As the inept vice president on HBO’s “Veep,” Julia Lewis-Dreyfus is fighting for a never quite defined filibuster reform bill. It’s the perfect foil for comedy, frustratingly unattainable, but directed at a target apparently richly deserving of ridicule.
In the real world, Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by the latest Republican filibuster, recently apologized for failing to support filibuster reform. In addition, Common Cause has filed a lawsuit claiming that Rule XXII, which requires 60 votes to cut off a filibuster, is unconstitutional. The suit claims, “The principle of majority rule is so basic to the concept of a democratically elected legislative body that it did not need to be expressly stated in the Constitution.”
Comments
SO this undemocratic non-Constituionally-mandated procedure is good if the "right" people know how to use it? I'll take my chances with majority rule
The Senate no longer has a filibuster. What passes for a filibuster now is nothing more than 'the silent treatment' or other childish tantrums.
Wonder why Harry Reid previously failed to support filibuster reform - could it be because it worked to the Democrats advantage . . .
Actually, I agree with the author that a lack of a filibuster would lead to more partisanship. Then, as each party assumes control, it will just undue what the previous controlling party did. I think a better solution is requiring a 2/3 majority on all votes. Since it is nearly impossible that either party will hold that great a majority, it would force the two parties to work together, much the way that the deficit reduction committee did. The dissenters on that committee were the extreme members of both parties. If this were made the rule, people would vote for candidates with an ability to compromise as opposed to candidates with extreme views.
You are far more optimistic than me. I would predict that if a 2/3 majority were required for all votes people would vote for candidates promising ideological purity to an even greater extent than they do now, on the delusional expectation that 'this time we'll win a supermajority because we're so right.' In the Indiana GOP primary, Mourdock beat Lugar essentially on the platform of promising never to compromise with Democrats. I agree the filibuster should not be done away with, but it should take real effort to carry out, rather than the three seconds it takes to say 'filibuster,' such as we have now (yes, I know, it's a bit of hyperbole inserted for dramatic effect). If a 2/3 majority is required on the budget, or on cabinet and judicial appointments, then the minority party will be able to halt all government function; in effect, a coup d'etat. I favor full transparency and engagement, wherein there are no secret holds, and any Senator wishing to engage in a filibuster has to hold the floor for the entire time, as Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms used to do.
Love how the media focuses on Republican filibusters, but not the fact that Harry Reid puts a motion for cloture with every new bill he proposes. This not only is responsible for the artificial rise in the number of "filibusters" in recent years, but it seems to suggest that Reid simply doesn't want ANY debate on ANY bill he proposes.
I have thought a bit about filibusters. Under some circumstances they could be highly beneficial, say, for example, to slow Senate consideration of a bill proposed in the heat of the moment over some charged issue. [NEW PARAGRAPH] How about placing a time limit on how long a bill or nomination can be filibustered? I was thinking of a three month limit. That strikes me as enough time to let hot passions cool over an issue or to marshal public support about a matter.