.
It wasn't mock shock in the Senate last week. It was real.
It wasn't really dumping the filibuster itself, but it was a serious step in that direction.
They have a rule in the Senate (the filibuster) which makes it necessary to have 60 votes to do anything. To change a rule in the Senate requires a two thirds vote (at least it does if you are in the middle of a session).
But there is another way to change the rules or at least suspend them. It goes like this. In a certain situation the rules allow the minority to propose amendments from the floor. The Senate majority leader simply asserts that the rule does not apply. Someone appeals for a ruling from the chair. The chair rules that the leader is wrong, thus upholding the rule. So who has the final say? The whole body - the Senate. (It would be hard to argue against the right of any such body to decide the meaning of its own rules. In this case we also have Article I section 6 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings") The leader then appeals the decision of the chair to the whole body. The body then decides whether to uphold the chair (maintain the rule ) or support the leader (overturn the rule ). And THAT decision is by majority vote. When the Senate voted by 51-48 to uphold Leader Reid's "interpretation" of the rules they changed that rule by a simple majority.
But it did more than that. This kind of thing has been proposed as a method of shutting down a actual filibuster by a simple majority vote. It has been called the "Nuclear Option" because it is such a big change in the way the Senate operates and people have shied away from it before. The Republicans are outraged and if, as many expect, they have the majority in 2013 then they will presumably resort to this method with much less hesitation than has been exhibited before.
So maybe the filibuster is on its way out. I hope so.
.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS
20 hours ago
I really don't understand how people support getting rid of the filibuster. Just going back a few years... can you imagine what right wing insanity the GOP would have pushed through before 2006 without having to get 60 votes in the senate, and what left with insanity the dems would have pushed through before last year without the same? If you think politics is insane now, just wait until you toss out the filibuster. It's one of the very few things keeping back a flood of hyperpartisanship that would make the last decade of increasing partisanship look like a dinner party in comparison.
ReplyDeleteSolomon Kleinsmith
Rise of the Center
1. Are systems where the winning party has control more partisan than our system?(for example parliamentary)
ReplyDelete2. In the situations that you cite, we would have accountability which is impossible to obtain with divided government.
3. The filibuster also makes a "Grand Bargain" (to really deal with our problems) much harder to come by.
4. The checks and balances built into the system are quite enough to slow down the process. We do not need this extra-constitutional filibuster.