SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Senate Dems Throw In the Towel

JONATHAN CHAIT JANUARY 24, 2011

Senate Dems Throw In the Towel

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Last month, every member of the Senate Democratic caucus signed a letter signalling support for reforms that would end anonymous holds and force the minority to actually mount a continuous debate if it wanted to block a bill, rather than require a supermajority vote even to begin a debate:

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, to weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

What happened next? Let's see. First, Republican critics attacked the reforms for doing away with the supermajority requirement even though (sadly) they did no such thing. Then the few conservatives who actually understood what the reforms would do (which, again, was not -- NOT, Senator Alexander -- prevent the minority from obstructing legislation) admitted they actually made a lot of sense.

And, now, of course, the denouement -- Senate Democrats fold like a cheap suit:

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers will receive pitches from Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who have been negotiating more limited changes, such as with "secret holds" that allow an anonymous senator to slow legislation. In addition, some modifications could be made to the way confirmations are handled for agency nominees who do not have direct roles in policymaking.

I was pretty surprised when Senate democrats agreed to even very minor filibuster reform. They really do seem to believe that the post-1975 rule changes, which transformed the filibsuter from a rare tool of strong protest into a routine supermajority requirement, is the bedrock of American democracy.

Will this ever change? One way to change it will be for Democratic activists to start demanding support for filibuster reform as a condition of the nominating process. That will take a long time to work. Probably what will happen first is that Republicans will gain control of the House, Senate, and White House but lack a 60-vote supermajority and just change the rule themselves.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

Whatever happens, it's important that the Democrats don't make it so easy to change the filibuster rules, that when the Republicans get in the next time they use that precedent to change the filibuster rules to remove all power from the minority party. These are very shark-filled waters to swim in. But yes, the "secret holds" are just ridiculous.

- AllanL5

January 24, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem is, once you use the constitutional option once, there's really nothing from keeping the majority party from using it again for whatever purpose. (And yes, they can do this whenever they want--the whole "first day" business is just to make senators feel better about it.) Even if the majority party didn't control the vice presidency, the VP would probably feel obligated to respect the precedent set earlier. I'd like to hear how you can really prevent secret holds. Sounds easy, but in practice I don't see how. Sen. Udall's proposal simply stated, "No senator may object on behalf of another senator." (That's necessary because party leaders now object on behalf of senators who try to remain anonymous.) In practice, this is how I imagine this working out: MAJORITY LEADER: I cal for unanimous consent to consider the nomination of Arnold Schwarzenegger to be ambassador to Germany. PRESIDING SENATOR: Is there an objection? SENATOR JERKFACE: I object, on behalf of my colleague who wished to remain nameless. PRESIDING SENATOR: According to Rule (whatever), that objection is out of order. SENATOR JERKFACE: OK, so then I object because I consider that rule to be unconstitutional. PRESIDING SENATOR: Uh, ok, objection is heard.

- ulexamp

January 24, 2011 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, at least this is better than I thought it'd be when I saw the headline. I figured Reid had embraced his inner spineless weasel and given McConnell the vote he was demanding on repealing health reform.

- janus

January 24, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bite your tongue, janus. The ACA is law because of Mr. Harry Reid.

- liberalref

January 24, 2011 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The filibuster can be eliminated at any time-- no matter what the spineless Dems don't do. The nuclear option is well known. Care to bet whether the Repubs use it the first time they are in the majority and feel they need to?? Can any of you also tell us what of value has the use of the filibuster really accomplished?? And what is wrong with majority rule?

- drofnats1

January 24, 2011 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The ACA is law a year late and a shadow of what it should have been because of Harry Reid's kowtowing to Lieberman, Grassley and McConnell. Reid is the singular cause of Democrats' woes in the Senate, primarily because he's a goddamn spineless pansy. I said that last year, and I'll stand by it. My greatest regret of 2010 was not properly budgeting to be able to donate the max to Sharron Angle's campaign, because no matter how utterly crazy she was, she'd have given Democrats a stronger, better Majority Leader in the Senate.

- janus

January 24, 2011 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Weren't there some republican shennanigans back in the 90's after they took control of Congress? Wasn't there an SNL skit about it?

- GSpinks

January 24, 2011 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close