Reason.com
New at Reason
Gene Healy warns that the nuclear anti-filibuster option may come back to irradiate Republicans.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|4.27.05 @ 5:18PM|#
So, if I read this article right, all it would take is one Senator's objection and they'd actually have to read the entirety of a 2,000 page farm bill or whatever.
Ron Paul for Senate!
|4.27.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Or we could just get passed that "Read the Bills Act" that Downsize DC is writing. Shouldn't be too hard....
|4.27.05 @ 5:51PM|#
At least some of these laws would be read once before they're passed.
|4.27.05 @ 5:52PM|#
I think the debate here is whether the filibuster is a "conservative instrument" or "tyranny of the minority over the majority instrument," the latter being the argument Tim Noah makes (against the filibuster, as well as the Senate, and the Electoral College). I'll admit that I've found Noah's writing on the topic entertaining, thereby ensuring that I am sympathetic to his argument.
And I am unclear on the entertainment spectacle Gene's suggestion. The old school filibustering example involves Robert Byrd, after all, who will surely have all sorts of procedural entertainments to offer if the Republicans exercise the "constitutional option." I feel that there is greater scope for entertainment here than simple old school filibustering. It's the Congressional version of those "wacky laws" books you see in humor sections of the bookstore. Obstructionism with a little variety.
In addition, he doesn't sufficiently emphasize the entertainment value of the game of chicken now being played. Just as liberals are beginning to realize what's at stake, so are conservatives. Though I've not followed the details, I thought Reid's "compromise" offer might fly, because I can't see why the Republicans would want to open the door to ending any sort of filibustering. But given that they chose to pass...How entertaining would it be to let the rhetoric escalate for a few more days before having some wily Senator propose ending the filibuster period? How entertaining would the backtracking be? If the backtracking failed, what bills would immediately appear -- stem cell research, gay marraige, minimum wage, abortion? Would any senator even want to get within a hundred feet of the chamber? It almost makes a man want to look up what channel C-SPAN is on his cable box.
Almost.
Anon
|4.27.05 @ 7:12PM|#
A serious question: How different would our country be today if our elected officials had to read through everything on which they voted?
Food for thought.
Mandatory speed-reading classes, anyone?
Gimme Back My Dog|4.27.05 @ 8:27PM|#
Has H&R commented on DownsizeDC's proposed legislation? It seems interesting, but my lawyer friend tells me that the courts do not have the power to strike down laws just because Congress did not follow the correct internal procedures. Something about separation of powers.
|4.27.05 @ 9:12PM|#
The idea that the Repbulican have anything to lose is false. The minute the Democrats started filibustering judges, the Repbulicans hand was forced. They had to threaten to end the filibusters at that point, and once they made the threat, they might as well go through with it. Think about it. What difference does it make if the Republicans actually go through with the rule change or not. The pundits are all focusing on the fact that if the Republicans end the filibustering of judges, the Dems will use the precedent to end the filibustering of legislation at some point in the future. But the precedent of a threat to end the filibuster is just as useful as actually ending it. Let's say the Democrats back down and the Nuclear option is avoided? Is the filibuster any safer? No. Because when the Dems want to pass HillaryCareII in 2012, they will say to the Repbulicans, "stop filibustering this bill or we will effect a rule change". If the Republicans don't stop, the Dems can say "hey no fair, we backed down when threatend. You didn't. Therefore we have every right to change the rules just like you would have with us." The cat is already out of the bag. The Republicans gain nothing by not going through with their threat.
|4.27.05 @ 9:36PM|#
Scott-
I'm not so sure. Intense partisan bickering and even obstructionism is nothing new. It may have waxed and waned over time, so that the current level of bickering is worse than in the recent past, but it's not unprecedented in our nation's history. Particularly partisan bickering that involves the courts.
And although the current filibuster rules are not what they were in 1789, the Senate has a long tradition of elaborate rules that allow a minority faction to wield power. That tradition has survived intensely partisan eras, and I still think it will survive the latest round of partisanship. Even at the height of Democratic hegemony in the 20th century they never changed the Senate's rules to give the majority party complete control.
The longevity of Senate careers, and the fact that some Senators hold seats once held by their parents, makes me think that the filibuster will survive. Some of those GOP Senators must be thinking about what will happen in 2032 when, by some fluke, the Dems gain control of the White House and the Senate for the first time since 1992. A few of them will still be in the Senate, and a few others have children who will be in the Senate.
Incidentally, it sickens me that our checks and balances are only kept in place by life-long politicians and the children of life-long politicians. I would much prefer term limits coupled with explicit super-majority requirements for certain matters. For instance, a 2/3 majority for any new tax or tax increase seems reasonable. Ditto for the creation of new government agencies. And I actually don't mind the notion that anybody who wants a life-long job in the 3rd co-equal branch of government should have to get 3/5 support. I would prefer if these requirements were explicitly written into the Constitution, but I'll settle for the status quo.
|4.27.05 @ 10:16PM|#
You're operating on the misplaced assumption that Republicans actually want to block government pork programs. This might have been true a long time ago, but it isn't now.
If filibustering prevents the passage of laws I'm all for it. Then again, I'm always for divided government that gets nothing done and thus doesn't grow at the rapid rate that is so usual for it.
|4.27.05 @ 10:28PM|#
thoreau,
You mention "status quo", which is the key. If it takes 3/5 majorities to get a judge appointed, only so called "moderates" would be elevated to the bench. In the decidedly left of center world of the modern bar, moderates are people like Ginsburg and Breyer (who were approved almost unanimously by a Republican Senate, I might add). That is the fatal flaw in the Dems filibustering plan. If Filibustering judges becomes the "status quo", what they are essentially offering the Republicans is Democratic control of the Courts forever. That isn't a very attractive option.
|4.27.05 @ 10:29PM|#
The republicans should press ahead with the nuclear option. It will energize their base thoroughly, and to the extent it energizes the democrat's base--who cares? The republican base is larger.
Nothing will be more demoralizing to the republicans membership than seeing their party's leaders fail to act.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
|4.27.05 @ 10:37PM|#
The great thing about nuclear option 1 (forced reading of all bills) is that it will poll great. Imagine this ABC poll: Do you oppose forcing Congressmen to read the laws before they vote on them? It's unspinnable baby!
|4.27.05 @ 11:08PM|#
This is not the first time that we've seen bitter partisan feuding. This is not the first time that the judiciary has been the object of political warfare. This is not the first time that a party with a near hegemony has demanded even more power. And the Senate's rules have certainly changed over the years.
But the Republic has endured because our system does not allow complete hegemony. And part of that comes from the nature of the Senate as a body where no faction can wield complete control.
I am deeply suspicious of any move to further solidify the majority party's power in the Senate.
While I understand Scott's concern about the judiciary's current leanings, why should we assume that good things will come from giving one party unchecked power over judicial nominations? Yes, I know, a 3/5 requirement makes it impossible to get our ideal libertarian judges appointed. And no doubt a simple majority requirement would enable the confirmation of a few judges that we would fine excellent.
But let's look at the promises that Republicans have broken: They have continued to run up deficits. They have allowed runaway increases in non-defense discretionary domestic spending. A GOP Congress passed and a GOP Congress signed the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. A GOP Congress passed and a GOP President signed McCain-Feingold. And in a move that must have Madison spinning in his grave, a GOP administration has claimed the right to hold US citizens captured on US soil without trial or charges. Yes, many of these measures were opposed by some GOP members of Congress, but the GOP leadership allowed these measures to pass and George Bush signed them!
And yet we are supposed to assume that George Bush and the Senate Republican leadership will behave responsibly if allowed to act with impunity in appointing the third coequal branch of government?
If these characters had a better record then I might be less worried. If so many of their complaints about "activist judges" didn't involve religious matters then I might be less worried. If their promises were more reliable then I might be less worried. And if the courts weren't the only thing keeping them from putting US citizens in prison without trial then I might be less worried.
I wish that we could rely on some force better than the Democrats to protect us from the Republicans. Sadly, the Democrats are all we have. And I am not going to remove the one final obstacle preventing the GOP from remaking the third branch of government into compliant lapdogs.
There are worse things in this world than a judiciary that leans to the left. Let's not learn that lesson the hard way.
|4.28.05 @ 1:18AM|#
Conservatives should like the filibuster. I mean, what could be more conservative than standing athwart the senate shouting "STOP!"?
|4.28.05 @ 4:02AM|#
That the Republicans in the Senate are having so much trouble dealing with this is amazing to me.
As I see it, the Democrats have essentially turned a procedure (sending judicial nominations out of committee) which had been a traditional sort of rubber-stamp courtesy to the Executive and turned it into a political lethal weapon in their favor by refusing to honor that 'tradition.' This is something like when a three-year old kid manages to find a loaded gun and walks into the room waving it at the rest of the family -- the solution is to jump on the kid before he has any chance of pulling the trigger and disarming him, real quick-like.
That the Republicans didn't stomp on the first threat by the Democrats to stonewall the noninations in committee and disarm that tactic makes me wonder how much chance Bush is going to have of getting Social Security & tax reform through the Congress in any meaningful way.
Since those are only two of three things I support Bush for (the other being the war on terror), I might just have to wave goodbye forever to the Republicans on this one.
There isn't much point to being the big kid on the block if you wet your pants every time there's a fight.
|4.28.05 @ 6:14AM|#
thoreau wrote: "But let's look at the promises that Republicans have broken: They have continued to run up deficits. They have allowed runaway increases in non-defense discretionary domestic spending. A GOP Congress passed and a GOP Congress signed the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. A GOP Congress passed and a GOP President signed McCain-Feingold. And in a move that must have Madison spinning in his grave, a GOP administration has claimed the right to hold US citizens captured on US soil without trial or charges. Yes, many of these measures were opposed by some GOP members of Congress, but the GOP leadership allowed these measures to pass and George Bush signed them!"
So why isn't this laudable bipartisanship, moderation with regard to welfare--and didn't these bills need Democratic support to pass? Not that their bipartisanship got them anywhere, that's why I think the Republican majority should end filibusters, at least with respect to Judicial nominees. The majority should rule, except where the Constitution gives them no power to rule.
Bago, it is not conservative to yell "Stop" when stopping means you continue to do something wrong.
I must even add a "DUH"!
Douglass has it largely right, however scatologically--except there is no foreseeable improvement over the Republicans to be seen in any other party.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
Vache Folle|4.28.05 @ 9:30AM|#
Anything that tempers or thwarts majoritarian tyranny is much to be desired.
|4.28.05 @ 12:58PM|#
Tom-
You can characterize McCain-Feingold and the Medicare Prescription Drug bill as bipartisan cooperation if you like. The bottom line is that the GOP leadership, including President Bush chose to participate in gross infringements of liberty and expansion of government. That hardly qualifies them to wield unchecked control over the third coequal branch of government. Especially when this administration has claimed for itself the power to lock up US citizens captured on US soil indefinitely without trial! That's the sort of thing that should send chills down the spine of any American who values liberty.
I wish that we had some check or balance better than filibusters by the Senate Democrats. I really do. But they're the only remaining obstacle to giving one party total control over the US government. Sometimes you have to play with the hand that you're dealt.