Senators like the filibuster. It keeps them relevant when they're in the minority. It makes their chamber a lot more powerful than in the House, and ensures that the leadership has to listen to their concerns more closely.
That's Ezra Klein, here is more.
What a silly theory. The 60th senator likes the filibuster. The 50th senator would much prefer majority rule.
“Or they may tire of seeing the Federal Reserve take the lead on bailouts and the Supreme Court take the lead on choice and the EPA take the lead on climate change and Congress become progressively less relevant.”
Or they could like, ya know, take the lead on those things within their constitutional authority. They could start by wishing those other folks luck raising their own money.
The SupCo “taking the lead on choice.” OMG.
The filibuster also gives minority-party Senators more claim on “campaign contributions” than they would otherwise have.
Zeke,
And if there is no possible compromise? Look, the Republicans do not want a health care reform bill to pass. So how do the Democrats compromise with them? Compromises are only possible when the ranges of what each side finds acceptable overlap.
The filibuster is going to be there for the forseeable future for much the reasons Klein outlines. Neither party is sure of its long term control. If it ever becomes clear that one party has a permanent lock on, let us say, 54-60 seats, you may see the filibuster done away with. I can’t imagine that happening any time soon.
Excuse me, public choice? This is pretty much what I was taught in the 50s.
(a)One might make a public choice case for the filibuster in the House, but not for the non-democratic Senate. Also, note w.r.t. any potential justifications that (b) current Senate rules do not require the threat of a filibuster to be followed-up with an actual talk-a-thon; that (c) they put the showing-up burden of maintaining/breaking a filibuster on the majority; that (d) those potential justifications must be for not allowing a vote to proceed at all rather than for a on-the-record vote up or down on the proposed measure itself; that (e) Constitutional checks-and-balances via bicameral passage requirements, vetoes, and over-representation of presumed regional minority interests by construction of the Senate; that (f) the constitutional requirements for and the minority protection arguments concerning passage or defeat of legislation are by design/necessity different from those for, say, approval of presidential nominees; and that (g) allowing the current flagrant, exponentially increasing (since 2006), and completely unprecedented abuse of this rule has de facto ceded to a small region of the country more disproportionate power over the national political agenda than it–or any other region–has ever had, including over a single antebellum issue it deemed so important as to go to war over.
The Republicans want the health care bill to pass, but they have to convince their constituents that they are fighting against it. The Democrats want the health care bill to fail, but they have to convince their constituents that they are fighting for it.
I don’t see a compromise, but I see a situation where the vast majority of democrats vote for the health care bill in order to say “Democrats support healthcare reform”, while allowing just enough democrats to vote against to ensure it fails… and then a small handful of Republicans in a surprise move vote for the bill, while the vast majority vote against to allow Republicans to say “we tried to fight the bill”… and the bill gets passed (and the Democrats start panicking).
a pair of glasses every year
good bifocals on line
There oughta be a law!
they have to pass bills to keep the country going.
Huh?
Comments on this entry are closed.