None of these is “new.” But nearly all of them are AWOL from political and press discussion of a major threat to American governance. A primer for this coming week.
The average person sees Congress as, in the best of terms, stalled & stalled for many years, thus, "why care?" Why care to the point of "blow it up!" The current filibuster, in my opinion, is a huge contributor.
A not-so-far-fetched constitutional amendment possibility: If the Senate doesn't vote on a passed House bill within X days, it automatically goes to the president as though the Senate had approved the bill.
Ending the filibuster would do little to make the Senate more democratic or functional. There are too many other ways to obstruct Senate business, including Holds and Filling the Amendment Tree. I could see value in ending filibusters on motions to proceed and changing the rule to "a majority of those present and voting, " and requiring 41 Senators to continue the filibuster. But until more Senators see themselves as lawmakers instead of partisan oracles, the partisanship will make the body dysfunctional. I see more to fear from a radical GOP majoritarianism than from what cannot be accomplished by a 50/50 Senate. While historically the filibuster was used mainly against civil rights, it prevented the killing of Obamacare and the Iran nuclear deal. Full disclosure: I was a Senate staffer for 22 years, and before the filibuster became so weaponized. I'd like to Make the Senate Great Again.
Charlie, thank you for weighing in — especially from your extremely well informed perspective. (Which I have relied on, over the years.) Will address in a follow up.
People of my generation (and yours?) think of the filibuster as primarily segregationists' defense against civil rights legislation that would usher in more complete democracy in Jim Crow states. I still do.
Yes, in the promised follow-up, will go into the theme I under-played in this post: the way the filibuster's *main* use through most of the 20th century was to stop Civil Rights legislation.
Does the Senate waive its right to advise and consent if it doesn't act on a nomination within a reasonable time? A lawyer argued this in the WaPo during the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination.
Perhaps this is answered in one of the pieces you have linked to, but I'll pose the question nonetheless: WHY was the talking filibuster jettisoned for the current version?:
Several of the linked posts *do* go into this issue, and Jentleson's book addresses it at length. But, adding to the "upcoming" list, will address in follow-up too.
The average person sees Congress as, in the best of terms, stalled & stalled for many years, thus, "why care?" Why care to the point of "blow it up!" The current filibuster, in my opinion, is a huge contributor.
A not-so-far-fetched constitutional amendment possibility: If the Senate doesn't vote on a passed House bill within X days, it automatically goes to the president as though the Senate had approved the bill.
This type of reporting is exactly why I subscribed.
Thank you!
Ending the filibuster would do little to make the Senate more democratic or functional. There are too many other ways to obstruct Senate business, including Holds and Filling the Amendment Tree. I could see value in ending filibusters on motions to proceed and changing the rule to "a majority of those present and voting, " and requiring 41 Senators to continue the filibuster. But until more Senators see themselves as lawmakers instead of partisan oracles, the partisanship will make the body dysfunctional. I see more to fear from a radical GOP majoritarianism than from what cannot be accomplished by a 50/50 Senate. While historically the filibuster was used mainly against civil rights, it prevented the killing of Obamacare and the Iran nuclear deal. Full disclosure: I was a Senate staffer for 22 years, and before the filibuster became so weaponized. I'd like to Make the Senate Great Again.
Charlie, thank you for weighing in — especially from your extremely well informed perspective. (Which I have relied on, over the years.) Will address in a follow up.
People of my generation (and yours?) think of the filibuster as primarily segregationists' defense against civil rights legislation that would usher in more complete democracy in Jim Crow states. I still do.
Yes, in the promised follow-up, will go into the theme I under-played in this post: the way the filibuster's *main* use through most of the 20th century was to stop Civil Rights legislation.
Does the Senate waive its right to advise and consent if it doesn't act on a nomination within a reasonable time? A lawyer argued this in the WaPo during the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html
Good question. Don't know and will address.
Perhaps this is answered in one of the pieces you have linked to, but I'll pose the question nonetheless: WHY was the talking filibuster jettisoned for the current version?:
Several of the linked posts *do* go into this issue, and Jentleson's book addresses it at length. But, adding to the "upcoming" list, will address in follow-up too.