Salon.com: Let the filibuster go.

[crispini]

Wow. This article certainly gave me some food for thought.

Dump the filibuster!
How I learned to stop worrying and love the nuclear option.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo

(snip)
More than that, the filibuster is no friend to Democrats, whose policies, if not politicians, appeal to a majority of the American public. They may be in the minority now, but Democrats can win again. They can take the Senate and they can take the White House, possibly both, possibly soon. When that day comes, you can be sure Republicans will use the filibuster in the same way that Democrats are using it today. Wouldn't it make sense to take that option away from the GOP now, when they're agitating for the change -- and then, in the future, to hoist them with their own petard?

(snip)

You may say there's only a small chance that Democrats will win the Senate in 2006 and the presidency in 2008, and that therefore, they should fight to keep alive what little power they have. Today, there are 44 Democrats in the Senate, and 55 Republicans. (One member, Vermont's Jim Jeffords, is independent.) Indeed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, recently said it would take a "miracle" for the Democrats to win a majority in 2006. He may be right. But it's also true that however slim the chances are of Democrats' winning 51 Senate seats, they're a lot better than the possibility of their winning 60 seats. And by fighting for the filibuster now, Democrats are essentially allowing Republicans to veto future Democratic federal judges unless the Democrats meet the 60-vote requirement.

If Democrats were acting in their best long-term interest, they wouldn't want to give 40 Republican senators the right to block their actions -- because Republicans in the Senate generally come from smaller states, and therefore generally represent many fewer people than do Democrats. If you consider that every senator represents half the number of people in his or her state, then the 40 Republican senators from the smallest states represent only 56 million Americans -- 20 percent of the population. The 40 Democratic senators from the least populous states, meanwhile, represent 90 million Americans, or 32 percent of the population. When Democrats insist on filibustering judges today, they may say that they are speaking for at least a third of the nation (and in fact they are likely speaking for a lot more, since all the Democrats in the Senate represent 143 million people, while the Republicans represent 138 million). But by fighting for that right, Democrats are also effectively allowing the 40 Republicans who speak for one-fifth of the nation to one day block a Democratic agenda.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/05/20/pro_nuclear/index.html

What this article doesn't go into, of course, is that we Democrats may very well need the judicial filibuster when Supreme Court nominees come up -- that's what worries me the most, and Rehnquist isn't getting any healthier. I am, however, beginning to think that we can take control of at least one of the houses of congress back in 2006, and so this article was somewhat appealing to me...

Thoughts?

[SmokingJacket]

1. Yeah, it would be great IF we somehow returned to power!

But if we didn't, it would suck.

We need the check on power that the filibuster provides.

If something happened to more than one SC justice, and Bush got to appoint say TWO OR THREE justices this term (unlikely but not impossible) can you fricking imagine???? The court would be tilted right for DECADES.

[crispini]

3. But the article's point is that typically WE are in power

more than the Republicans are, and that the judicial filibuster is more of a conservative tool than a liberal tool.

I agree about the Supremes, though, and the article doesn't mention them at all.

[Protagoras]

It's mistake is assuming that our future

is predicted by our past. It's a new ballgame and America's past is one spotty and fairly short set of political cycles. We're still children playing in a sandbox...

Well except for the fact that we have lots and lots of weapons.

[crispini]

8. Two hundred years of data is short?

Seems to me that's quite a lot of data? :shrug:

[Protagoras]

15. Not really for new political institutions

Economic cycles, cultural changes etc. Many systems take 20, 40, even 100 years to really come full cycle. That means if we look at our historic trends as data sets...many of them are quite small. A sample of 4, or even 10 instances isn't much to base serious future generalizations on. (perhaps like discussing human Evolution based on just the last 2000 years).

For instance we could draw some hasty generalizations about our cultures need to undermine free speech every 50 years...in 1978 we passed the Alien & Sedition acts. Then we tore them down.

We passed another set in 1861, then in 1918, then in the 1950s we didn't formalize it as much but we had the McCarthy Era.

Is this a cycle? Hard to tell. We're certainly laying siege to the First ammendment now. Does that mean we can look forward to it every 50 years? Hard to say.

How about major labor movements? We've had what...2 or 3 cycles of labor? Hard to really posulate on what a strong labor cycle is in this country based on 2 past movements.

I think Bertrand Russel told a story about a Rooster...He said the rooter would see the sun rise in the morning, get up each morning...crow...and the farmer would bring him seed to eat. The Rooster figured that this must be the way of things in the world, and he was right...until the day the Sun rose, the Rooster crowed, and the Farmer came out and Cut off his head and ate him.

In other words...the past is not always a great predictor of the future.

I'm not saying we can't learn anything. Just that we shouldn't think we know nearly as much a is sometimes implied about the present or the future based on our understanding of the past.

[crispini]

19. Thanks, instructive post!

Although it does give me pause for concern, considering that I take great comfort in the idea that the American political climate swings back and forth between conservative and liberal, and that therefore, we're due for a resurgence any day now.

[Protagoras]

21. I comfort myself the same way

I keep thinking...this time it won't take 10, 20, or 200 years of hell to wake up...we're gonna beat em in 06.

I don't assume it's true, but it keeps me motivated and gets me thru the day (till I decide to post anyway :D)

[pgh_dem]

26. If you consider all the previous predictors which went woof

in this past election, you might doubt the pendulum idea.

From the more logical examples like
1) incumbents tend to get their final pre-election poll as total vote
2) incumbents below 50% don't win
3) undecided voters break against the incumbent

which are all interrelated

to goofy ones like football teams winning or losing home games, etc

You come to the conclusion that 2004 marked a radical departure from the way things have been throughout US election history, and so past performance is shown to have a very weak correlation to future events.

(edit to undermine: of course, no incumbent pres at wartime has ever lost...guess that one is the biggie...although widespread fraud explains a whole lot, too)

[crispini]

30. Yes, you're correct about all of the above.

I always thought this was an odd sort of "wartime," though, which (I hoped) was going to make the difference. Apparently not.

[tritsofme]

35. None of those "predictors" were ever really put to the test

Like the 50% approval ruling.

Carter and Bush41 were way under 50% throughout all of the election year.

Reagan and Clinton were way above 50% throughout the whole election year.

Bush sat somewhere between 46-53% approval during the election year, unchartered territory as far as data was concerned. Many of us noticed this and pointed out that the 50% could not be hard and fast it had never been tested like this.

It was also disputed in an election where both candidates had such high negatives that undecided voters would break toward Kerry in a big way.

I think most of those rules never had any real validity.

[grasswire]

37. I believe the ball game changed...

...when they gained control of the vote counting technology. It's a new world now. We need every tool a minority can use, since chances are good that we'll have elections stolen again.

[wryter2000]

6. True, but

I don't disagree, but actually, we'll never get back in power as long as elections can be stolen.

[Toots]

28. If that were truly the case we would control the House

His assumptions are false or else the apportionment is not accurate for Congressmen. :shrug:

[xchrom]

2. i suppose there is some sense in the article -- except for that

minority rights thingy -- even repukes should have that protection.
hateful as they are.

second -- the infamous seven are particularly heinous critters.
i would not want owens sitting on any case of mine.
she's NUTS.

[CWebster]

4. Unless...

the Right stacks the deck so much that day never comes.

Who is going to stop them when Democratic leaders, like the Clintons, hold hands with them?

[Protagoras]

5. It is a interesting dilemma

If we keep even a shred of blocking power we can be defined as The badguys. If we allow the psychopaths on the right to do what they're essentially going to do anyway...but without that manifest power (still continue to warn, scream, and kick)...then the consequences end up falling on their head when the public opinion finally turns against despotism...

Almost like deliberately pushing the pendelum to the right in order to give it enough momentum to swing back to the left.

I have a hard time passively assuming that we'll return to normalicy in this country without some very deliberate action...like this? hmmm

Desperate gambit...but one that might work given the screwed up nature of our electorate.

All assuming we have anything approaching fair and honest elections (oops)

[crispini]

10. Yeah, you have to set the elections question aside

in order to even discuss the possibility. And it's true we are continually getting painted as "the obstructionists." I for one don't care if we get this label. We are the minority in power but by no means is it certain that we are a minority in the electorate as a whole, especially if you look at the latest polls. So SOMEBODY has to get up there and drag their feet and at least some of our Dems are doing that...

[Protagoras]

18. I've been seriously debating with myself (can't validate)

Which would be the more meaningful action for our Democratic congress critters...

Preserve the Fillibuster...and use it in 3 or 5 token situations in the next 2 years, praying that shows enough of a stand to be meaningful.

Or...show a unified face in a more radical way. Walk out over the big issues. That's something the Senate rules can't be changed to stop. If the Senate Democrats walk out of the room and onto the steps and say they can't be sock puppets in the Republican Theater...at least on a few key issues.

It would NOT stop the Repubs from passing what they are going to pass anyway. But it would speak truth to power and cast them as the despots they are...while saying that Since we can't stop it we won't be party to it.

Just a passing thought.

[crispini]

22. Oh, man, a walkout would rock, wouldn't it?

Especially over the Supreme court nomination, if Shrub picks someone just as heinious as his OTHER nominees have been in the past....

[Vincardog]

7. It is Orwellian give up your last hold on any power because some day

you will be in the majority and want to treat them as badly as they are treating you. We are better than that. We should resist at every turn. WTF did any Democrat vote for the Bankruptcy rip off? How can any democrat allow the RealId pass? I say Stand and fight now. Speak Now in a clear voice in the PEOPLES Interest and the people Will give us our government back in a big way. If and when the real progressive democrats quit allowing and START Opposing the Radical Right the crooked voting machines will not be able to hide the will of the people.

[CWebster]

9. Right

the problem with this argument is the assumption that either Democrats who now give up will later fight and that the sheeple will finally see the Neo-cons for what they really are.

[Vincardog]

11. Right that is why we need Stem cell research to grow the Democratic Leader

a SPINE. Fight Now.

[crispini]

13. Well, that's a good point.

As far as your other points -- why Democrats would vote for unpalatable stuff -- well, it's politics, that's the only thing I can think of. I would like to see our leaders have more spine; I also know that I'm not a congressperson, and until I walk a mile in their shoes I'm not going to condemn them, although it does make me mad. I may change my stance on that if I get mad enough. :7

[Democat]

42. Wrong - we should not be "above" them - this is war - strip their power!

If Democrats ever get back in power, I will expect them to undermine Republicans at least as much as they are doing to us, hopefully more. Otherwise, what's the point of being in power at all?

If we allow them to take 100 steps backward when they are in power, and then we take only 50 steps forward when we are in power, they will always win.

This isn't the time to be nice or fair or anything else. We are at war for the future of the country and we need to fight more dirty than them, not less.

When will Democrats learn that nice guys always lose in modern politics?

Maybe never?

[formerrepuke]

12. If we let it go- NOW is the time to start focusing on every single

"R" Senator who is running in 2006- and start presenting viable opposing candidates.. partywide, state-by-state.

[crispini]

14. Exactly. Local and statewide organizing is key.

Dean gets that, thank heavens.

[LittleClarkie]

16. It may go anyway

But considering what will probably come after, I'd rather the Dems looked like they were fighting this. It may be all for nothing. But they will be able to say they fought like hell to stop it.

At some point, the American people have to wake up. I'd rather history showed the Dems tried to do what was right and stand up for truth. If the Republicans then steamroll over us, and then make a mess of things, I want it all to be on their shoulders. We did what we could. Don't blame us when it all goes to hell.

Sanity has to return SOME time.

[crispini]

24. Would letting through the nominees and keeping

the judicial filibuster be a reasonable compromise? Because it seems to me that those are the two choices we're looking at, letting through the nominees and keeping the judicial filibuster, or fighting to stop the nominees and getting hung out to dry next Tuesday.

(Unless some of the mod. Repubs decide to stand up.)

[bunkerbuster1]

34. Biggest problem with the compromises being floated

there is nothing to stop the thugs from going nuclear for the next Supreme Court nomination. Oh, they can say, now, that they will abide by the rules, but it's just a promise.

I will understand if some kind of face-saving compromise happens--that's how the Senate traditionally works. But I won't assume that it's the end of the threat of the nuclear option. They'll always have that available, and don't imagine they won't use if if/when Chimpy sends some loon up to be the next Supreme court justice.

[Roland99]

17. NO! Do NOT let it go!

We cannot guarantee taking back the Senate or the House in '06. Esp. with the way the right owns elections in key states.

To let this go would result in as close to a one-party state this country has ever seen.

[CTLawGuy]

20. this aticle is stupid

I'm sorry, but the filibuster is an excellent check on absolute power. It is in fact, the only power Democrats have left.

Without it, the GOP has absolute power.

The article argues that if the Republicans get rid of the filibuster then we can use that action against them when we get control back. But what is to stop them from simply changing the rules back during the lame-duck period between the election which knocks them out of power and the new Senate?

the only way I would accept giving up the filibuster in regards to judicial nominees is to force the Republicans to agree that judicial nominees must be approved with 60 votes rather than 50.

The nature of the Senate is that it is dignified, moderate and resonable. It should be difficult to pass legislation through it. If 40 Republicans want to filibuster a Democratic bill, fine. Let them pay for it at the polls. Its better than giving one party absolute power.

[crispini]

25. Now that's an interesting compromise,

and one I hadn't heard before, the 60 votes rather than 50. Are they actually considering that one up on the Hill?

[CTLawGuy]

31. no, that's my idea

or as far as I know it is.

If I were on the hill that's what I'd say.

[Yupster]

47. It's no good

What if 41 senators said we will only vote for a judge if you nominate Judge Joe Smith from Chicago?

Or what if a well organized conservative group of 41 senators who hate the judiciary tell the president that they will not vote to confirm any judges for the next four years.

Fifty one senators shouldn't have so much power, but neither should 41 senators.

[CTLawGuy]

48. do you think

that those who would be our judges, who wield a TON of power, who are appointed for life, should be agreeable to more than a bare majority of people?

I think so. Judges should not be controversial. There are MANY non-controversial judges who get the ok every year. We don't hear about them of course, because there is really no media interest.

I think the system should be set up so that controversial people on either side don't get through.

[Yupster]

50. I'd agree with you darboy

if a system could be worked out to do that.

However, a plan that says a minority of 41 senators can permanently block any nominee without a vote is not reasonable to me.

I don't know who should get to define "radical" but it can't be a 41 vote minority. That's just not reasonable to me.

[Al-CIAda]

23. Rigged machines and no fillibuster, yippeee!!!! n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Exactly!

[JRob]

27. I believe you're missing something...

OK the filibuster goes... now republicans can change, rubber stamp etc. so they eliminate any road blocks to whatever...

let's say that it's electronic voting without a paper trail... and the judicial is the last frontier for these bastard, the last thing that they don't absolutely control.

What makes you think that Democrats will ever get anything ever again?

You're putting a lot of faith in the electoral system that isn't warranted. These guys are playing for keeps and if they get their foot on our throats, they WILL push down until we're dead.

[tinanator]

29. Salon still sucks

consistently, predictably.

[Mairead]

36. Yep. I chose not to renew with them because of their DLCishness

...and said so very clearly to them. They didn't care.

[OnionPatch]

32. If those on the supreme court can hang in there

until Chimpie is gone, it might indeed be something good for us. We may be able to appoint some judges in the next term who actually want to uphold the constitution.

[Nikki Stone 1]

33. Had to check that this article wasn't a joke, or meant tongue-in-cheek

The filibuster is a protection against rapid radical change, no matter who is in power. It is a way of putting the brakes on any party in power that wishes to steamroller the opposition. It is am important asset for national stability. Taking it away puts us on a roller coaster, no matter who is in power.

[Democat]

38. Imagine some real liberals on the Supreme Court

This is something to think about.

One other thing to think about is how fast Republicans would try to impeach a real liberal on the Supreme Court.

Democrats don't have the balls to try to remove one of the corrupt right wingers on the court, even when they have obvious conflicts of interest, but Republicans aren't afraid to take action that they think benefits there side.

All of these points are moot if our side is stuck with the losers we currently have running the party.

[Cha]

39. I was happy to see this opinion,

again..I saw it once about a week ago from a DUer and thought since it looks like they're going to take it away, we might as well look on the bright side.

The repukes are a like a bunch of little whiney Bullies who end up shooting their ownselves in the butt!

[Enraged_Ape]

40. If the Rs see Ds coming back into power, they'll take it back

It's like the world's largest game of keep-away.

[Cynot]

45. Yes, but...

Once the Retugs take away the filibuster, even if they restore it later they will have given the Dems license to do away with it again once they regain power in the Senate. It's that simple.

[Book Lover]

41. Farood, stick to tech, young man

Politics are not your forte.

[loudsue]

43. The Republicans OWN THE VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES

What part of:

they COUNT the votes with SOFTWARE that nobody is allowed to review....as per a RIGHT WING JUDGE's ruling....and then they transfer information about those secretly counted votes by MODEM

does somebody at Salon NOT understand.

The republicans will continue to win elections as long as the 4 companies that make and program voting machines keep donating to the republican party.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Sparkly]

44. It's called "Two to Four Years of STACKING THE COURTS!!"

Including the Supreme Court -- all lifetime appointments!!!

Sure, we can all look forward to a day when we regain a majority in Congress and have a Democrat in the White House, but will there be a great number of vacancies, as Chimp got due to Republicans obstructing so many Clinton nominees? Will there be a Supreme Court vacancy?

And that's only the first problem. What else will Republicans do with their new-found ability to use a 51-vote majority, without filibuster? What other rules will they change? What will they do for corporatism -- how far back will they deregulate against workers, unions, safety standards, the environment, etc.? And how difficult will they make it to undo their deeds, let alone the effects of them?

I don't think we should underestimate the danger of these corrupt thugs giving themselves absolute power. This is quickly becoming a fascist, theocratic, corporatist dictatorship, and even if it's destined to come to and end at some point, what they can do in the meantime is frightening.

[Zen Democrat]

46. The Senate has never been a "majority rule" body.

The simple fact that there is inequality in the representation in that Rhode Island and California both have two Senators whose votes could conceivably cancel each other out on any given vote.

One thing that I've heard in the last few days is that the Fortas filibuster in 1968 was a "non-partisan" filibuster. Actually, it was Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats -- it was a Right Wing Filibuster. All those Democrats no longer exist ... the Southern Conservatives with a capital C elected as Democrats are now Republicans. So, in effect, it wasn't really "bi-partisan" ... it was RIGHT WING all the way.

The realignment of the parties to conform with Conservatives = Republicans and Liberals/Moderates = Democrats was the Nixon plan brought to fruition by Ronald Reagan. That's okay by me, the party affiliation actually means more in today's climate -- now we just have to educate those poor bastards who call themselves conservative that they are voting against their own best interests and the best interests of the vast majority of the American people.