There are around 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Currently there are the nearly equal amounts of Republican and Democratic judges. I wonder if the idea of Obama appointing some of the most liberal people ever to exist to fill up those slots will force Republicans to be a bit more reasonable in other areas.
Senate Democrats Eliminate Filibusters on Judicial and Executive Nominees
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Partial Gamification
Banned
Its a year-out, what are you basing this on? I'm curious, not trying to argue.
That doesn't matter all that much for this. The filibuster on appointments makes a big difference only when a party controls the Senate and the presidency, and the filibuster on legislation is only super-important when the House is also friendly. The Republicans can't take advantage of the change until 2016 at the earliest, and they would need to both take the presidency and take/hold the Senate, which will be hard since the 2010 crowd is up for reelection.
The Librarian
Banned
Does anybody read the OP? These will still happen, even in the event that the 60-vote threshold is removed for legislation.
Read the OP it's all there.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The Senate serves as a distinct voice from the House for a variety of reasons. One is that Senators putatively represent regional interests both in terms of the balance of seats by region and in terms of the fact that the district size is equivalent to a state rather than a small portion of a state. One is that the Senate as an institution has a history of empowering the minority party. The filibuster is just one of the ways that this is the case, but it is an important one. One is that staggered election dates for the Senate ensure that relatively quick whiplashes in public opinion that manifest in the house are countered by slower change in the senate. These duties are typically reflective of upper houses more broadly worldwide and so are not unusual.
The Senate's regional representation ability was first dealt a hit with the move towards direct election of senators in lieu of state appointments of senators. Although senators are responsible to their voting public, they less concretely represent state interests as opposed to other political interests. That is fine.
The Senate, along with the House, is moving towards generally increasing party discipline. Party discipline is the degree to which party members vote with their party, and more precisely the degree to which party leaders can secure votes within the party. One of the reasons why there is a movement towards increased party discipline is that politics themselves have become more polarized, and thus in terms of ideological distance it makes more sense for party members to vote with their party on more or all issues. Another of the reasons is that party whips have gotten more effective at securing votes, and party primaries have been increasingly monopolized by true believers who are willing and able to primary incumbents on the basis that the incumbents have insufficient partisan rigour. This is not just true in the Republican party (see for example Ned Lamont's acrimonious challenge of Joe Lieberman in the senate, or further back Ted Kennedy's challenge of Jimmy Carter at the presidential level), although it is probably more true than with the Democrats given the overall difficulty the Democratic super-majority had to capitalize on their numbers. Increasing party discipline erodes the Senate's ability to represent regionally. In jurisdictions with strong party discipline, members of both the upper and lower chambers typically do a poor job of representing regional interests because they vote first and foremost ideologically or as members of their party. Canada is an excellent example of this, where the senate does a very poor job of representing provinces.
Dedication to preserving the power of the minority is also going to structurally erode. The anonymous hold has been relatively weakened and actually effectively abolished in the last few years. Senatorial courtesy in terms of nominations is less observed now than ever. Blue slips are less significant now than ever. Cloture has eroded from 67 votes to 60 and now is eroding to 50 in terms of nominations. This particular method of filibuster reform does not separate between talking filibusters and procedural filibusters. The consensus in this thread appears to be that such a move will eventually extend to routine legislation as well. Moves to require, for example, amendment germaneness, will further erode minority obfuscation powers in years to come. I am not judging these actions, as I am well aware that they are being taken due to perceived or real intransigence by minority parties. I agree with filibuster reform.
Here comes my actual argument. If the Senate is different from the house in what amounts to three major ways, and two of those ways are increasingly becoming irrelevant, then the only remaining structural factor that makes the Senate have a different voice than the house is staggered election terms. When France moved to synchronize election terms, the Prime Minister's power (France has a Prime Minister + President system) greatly eroded because the degree of difference between legislative election results and presidential election results shrank. Should the Senate move to any kind of synchronization (unstaggered 6 year terms or shorter terms), the Senate would essentially no longer be a distinct institution from the House.
I think it is worth pausing to observe the long-term consequences of eroding the bicamerality of the US legislature.
Edit: Dax, although Reid did not kneecap the talking filibuster entirely, the claim that this move will lead to suspension of any kind of super-majority cloture policy will end the talking filibuster (not that the talking filibuster has any real legislative power rather than symbolic-political power)
The Senate's regional representation ability was first dealt a hit with the move towards direct election of senators in lieu of state appointments of senators. Although senators are responsible to their voting public, they less concretely represent state interests as opposed to other political interests. That is fine.
The Senate, along with the House, is moving towards generally increasing party discipline. Party discipline is the degree to which party members vote with their party, and more precisely the degree to which party leaders can secure votes within the party. One of the reasons why there is a movement towards increased party discipline is that politics themselves have become more polarized, and thus in terms of ideological distance it makes more sense for party members to vote with their party on more or all issues. Another of the reasons is that party whips have gotten more effective at securing votes, and party primaries have been increasingly monopolized by true believers who are willing and able to primary incumbents on the basis that the incumbents have insufficient partisan rigour. This is not just true in the Republican party (see for example Ned Lamont's acrimonious challenge of Joe Lieberman in the senate, or further back Ted Kennedy's challenge of Jimmy Carter at the presidential level), although it is probably more true than with the Democrats given the overall difficulty the Democratic super-majority had to capitalize on their numbers. Increasing party discipline erodes the Senate's ability to represent regionally. In jurisdictions with strong party discipline, members of both the upper and lower chambers typically do a poor job of representing regional interests because they vote first and foremost ideologically or as members of their party. Canada is an excellent example of this, where the senate does a very poor job of representing provinces.
Dedication to preserving the power of the minority is also going to structurally erode. The anonymous hold has been relatively weakened and actually effectively abolished in the last few years. Senatorial courtesy in terms of nominations is less observed now than ever. Blue slips are less significant now than ever. Cloture has eroded from 67 votes to 60 and now is eroding to 50 in terms of nominations. This particular method of filibuster reform does not separate between talking filibusters and procedural filibusters. The consensus in this thread appears to be that such a move will eventually extend to routine legislation as well. Moves to require, for example, amendment germaneness, will further erode minority obfuscation powers in years to come. I am not judging these actions, as I am well aware that they are being taken due to perceived or real intransigence by minority parties. I agree with filibuster reform.
Here comes my actual argument. If the Senate is different from the house in what amounts to three major ways, and two of those ways are increasingly becoming irrelevant, then the only remaining structural factor that makes the Senate have a different voice than the house is staggered election terms. When France moved to synchronize election terms, the Prime Minister's power (France has a Prime Minister + President system) greatly eroded because the degree of difference between legislative election results and presidential election results shrank. Should the Senate move to any kind of synchronization (unstaggered 6 year terms or shorter terms), the Senate would essentially no longer be a distinct institution from the House.
I think it is worth pausing to observe the long-term consequences of eroding the bicamerality of the US legislature.
Edit: Dax, although Reid did not kneecap the talking filibuster entirely, the claim that this move will lead to suspension of any kind of super-majority cloture policy will end the talking filibuster (not that the talking filibuster has any real legislative power rather than symbolic-political power)
Grimm Fandango
Member
Why does the filibuster still exist anyway?
Sirpopopop
Member
I see you failed to look at the post above your post.
Derekloffin
Member
It's sad in a way to see it go, but it was inevitable. There was just far and away too much abuse of the rule and it had long ago exceeded the notion of being ridiculous. Will it come back to eventually bite them, probably, but the old rule was already biting them severely now and not for good reasons. The Reps basically were pushing it so far that they forced this.
Basically commentary like Nate Silver's, an observation that many incumbent Democrats are in red states, and watching the poll numbers related to the disastrous Affordable Care Act exchange website rollout.
j_k_redtail
Member
Also consider this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...why-not-just-explode-the-filibuster-for-good/
Just like the shutdown fight. You can't negotiate with maniacs... so don't.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
RustyNails
Member
Normally Senate needs 50+1 votes to confirm an appointee or pass a bill. Due to an arcane senate rule, the minority can fillibuster that action by having 40 No votes, essentially giving minority just as much power in the Senate as Majority. Under these rules, Republicans have abused the fillibuster on EVERY Obama nominee or a Democratic bill thereby stifling Obama's agenda just for lols. Harry Reid is getting rid of this arcane rule because of complete and total dickery from Republicans. There are still 100 vacancies in federal courts. Higher departments are also held up.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Correct.
The Librarian
Banned
So, Stump, what exactly are you saying here? The Senate, as an institution, is one of the most undemocratic on the planet. I don't see much consequences here. A variety of countries have shown that you can operate perfectly fine with a unicameral legislature. The only reason why the Senate really exists is that those in the smaller states think that they'll be deprived of power. I've seen this argument over and over, but I've never seen any substantial evidence that this will happen.
Honestly, at this point, I don't see how. The talking filibuster has never been the problem: Indeed, when have those ever been successful in stopping legislation?
Amibguous Cad
Member
This was in the context of my support for doing away with the filibuster altogether.
An explanation of cloture and the fillibuster and the legislative process:
Cloture is an action that begins or ends debate so that the assembled body may vote on a motion. A cloture vote can be invoked to:
1. Begin debate on a bill
2. End debate on a bill
3. Begin debate on an executive appointment
4. End debate on an executive appointment
5. Begin debate on a treaty
6. End debate on a treaty
In the senate, the Presiding Officer (Either the Vice President of the United States, or, in absence, the President Pro Tempore) is in charge of moderating the process on the floor. He can motion to move to a vote on a bill without opening the floor for debate, and this motion can be passed by majority rules. Any individual senator can object to this motion, though, and this objection automatically opens the floor to debate and forces a cloture vote. This is called a fillibuster. A filibuster is a delay tactic to prevent a motion (e.g., a motion on a legislative bill) from being voted on by the members of the assembly in which the motion is being considered. Fillibusters extend debate on the motion to obstruct its passage.
Independent of the Presiding Officer, any individual senator can motion for a cloture vote to bring a bill or appointment to the floor.
Once debate is formally ended (cloture is invoked, or the motion to proceed to a vote is passed without a fillibuster), the legislation or appointment can proceed to a vote, where passage is dictated by majority rules (or, in the case of an international treaty or constitutional amendment, a 2/3rds majority for passage)
Therefore, cloture can end a filibuster so that the motion may be put to the floor for a vote.
Under senate rules, cloture vote requires 60 senators for passage. The senate just decided to make the cloture vote 50 senators for non-supreme court executive appointees. The 60 vote threshhold remains for supreme court nominees, legislation, and treaties, though.
Cloture is an action that begins or ends debate so that the assembled body may vote on a motion. A cloture vote can be invoked to:
1. Begin debate on a bill
2. End debate on a bill
3. Begin debate on an executive appointment
4. End debate on an executive appointment
5. Begin debate on a treaty
6. End debate on a treaty
In the senate, the Presiding Officer (Either the Vice President of the United States, or, in absence, the President Pro Tempore) is in charge of moderating the process on the floor. He can motion to move to a vote on a bill without opening the floor for debate, and this motion can be passed by majority rules. Any individual senator can object to this motion, though, and this objection automatically opens the floor to debate and forces a cloture vote. This is called a fillibuster. A filibuster is a delay tactic to prevent a motion (e.g., a motion on a legislative bill) from being voted on by the members of the assembly in which the motion is being considered. Fillibusters extend debate on the motion to obstruct its passage.
Independent of the Presiding Officer, any individual senator can motion for a cloture vote to bring a bill or appointment to the floor.
Once debate is formally ended (cloture is invoked, or the motion to proceed to a vote is passed without a fillibuster), the legislation or appointment can proceed to a vote, where passage is dictated by majority rules (or, in the case of an international treaty or constitutional amendment, a 2/3rds majority for passage)
Therefore, cloture can end a filibuster so that the motion may be put to the floor for a vote.
Under senate rules, cloture vote requires 60 senators for passage. The senate just decided to make the cloture vote 50 senators for non-supreme court executive appointees. The 60 vote threshhold remains for supreme court nominees, legislation, and treaties, though.
Lamel
Banned
I see, thank you for the clarification.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Tons of great stuff in here. I feel like all of the functional problems are symptomatic of polarization and "party discipline" as you put it, although it's part of a feedback loop that just increases the problem. I choose to focus on encouraging cooperation, and hopefully from that will follow an increased respect for the minority.
It's a very interesting point about the "erosion" of the Senate, though. I think it's certainly important to maintain bi-camerality, and there's actually some interesting advantages to the appointment of Senators (although there's also obviously some interesting problems as well)
The Librarian
Banned
This is getting into another discussion entirely, but what we're probably seeing is the US presidential system breaking down, as all presidential systems have done in the past. It's not so much the people as it is the system in which they operate. Remember a fundamental rule of politics: politicians are rational people who will do whatever they can to achieve their desired results. Hence the abuse of the filibuster, the shutdown, the debt ceiling, stalling on immigration and ENDA, and so on.
LegendofJoe
Member
Wishful thinking here, but maybe one day we'll have a war on ignorance.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Still a long way off, but Silver knows his stats and how to apply them; even if article is a couple months old.
1%-6% swing in three weeks on the Republican side... I hate that I'm thinking of this now, but thank you for sharing.
Lamel
Banned
Thank you for all this.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Well that's at least one step forward.
Now do it for legislation.
Now do it for legislation.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I dont' know that we can say right now the GOP has a good shot at taking the Senate in 2014 anyways.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Wonder if Reid will be against this like he was last time he was in the minority. Lousy hypocrite.
The senate should be either done away with altogether, eroded into a role of advising and refining house legislation (and the occasional veto check), similar to the canadian senate and the british house of lords, or consolidated into the house of representatives.
Pure bicamerality where neither chamber has the ability to overrule the other, yet both have the ability to prevent the other from acting, it's just stupid and redundant.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Well, as long as we're clear that "democracy" is the objective over order or rule of law, and that the long-term end of having a functionally unicameral legislature is acceptable. But I think you'd find that many people who purportedly agree with this change, including myself, don't think those premises are quite so trivially true.
I'd also add that your treatment of unicameralism is very shallow; unicameralism is successful, yes, but mostly in very small states and often in unitary states rather than federations. In federal states, bicameralism is far more common in part because the upper house provides a meaningful check on the capacity of the national government to erode federalism and stampede over the subnational divisions. Historically unicameral legislatures in federal states have had poor results--Pakistan during the Bangladesh episode and Nigeria are the two most famous failed attempts at unicameralism in a federal state.
Gridlock is torturous and US politics are incredibly frustrating and I agree the Senate is profoundly broken, but when fixing a problem it is very important to look at the long-term ripple effects because the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.
Canada is functionally unicameral due to various historical reasons (absent figurehead executive, a pointless toady Senate) to the point that the Prime Minister of Canada wields far more power than the US President.
S'alright. I'm firmly in favour of abolishing the Canadian Senate in fact.
S'alright. I'm firmly in favour of abolishing the Canadian Senate in fact.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
This is perhaps not the best refutation for several reasons: first, because the Senate has had major legislative impact (GST, abortion, free trade being three MAJOR policy areas in my lifetime--the Liberal senate had a great deal of success at checking the PC's massive majority in 1984). Next, because the threat to Canadian democracy is not unicameralism versus bicameralism, but rather the increasing concentration of legislative power in the hands of the Prime Minister due to the gradual strengthening of cabinet and the obscene degree of party discipline that renders backbenchers functionally irrelevant. Finally, because to the degree that Canada is unicameral (and so you're okay with abolishing what you view as a useless senate), we view it as problematic that the Prime Minister acts unchecked and we ought to be trying to strengthen bicameralism in part to check against the executive.
Most of the seats up in 2014 are Dem seats, and many are vulnerable seats, such as Kay Hagan's.
The ACA debacle has turned what was looking like a likely win into a toss-up there. (and this is with a Dem base that is energized for next year due to the idiocy the Tea Partiers have done at the state level)
That said, the Dems have a great shot of taking it back in 2016 if they lose it in 2014, as its a pres election year, Obamacare will be more entrenched, and most of the seats up for grabs will be Tea Party seats.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
That was 2008, merely months before filibuster use shot into the stratosphere. I'm sure if you sent Reid back in time he'd feel differently about it.
The Librarian
Banned
You'd have to bring up some instances here. The US Senate, besides *maybe* right after ratification, before the Civil War, and during the fight over the CRA, has never voted based on the interests of a certain region or subnational divisions. As in, the South for the South or the North for the North. Do most of the regions vote the same way? Sure! But that's because their political makeup is similar, not because they're fighting to protect the interest of one region.
I don't know much about that Pakistan situation, but I do know that Nigera has far harsher regional divisions than the US not sure that's entirely applicable here.
But the Senate has acted for a majority institution for most of its life it's only recently that it's been a 60-vote institution. I don't see what's to go astray here...?
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
True, but their being rational people doesn't exclude the possibility that they could rationally choose not to abuse these powers that they "technically" have (and we can also vote to close the loopholes that are exploited). Self advancement, although way too common a goal in current politics, is not necessarily the only possible goal of those governing.
While that is true, you could also say that having pure unicamerality would mean having a lack of double-checking and a lack of diversity of the types of opinions that are present in debate. The interaction between the two houses is definitely broken, and needs to be addressed, but I wouldn't say just do away with the Senate all together. The Senate can provide a unique counterpoint to the more "pure democracy" nature of the House.
Either way, neither absolute is best. Pure anything doesn't work.
RobotChant
Member
Probably for the best. Dems usually lack balls and just go along with the GOP too often anyhow. At least this way they'll be able to try and get something done while they're in power.
Still, god/mother nature/science/the universe help us all when the GOP gets their turn one day.
This can't be mentioned enough:
Still, god/mother nature/science/the universe help us all when the GOP gets their turn one day.
This can't be mentioned enough:
The Librarian
Banned
It's not about self-advancement (most senators or politicians don't move on to become president). And choosing to not exercise certain powers don't achieve their goals as much as exercising them.
Re: 2014/2016, I agree it's a bit too far out to give real predictions, but I was basically trying to express that even if I knew the GOP would control the White House and Senate in 2016, I'd be ok with this nuking. The gridlock is too much, plus:
Escape Goat
Member
hilarious and sad if true.
Yeah but Obama has, like, added more debt than every president before him!
This is factually untrue, and besides, inflation alone should, theoretically, lead to an increase in total debt by about 40% every 8-10 years
Going very OT here so last post in this topic. The increasing power of the Prime Minister in The House of Commons is due to two reasons as far as I can see. The first is just a sign of the times, the increasing power of a centralized media has made it that the leader of a party, and the party brand itself, are far more important to voters than the local candidates. Everybody knows this and so backbenchers necessarily take their cues from the people on whose strength they got elected, the party leader and his/her handlers.
Nothing can be done about that and I don't think that's a terribly bad thing anyway.
The second reason is that due to the winner take all FPTP system (and similar systems such as AV/IRV) every large party always believes it is, and actually is, on the brink of gaining full and total power by getting a majority of seats even though they get far less than a majority of votes. That total power is always so close to attainable and possible to hold onto that every elected member of a party will do whatever they can to achieve it and hold onto it, and that has barely anything to do with the individual member themselves and a whole lot to do with the party leader/apparatus. That desire for full power overrides almost everything else.
Plus having achieved that full power the PMO has not only full power but also an immense amount of influence and can keep their bankbenchers in line as everyone knows that the individual members will live and die based on how the PMO does far more than how they themselves perform.
The solution is simple and doesn't require another level of government and gridlock. It's to make gaining full majority power in the House of Commons as hard as it should be, which is to say that they should only gain that power if a majority of people vote for them. Proportional Representation in other words. Without that power concentrated in one party suddenly exercising power requires gathering the support of a whole lot of MPs unlike right now where the power is concentrated with the PMO.
So I will qualify my earlier statements to say that unicameral legislatures are alright, but you gotta elect the members of that legislature in a sane, proportional, way.
In any case I hang around the Canadian poligaf thread all the time if you want to continue this.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Understood, however Senate is 6 year term and elections will be in 2014 and 2020; maybe you are also speaking of the House.
The ACA is probably going to make, or break, it for either party.
My bias for the Republicans aside, I can't tell if Reid is pruning a rotten branch of the proverbial Tree of Liberty, or a healthy one that is just infected with pests.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
But you still seem to be saying that their main driving goal is purely to exercise their power, for whatever end. I just meant that it's still possible for politicians to be legitimately interested in serving the public in the way that we traditionally expect politicians to do, as rare as that currently seems.
Believe it or not "politician" was not always a four-letter word.
speculawyer
Member
Well, if you are not going to put here then I will, APKmetsfan.
The Librarian
Banned
Politicians will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to achieve their desired public policy goals. "Serving the public" is a vague statement that doesn't mean anything as using those powers can be serving the public that elected them. Changing the rules of the filibuster does not prevent politicians from acting how you want them to act: It simply removes a mechanism that gives them incentive to act differently.
- Status