As you say, it would make anything possible, including (for example) the death penalty for "slandering" a Federal official.
Michael, I reallSuch a change would more likely make some real disaster possible rather than make "progressive legislation " possible.
As you say, it would make anything possible, including (for example) the death penalty for "slandering" a Federal official.
Michael, I really don't quite understand how someone can know as much and understand as much as you do and still cling to utopian notions such as moving forward by small steps. All small steps forward, as the last century wonderfully illustrated, are more than apt to be followed by two steps back ward.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Pollak Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:35 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] The modest chance filibuster change could win a Senate vote
[this Wednesday. By far the best thing about this, if it happened, would be that the procedure of modifying Senate rules by a majority vote at the beginning of the session would be validated and enshrined as a precedent. If that is accepted, everything is possible. And every time a majority gets hamstrung, it would be tempted to this easy solution every two years -- esp. if the other party recently did it to them. One could then imagine an escalating revenge dynamic that harnessed the power of partisan hatred to wipe it out.]
[In real life I fear it will all soon sink into literally unbearable procedural detail like everything Senatorial. But it was a sweet dream I wanted to share.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03mon1.html
The New York Times
January 2, 2011
Reform and the Filibuster
The new Senate will face one of its most momentous decisions in its
opening hours on Wednesday: a vote on whether to change its rules to
prohibit the widespread abuse of the filibuster. Americans are fed up
with Washington gridlock. The Senate should seize the opportunity.
A filibuster -- the catchall term for delaying or blocking a majority
vote on a bill by lengthy debate or other procedures -- remains a
valuable tool for ensuring that a minority of senators cannot be
steamrollered into silence. No one is talking about ending the
practice.
Every returning Democratic senator, though, has signed a letter
demanding an end to the almost automatic way the filibuster has been
used in recent years. By simply raising an anonymous objection,
senators can trigger a 60-vote supermajority for virtually every piece
of legislation. The time has come to make senators work for their
filibusters, and justify them to the public.
Critics will say that it is self-serving for Democrats to propose these
reforms now, when they face a larger and more restive Republican
minority. The facts of the growing procedural abuse are clearly on
their side. In the last two Congressional terms, Republicans have
brought 275 filibusters that Democrats have been forced to try to
break. That is by far the highest number in Congressional history, and
more than twice the amount in the previous two terms.
These filibusters are the reason there was no budget passed this year,
and why as many as 125 nominees to executive branch positions and 48
judicial nominations were never brought to a vote. They have produced
public policy that we strongly opposed, most recently preserving the
tax cuts for the rich, but even bipartisan measures like the food
safety bill are routinely filibustered and delayed.
The key is to find a way to ensure that any minority party -- and the
Democrats could find themselves there again -- has leverage in the
Senate without grinding every bill to an automatic halt. The most
thoughtful proposal to do so was developed by Senator Jeff Merkley of
Oregon, along with Tom Udall of New Mexico and a few other freshmen. It
would make these major changes:
NO LAZY FILIBUSTERS At least 10 senators would have to file a
filibuster petition, and members would have to speak continuously on
the floor to keep the filibuster going. To ensure the seriousness of
the attempt, the requirements would grow each day: five senators would
have to hold the floor for the first day, 10 the second day, etc. Those
conducting the filibuster would thus have to make their case on camera.
(A cloture vote of 60 senators would still be required to break the
blockade.)
FEWER BITES OF THE APPLE Republicans now routinely filibuster not only
the final vote on a bill, but the initial motion to even debate it, as
well as amendments and votes on conference committees. Breaking each of
these filibusters adds days or weeks to every bill. The plan would
limit filibusters to the actual passage of a bill.
MINORITY AMENDMENTS Harry Reid, the majority leader, frequently
prevents Republicans from offering amendments because he fears they
will lead to more opportunities to filibuster. Republicans say they
mount filibusters because they are precluded from offering amendments.
This situation would be resolved by allowing a fixed number of
amendments from each side on a bill, followed by a fixed amount of
debate on each one.
Changing these rules could be done by a simple majority of senators,
but only on the first day of the session. Republicans have said that
ramming through such a measure would reduce what little comity remains
in the chamber.
Nonetheless, the fear of such a vote has led Republican leaders to
negotiate privately with Democrats in search of a compromise, possibly
on amendments. Any plan that does not require filibustering senators to
hold the floor and make their case to the public would fall short. The
Senate has been crippled long enough.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk