Is a Simple Majority Good Enough Any More?

The stakes are too high Funny.

No, a simple majority was never good enough, or at least not since the actual founders sat in the chamber.

Rule 22, dealing with cloture, is a particular and longstanding bane of liberals.  It is also appropriately numbered, owing to the unique catch-22 of motions to alter the Senate rules – unlimited debate is automatically allowed on motions dealing with the rules themself, so any change to the cloture rule would itself be filibustered by senators from states with small house delegations. 

Rule 22 frustrated every single attempt at civil rights legislation from 1875 to 1957.  It is considered an essential tool, the bedrock, really, of the Senate’s check on the other branches.  The Senate has no great affirmative power – they advise and consent on foreign policy, they cannot initiate appropriations bills – but they can stop the government whenever they like by simply refusing to vote.

Those southerners who opposed civil rights were vile.  But the principle of the filibuster is a pretty strong one, backed up in the federalist, and even though as a liberal northerner, I think that to demolish the power of the senate to stop business in this way grants far too much power to party leaders in the Senate.  Sure, Reid, nominally  on my side, is in charge today.  He might not be tomorrow.  Besides, he’s only nominally on my side anyway.  I am skeptical of the veracity of any claim by a party leader to be acting in the public interest – party leaders have only one interest – to win elections for candidates of their party.  In the rare occasion where (usually national) public interest conflicts with (usually local) party interest, party interest will win for the leader of the senate. 

It could be equally important that principled Senators have the power to stop a local interest from supplanting the national interest in the same way it was important to the south to stop the national interest from supplanting a local interest.

The founders seem to have thought that the way to settle these disputes was to discuss it until a solution was discovered.  Filibuster, for all of it’s ill use, is the embodyment of these means.

I don’t disagree But to assume the use of a filibuster before even trying to achieve cloture for an important bill is unnecessary is misleading and quite frankly, given the state of polling on Iraq and many other issues, a weak way to lead the upper chamber.  Senate Democrats should be playing hardball with the Republican minority to get those 9-10 votes they need for important legislation, not just throwing up their hands and assuming, for the sake of public relations, that they can’t get those votes.

Hmm…. … you argue with him on that but miss the unquestionable flaw in his argument?  The filibuster wasn’t created by the Founders; it didn’t exist, even theoretically, until 1806 and never happened until the 1840′s.

For good or ill, the filibuster was not an invention of the Founders.

Generally, opportunists on both the right and left favoring eliminating it when they’ve got a majority in the Senate less than 60; when their party is in the minority, this horrible bottleneck becomes a keystone of democracy, without which the majority will trample roughshod over all that is decent and proper. 

Partisans who take a longer view might consider the possibility that their party will likely not forever be in the majority in the Senate, and that once eliminated, the filibuster would be hard to ressurect.

That’s entirely not what I’m saying I’m not saying the Dems should exercise their own Fristian nuclear option.  I’m saying they shouldn’t assume that the Republicans won’t allow a cloture vote on ANY bill under ANY circumstances, which is what they’ve been doing.

Fine with me Then again, I was making a similar argument back when it was the Democratic minority that was using the filibuster threat:  each and every time, make them actually filibuster, and see who gets blamed for the government grinding to a halt. 

Exactly Senate Dems are being far too kind.

The stakes are too high Funny.

No, a simple majority was never good enough, or at least not since the actual founders sat in the chamber.

Rule 22, dealing with cloture, is a particular and longstanding bane of liberals.  It is also appropriately numbered, owing to the unique catch-22 of motions to alter the Senate rules – unlimited debate is automatically allowed on motions dealing with the rules themself, so any change to the cloture rule would itself be filibustered by senators from states with small house delegations. 

Rule 22 frustrated every single attempt at civil rights legislation from 1875 to 1957.  It is considered an essential tool, the bedrock, really, of the Senate's check on the other branches.  The Senate has no great affirmative power – they advise and consent on foreign policy, they cannot initiate appropriations bills – but they can stop the government whenever they like by simply refusing to vote.

Those southerners who opposed civil rights were vile.  But the principle of the filibuster is a pretty strong one, backed up in the federalist, and even though as a liberal northerner, I think that to demolish the power of the senate to stop business in this way grants far too much power to party leaders in the Senate.  Sure, Reid, nominally  on my side, is in charge today.  He might not be tomorrow.  Besides, he's only nominally on my side anyway.  I am skeptical of the veracity of any claim by a party leader to be acting in the public interest – party leaders have only one interest – to win elections for candidates of their party.  In the rare occasion where (usually national) public interest conflicts with (usually local) party interest, party interest will win for the leader of the senate. 

It could be equally important that principled Senators have the power to stop a local interest from supplanting the national interest in the same way it was important to the south to stop the national interest from supplanting a local interest.

The founders seem to have thought that the way to settle these disputes was to discuss it until a solution was discovered.  Filibuster, for all of it's ill use, is the embodyment of these means.

I don't disagree But to assume the use of a filibuster before even trying to achieve cloture for an important bill is unnecessary is misleading and quite frankly, given the state of polling on Iraq and many other issues, a weak way to lead the upper chamber.  Senate Democrats should be playing hardball with the Republican minority to get those 9-10 votes they need for important legislation, not just throwing up their hands and assuming, for the sake of public relations, that they can't get those votes.

Hmm…. … you argue with him on that but miss the unquestionable flaw in his argument?  The filibuster wasn't created by the Founders; it didn't exist, even theoretically, until 1806 and never happened until the 1840's.

For good or ill, the filibuster was not an invention of the Founders.

Generally, opportunists on both the right and left favoring eliminating it when they've got a majority in the Senate less than 60; when their party is in the minority, this horrible bottleneck becomes a keystone of democracy, without which the majority will trample roughshod over all that is decent and proper. 

Partisans who take a longer view might consider the possibility that their party will likely not forever be in the majority in the Senate, and that once eliminated, the filibuster would be hard to ressurect.

That's entirely not what I'm saying I'm not saying the Dems should exercise their own Fristian nuclear option.  I'm saying they shouldn't assume that the Republicans won't allow a cloture vote on ANY bill under ANY circumstances, which is what they've been doing.

Fine with me Then again, I was making a similar argument back when it was the Democratic minority that was using the filibuster threat:  each and every time, make them actually filibuster, and see who gets blamed for the government grinding to a halt. 

Exactly Senate Dems are being far too kind.