the financial reform bill was for the purpose of getting a few R changes”
Ah, you have bought the Republican spin. The vote against cloture was the vote AGAINST STARTING DEBATE. IN other words, the Republicans voting en bloc (along with conservadem Nelson) to NOT debate the bill or vote on amendments. When they realized that, hey, the public really, really wants Wall Street reform, they relented.
The deal to allow Republican ideas was to save face and to trick those who are easily spun by DC-insiders (like the author of this column).
In other words, the Republicans were against having ANY sort of Wall Street reform bill by voting against cloture.
DR J, also here is a link to the bill that I believe you are talking about, I hope we are talking about the same bill, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration act, which is the only bill Senator McCain sponsored in 2005 regarding immigration.
The bill is still in the Committee. IT has never been voted on, so i am very interested to see where you are getting your voting numbers or if we are talking about a different bill.
thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:2:./temp/~bdyGak::|/bss/d109query.html|
DR J, The House of lords was just one example of the upper house not being able to block the will lower house in a democracy. It is not a “Constitutional Monarchy” the British system does not have a “Written constitution” the UK was the first democracy in the world, the House of lords was formed in the 10th century to control the spending of the king. in 14c the house of commons was formed, but they did not have any real power until the 19th century, They took control away from the political elite. No prime minister can in UK history has ever been a member of the house of lords. The common has complete control and they only purpose the upper house has is a debating chamber that can only slow the process of down. Prior to the 19th cent, the upper house did control everything, they could block legislation that the people wanted. The British people learned that blocking legislation is a huge problem for WE the people, and took that power away from the house of lords. Now as stated numerous times they can only slow down the legislation to allow people to think about it, to read it, to wipe their … with it.
We are the only Democracy in the world to do this. Germany which has a what has been termed the “german mix system” They lower house is elected by party, in a parliamentary style, and the upper house is elected in a single member district plurality, like the presidential system. still in this system, the upper house cannot block legislation only slow it down.
The japan parliament is the same the upper house can only slow it down, not block it. Do you know were the party can block the will of the people? China and America. The political elite in these two countries can stop good legislation.
Contrary to Mr. Baca, President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress did not choose to ram through legislation unilaterally. The president worked hard to win support for his stimulus and got three Republican votes (one of whom, Senator Spector, soon joined the Democrats, saying he hadn’t left the Republicans; the Republicans had moved away from him). Then the president and Senator Max Baucus worked for months to forge a bipartisan health care bill with bipartisan votes. They made numerous concessions to Republicans–the bill became rather Republican in content, resembling Governor Romney’s Massachusetts health care law–and in return they won no Republican votes. It’s not surprising they decided “no more mister nice guy” and began daily cloture votes on the financial reform bill, spotlighting Republicans as allies of Wall Street.
Southern Democrats relied on the filibuster to delay civil rights legislation for years, but even they did not use a wall-to-wall filibuster against the majority’s entire agenda–112 filibusters thus far in the current Congress, 290 bills passed by the House that the Senate hasn’t considered. And back in the day when Strom Thurmond filibustered, he had to stand and actually talk for hours and hours. He could not bring the Senate to a halt merely by defeating a cloture vote and declaring a filibuster to be in effect.
The partisanship in this struggle has been virtually entirely on the Republican side. The Democrats did not get tough until lately–too late, many progressives feel, to achieve the coherent agenda they thought they were voting for in 2008. In this situation Senator Udall’s initiative is appropriate. The Constitution does not say that existing rules (currently 60 votes for cloture) must dictate how rules changes are considered. To be hemmed in by the existing rules, so that they cannot be changed, is fecklessness unworthy of “The world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Mr. Baca also misstated something, regarding the differences between the House and the Senate. Each state regardless of population has the same two votes in the Senate (the Connecticut Compromise). Thus, in the Senate, New Mexico and New York ARE equal. Representation by state, rather than by population, makes the Senate qualitatively different from the House, permanently more conservative and rural-oriented. Why does the Senate have to have immutable rules too?
As a practical matter, the current filibuster rule will not prevent the Democrats from passing anything they want. The delay in the financial reform bill was for the purpose of getting a few R changes. The final bill will have some Repub support and it’s possible that the changes they want will be in the bill. Any bill that comes down the pike in the next few months would have enough Republicans voting for it to pass unless it’s another monstrosity like the health bill.
But let’s see if the voting public next November wants the current dominance by the Ds to continue. Let’s see if the public favors a filibuster-proof Senate that we essentially have now. Let’s see if the public is happy with the overwhelming majority of Ds in the House.
JustaUNMstudent, you need to check your facts and interpretations before writing. The position of the House of Lords vs. the House of Commons in a constitutional monarchy unique to the UK, has no bearing on the representative democracy that exists in America. As a matter of fact, the framers of our constitution wanted something much different in form and function from England, a series oif checks and balances where each part of government has its’ role, it is totally different by design. So that bit of red herring is totaly irrelevant. Secondly, the failure of the 2005 Immigration Bill in the Senate was not a party line issue. It was totally bipartisan. The final vote on cloture before Reid pulled the bill (yes, he was majority leader then too) and MItch McConnell protested as he wanted a bill, was 46-53, with Democrats split 33-15 for ending the debate and Republicans split 37-12 to continue talking, amending, and trying to get a bill. You see many times the 60 vote rule has been used on a bipartisan basis. And again, if Mr. Udall were in the minority party in the Senate, he would no be so active in trying to change all the rules so the majority can rule alone and unchecked.
Firs of all, the upper house of the United States is the only democratically elected body in the world that can block legislation from the lower house. The House of Lords cannot block legislation from the House of Commons. This is my problem with the filibuster. I am a reasonable person and believe that certain issues to need to be slowed and debated. But the US House of Lords should not be able to block legislation that is passed by the lower house. They should send it back, debate it longer, but there are currently over 350 bills that have been passed by the House of Reps that have yet to even be debated. Some bills have been sitting in committee since 2004. This is government inefficiency at its worst. The Senate is where good legislation goes to DIE.
If this is a democracy, WE the people and all that other crap people quote, then the filibuster is a rule that must go. It is an obstruction to democracy. The immigration reform bill that was passed by the house in 2005 was never voted on in the Senate. Why? because it did not have 60 votes and is stuck in committee. Look at the numbers before you start writing. Use your brain, Republicans have historically used the filibuster three times more than the democrats. I am talking since 1850.
People in New Mexico do believe that the economy should come first. I do as well, but there is limits. I have yet to see any Republican do anything but bitch and moan. They say we need bi-partisanship in the Senate, then work together. We sent them to DC to do something, but the easy thing to do is cry to mommy that the other boys would not let you play ball, instead of going and getting dirty.
Research before you write. Dont just rehash what you heard on KKKob this morning when you were driving to work.
GM, the claim that Wall Street Reform is “the FIRST time Republicans have delayed debate during the Obama presidency” is laughable because it is only because of a technicality.
Talking Points Memo wrote on the rise of filing for cloture since Dems gained power in the Senate: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php
“Rules have been changed but it requires 67 votes I believe. So good luck Mr Udall. Please don’t grandstand. We see enough of that already by senators and congressmen.”
Actually, if you had read what Udall has actually proposed, and not what a GOP operative living in DC writes apparently fact-check free, Udall is proposing that they change the rules at the beginning of the next Congress — within their rights given them under the Constitution (each chamber can change their rules at the beginning of Congress). That only takes a simple majority vote.
Key point and very true:”financial sector overhaul” is the FIRST time Republicans have delayed debate during the Obama presidency”. They could not have delayed the health reform bill if they had tried; they didn’t have the votes. The delay was by Dems who got the sweetheart deals like the Cornhusker kickback, Florida gatoraide, and Louisiana purchase.
The nuclear option was mentioned during the Bush years and Rs could have passed it but didn’t do it. It was intented for judges only in any case.
“Republicans aren’t using the filibuster to improve legislation;they are using it to thumb their noses……” Great mind- reading Mr C. I know only one person in the whole world that can do that but I don’t use it much.
Rules have been changed but it requires 67 votes I believe. So good luck Mr Udall. Please don’t grandstand. We see enough of that already by senators and congressmen.
Last point: someday Republicans will control the senate again. Will you libs be happy if they push through anything they want on a majority vote? I doubt it.
Joshua, let me just start by pointing out that you have evidently not read the Constitution in a while. I’ll provide a link for you:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Now, in reading the Constitution, I want you to note that the Senate is evidently intended to be a more deliberative body simply because Senators, unlike Representatives, are there for six-year terms, thereby releasing them from the constant pressures of reelection. (Note that the original Constitution had Senators appointed by state legislatures; this was changed to election by the 17th Amendment.)
Note, importantly, that the Constitution does not say anything about filibuster. That procedure came about as a result of changes to the Senate’s own, internal rules of operation, which the Constitution refers to as “the Rules of its Proceedings.” In other words, the current procedural manuever known as the filibuster is not set forth in the Constitution at all.
Just as important is that “the Rules of its Proceedings” are subject to change. This has been done on numerous occasions before. What is critical here is that changing the rules of proceedings is itself not subject to filibuster. Rather, typically at the beginning of a legislative session, the body may re-examine its rules of proceedings and may change these rules with a vote requiring a simple quorum. Just for your reference, the process by which Senate may change “the Rules of its Proceedings” is commonly referred to as the “Constitutional Option” — for the simple reason that changing “the Rules of its Proceedings” is brought up in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5; see the link to the Constitution above).
So what “the Rules of its Proceedings” might the Senate consider changing? Of course, the body may choose to alter its own rules on filibuster, but it may also change its other rules of proceedings as well. That is entirely up to the majority of Senators. Crucually, Senator Udall has not taken a stance on what specific changes might be taken up, to my knowledge. Instead, he has focussed attention on the role of the Constitution in making changes to “the Rules of its Proceedings” and on the history of these changes.
To conclude, Joshua, I sincerely believe that you need to return to the document that our Founding Fathers put forth for us and to reconsider your remarks about what Senator Udall has — and has not — proposed.
Lynn
Angel Fire, New Mexico
Well said Mr. Baca, and historically and politically accurate as well.
Did this Republican manage to o the entire article without mentioning the “nuclear option,” when Republicans wanted to end the filibuster – in the middle of a congress, not at the beginning, as Udall has proposed – and how the Republicans have used the filibuster more than any other group has ever used it in the history of the Senate?
Did he mention how the rules have been changed numerous times on the filibuster, including during the 1960s?
Did he mention that the filibuster itself was created in the mid-1800s, not in 1787 as he implies?
No to all of these. And why?
Because they would undermine his point and them he would have to point out that he is against majority-rules and instead for a process that allows 41 percent of the chamber to control debate even when 59 percent of the chamber are in agreement.
The latest case was when the Republicans, fresh off of a fundraiser with Wall Street lobbyists – seriously, look it up – attempted to filibuster on BEGINNING DEBATE on a Wall Street Reform bill. While they decry back room dealings – which have been around for decades under every president and under every Senate as much as Republicans try to forget anything before Obama besides Reagan ever happened – they instead voted for all the the dealings to go on behind closed doors.
The Republicans aren’t using the filibuster to improve legislation; they are using it to thumb their noses at the President, at Democrats and at those who voted them into office by putting everything, even non-controversial items, in limbo. That’st what the modern day Republican Party has been doing, and it would be great if Baca were honest enough to point this out.