All 53 returning Senate Democrats sign letter in support of filibuster reform

[Torie]

Going back to the "good old days," when you needed to physically just keep talking, is not going to be adopted, and will not prove workable, really. The concept of the filibuster needs to be just tanked totally. It is a good time to broach the matter however, while the Pubbies have a plug puller with the House.

[Einzige Mk. II]

Going back to the "good old days," when you needed to physically just keep talking, is not going to be adopted, and will not prove workable, really.

Why not? You're probably right that the Senate won't do it, because it may require them to work for their pay. However, if it were implemented, I can't see it being anything but a net benefit on procedural grounds.

[cinyc]

Please, please let democracy work. Abolish the filibuster.

Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it - and the shaft to the so-called progressive agenda come 2012. 

I accept that. We have to grasp the nettle here. The Senate is broken. If people vote for Republican majorities, they have a right to expect Republican governance. We need accountability.

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   The Democrats ultimately got almost all of what they wanted passed after *gasp* compromising with the Republican minority.  The filibuster power play in the lame duck session only worked because of the 2010 election, i.e. because of popular opinion, not despite it.  Is it inherently democratic for a lame duck legislative session to pass legislation that the next Congress wouldn't have come close to passing?

[Mjh]

Perhaps they should abolish the filibuster? It will be far easier to repeal Obamacare that way.

[Sbane]

Abolishing the filibuster is in the interests of the GOP. They have a structural advantage in the Senate.

[Sbane]

Perhaps they should abolish the filibuster? It will be far easier to repeal Obamacare that way.

And just like the Democrats, you should be careful what you wish for. You might get rid of Obamacare only to end up with a public option.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Going back to the "good old days," when you needed to physically just keep talking, is not going to be adopted, and will not prove workable, really. The concept of the filibuster needs to be just tanked totally. It is a good time to broach the matter however, while the Pubbies have a plug puller with the House.

^^^
that

[Brittain33]

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   

Major legislation eventually got through, with some exceptions that would have passed by majority vote, such as card check and carbon regulation. But take a look at the nominee confirmation process. Both judges and executive branch appointees. It's completely busted. Obama had fewer nominees to judgeships appointed in this first two years than any President since Nixon. Now imagine that with a Senate outright controlled by the opposite party.

[tpfkaw]

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   

Major legislation eventually got through, with some exceptions that would have passed by majority vote, such as card check and carbon regulation. But take a look at the nominee confirmation process. Both judges and executive branch appointees. It's completely busted. Obama had fewer nominees to judgeships appointed in this first two years than any President since Nixon. Now imagine that with a Senate outright controlled by the opposite party.

Heaven forbid there be separation of powers.  Clearly, all power should lie with the executive.

[Хahar 🤔]

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   

Major legislation eventually got through, with some exceptions that would have passed by majority vote, such as card check and carbon regulation. But take a look at the nominee confirmation process. Both judges and executive branch appointees. It's completely busted. Obama had fewer nominees to judgeships appointed in this first two years than any President since Nixon. Now imagine that with a Senate outright controlled by the opposite party.

Heaven forbid there be separation of powers.  Clearly, all power should lie with the executive.

Separation of powers is undesirable.

[Brittain33]

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   

Major legislation eventually got through, with some exceptions that would have passed by majority vote, such as card check and carbon regulation. But take a look at the nominee confirmation process. Both judges and executive branch appointees. It's completely busted. Obama had fewer nominees to judgeships appointed in this first two years than any President since Nixon. Now imagine that with a Senate outright controlled by the opposite party.

Heaven forbid there be separation of powers.  Clearly, all power should lie with the executive.

Please don't do that.

I have no problem with the Senate playing a constitutional role to confirm appointees. That's not what has happened. Individual senators now place holds on appointees so they can get movement on unrelated items, like pork for their states (see Richard Shelby holding up Fed Reserve appointees or Mary Landrieu holding up Jacob Lew.) The President is 2 years into his term and can't even get perfectly acceptable appointees through, no propaganda involved in that description, because senators use them as tools. Important positions were unstaffed well into 2009 and 2010 for no discernible reason other than that the Republicans could do so. The system is broken.

[cinyc]

Contrary to popular belief, the Senate is not broken.   

Major legislation eventually got through, with some exceptions that would have passed by majority vote, such as card check and carbon regulation. But take a look at the nominee confirmation process. Both judges and executive branch appointees. It's completely busted. Obama had fewer nominees to judgeships appointed in this first two years than any President since Nixon. Now imagine that with a Senate outright controlled by the opposite party.

The fact is that some of Obama's judicial appointees are highly controversial, just as some of Bush's were before his and Clinton's before that and Bush the Elder's before that and Reagan's before that...   Controversial judicial appointees end up getting highly scrutinized.  Why?  Once they get the job, it's theirs for life unless they do something so egregious to warrant impeachment. 

The Senate WAS outright controlled by the Democrats for about a year.  Why didn't they act on more appointments then?  It must not have been that high a priority of the Senate or the administration.

[Brittain33]

Plenty of non-controversial nominees were blocked. By blocking the nominations, Republicans could also eat up valuable calendar time that otherwise could have gone to legislation.

Do you think what Richard Shelby did with Diamond on the Federal Reserve makes sense? How about what Mary Landrieu did with Jacob Lew? Tell me there is any logic in their treatment.

[Free Palestine]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Having the filibuster forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.  Most of the arguments in favor of ending the filibuster have to do with the idea that whoever has a simple majority has the right to shove their agenda through Congress.  Majority rule is unjust when there are alternatives.  As I said just a few pages ago, "majority rule" is the only viable method in an election with a large voting population, but in a deliberative body like a legislature, particularly the Senate with it's only hundred members, you can have compromise.  With the filibuster, if the minority finds legislation unfavorable, the majority will have to concede in order to get sixty votes for cloture.

We have a republic.  Congress is not just a cipher for direct democracy.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Having the filibuster forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.  Most of the arguments in favor of ending the filibuster have to do with the idea that whoever has a simple majority has the right to shove their agenda through Congress.  Majority rule is unjust when there are alternatives.  As I said just a few pages ago, "majority rule" is the only viable method in an election with a large voting population, but in a deliberative body like a legislature, particularly the Senate with it's only hundred members, you can have compromise.  With the filibuster, if the minority finds legislation unfavorable, the majority will have to concede in order to get sixty votes for cloture.

Every other western democracy is governed by majority rule and they are just fine, thank you.

[Free Palestine]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Having the filibuster forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.  Most of the arguments in favor of ending the filibuster have to do with the idea that whoever has a simple majority has the right to shove their agenda through Congress.  Majority rule is unjust when there are alternatives.  As I said just a few pages ago, "majority rule" is the only viable method in an election with a large voting population, but in a deliberative body like a legislature, particularly the Senate with it's only hundred members, you can have compromise.  With the filibuster, if the minority finds legislation unfavorable, the majority will have to concede in order to get sixty votes for cloture.

Every other western democracy is governed by majority rule and they are just fine, thank you.

What "every other western democracy" does is irrelevant.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Having the filibuster forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.  Most of the arguments in favor of ending the filibuster have to do with the idea that whoever has a simple majority has the right to shove their agenda through Congress.  Majority rule is unjust when there are alternatives.  As I said just a few pages ago, "majority rule" is the only viable method in an election with a large voting population, but in a deliberative body like a legislature, particularly the Senate with it's only hundred members, you can have compromise.  With the filibuster, if the minority finds legislation unfavorable, the majority will have to concede in order to get sixty votes for cloture.

Every other western democracy is governed by majority rule and they are just fine, thank you.

What "every other western democracy" does is irrelevant.

Uhh...
Of course. I forgot about American Exceptionalism.

[Free Palestine]

All the arguments in favor of the filibuster that are being presented have to do with what "the founders intended".

I haven't heard any real practical arguments on merit.

Having the filibuster forces compromise instead of simple majoritarianism.  Most of the arguments in favor of ending the filibuster have to do with the idea that whoever has a simple majority has the right to shove their agenda through Congress.  Majority rule is unjust when there are alternatives.  As I said just a few pages ago, "majority rule" is the only viable method in an election with a large voting population, but in a deliberative body like a legislature, particularly the Senate with it's only hundred members, you can have compromise.  With the filibuster, if the minority finds legislation unfavorable, the majority will have to concede in order to get sixty votes for cloture.

Every other western democracy is governed by majority rule and they are just fine, thank you.

What "every other western democracy" does is irrelevant.

Uhh...
Of course. I forgot about American Exceptionalism.

No.

What other countries do has no bearing on whether or not the whole idea of majority rule really is fair.  Other countries have mandatory national service or conscription, but that doesn't make it right or wrong necessarily.  Just because other countries do things doesn't mean we should have to keep up with them in some way.  That's an absurd notion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The amusing thing about some of the arguments in this thread is the idea that the 'minorities' implied by 'minority rights' are perfectly represented by the minority party in the Senate, whichever party that might happen to be. There's no real need to list examples of why that might be both problematic and hilarious.

Or; it's a mistake to identify certain theoretical language about democratic electorates with the bodies elected by those democratic electorates.

[Brittain33]

The amusing thing about some of the arguments in this thread is the idea that the 'minorities' implied by 'minority rights' are perfectly represented by the minority party in the Senate, whichever party that might happen to be. There's no real need to list examples of why that might be both problematic and hilarious.

Or; it's a mistake to identify certain theoretical language about democratic electorates with the bodies elected by those democratic electorates.

The filibuster was most famously used by senators in the first half of the 1900s to prevent passage of a federal anti-lynching law.

[Beet]

The amusing thing about some of the arguments in this thread is the idea that the 'minorities' implied by 'minority rights' are perfectly represented by the minority party in the Senate, whichever party that might happen to be. There's no real need to list examples of why that might be both problematic and hilarious.

Or; it's a mistake to identify certain theoretical language about democratic electorates with the bodies elected by those democratic electorates.

Nobody has said anyone is 'perfectly represented' by any branch of the government. I have no idea what 'perfect representation' is supposed to mean. But the principle of balance between political majorities and minorities is certainly one of the key tenets of representative democracy, particularly in the United States.

[Franzl]

Morgan, I can just as easily say it is unfair to deny a clear majority their way. In reality, you're saying the minority should have just as much influence as the majority, making elections utterly pointless. All it does is prevent true reforms.

Look at what Cameron's government has been able to push through in the form of deficit reducing legislation. That'd be impossible in America...senators always want their bribes (earmarks) in order to reach the magic 60.

The courts protect the minority sufficiently, there's no reason we need to make the losers of elections every bit as powerful as the winners of elections for that purpose.

[cinyc]

The amusing thing about some of the arguments in this thread is the idea that the 'minorities' implied by 'minority rights' are perfectly represented by the minority party in the Senate, whichever party that might happen to be. There's no real need to list examples of why that might be both problematic and hilarious.

Or; it's a mistake to identify certain theoretical language about democratic electorates with the bodies elected by those democratic electorates.

For these purposes, a minority need not be a permanent one - racial, religious, ethnic or whatever.  In fact, the framers were most worried about a temporary majority of the type later seen in post-revolution France seizing power and hastily enacting sweeping change that depended on the political winds of the particular day, only to change direction a few years later.

The opposition party is more likely to reflect the will of the most recent political minority than the party holding power.  By definition, the job of the opposition party is to oppose - something you probably see even more of in parliamentary democracies than a constitutional republic like the US, in part because a parliamentary minority has little power.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nobody has said anyone is 'perfectly represented' by any branch of the government. I have no idea what 'perfect representation' is supposed to mean. But the principle of balance between political majorities and minorities is certainly one of the key tenets of representative democracy, particularly in the United States.

When people use the term 'minority rights' then it is reasonable to make certain assumptions about the assumptions of the people using the term. If you follow me, and I'm going to assume that you do (or at least will when you read this post). To use language like 'minority rights' when discussing this subject in a way that is actually highly theoretical implies a link between minorities who need their rights protected from the whims of the majority and the political minority in the legislature. Otherwise why would you ever use that exact term?

'Perfect representation' is, of course, not jargon of any sort, merely an arrangement of words that seemed to suit the point I was trying (perhaps badly) to make.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For these purposes, a minority need not be a permanent one - racial, religious, ethnic or whatever.  In fact, the framers were most worried about a temporary majority of the type later seen in post-revolution France seizing power and hastily enacting sweeping change that depended on the political winds of the particular day, only to change direction a few years later.

The opposition party is more likely to reflect the will of the most recent political minority than the party holding power.  By definition, the job of the opposition party is to oppose - something you probably see even more of in parliamentary democracies than a constitutional republic like the US, in part because a parliamentary minority has little power.

I don't dispute that the Senate was absolutely intended to be a conservative institution, that it is fundamentally a conservative institution and that it cannot be anything other than a conservative institution without ceasing to be the Senate.

But politics does not operate in a vacuum and the 'rights' of the minority in a legislature are absolutely not the same thing as the rights of minorities within society. To conflate them is to head in a direction that is, at best, ideologically problematic.