Josh Marshall has it mostly right:
Not surprisingly, with this morning's news, we're getting more than a few emails arguing that the Democrats, in their new position of strength, should weaken or entirely do away with the filibuster -- i.e., invoking the nuclear option that Republicans repeatedly threatened through the earlier part of the decade. Despite the extremity of the moment, though, I just can't agree with that. It is just bad practice -- especially in the face of the last eight years -- for numerical majorities not only to use the power of their numbers in straight up votes but to change the rules of the game itself. Notwithstanding the fact that filibuster has been increasingly abused, it was wrong in 2005 and it would be wrong now.
What I do think makes sense is for the majority to actually require the minority to filibuster -- as in talk and talk and talk. We've arrived at a point in which it's become standard, even in the most contentious of cases, for the minority to be allowed merely to signal the intention to filibuster rather than doing the actual thing itself. Filibustering is a tool of obstruction. It's a critical right of the minority in the senate. But it is, by definition, obstruction. So it makes sense to put the obstructionists to their task, make them do it publicly. I don't know why the Democrats are not doing that in this case.
Finally, this issue now goes well beyond the fate of the American automakers. Senate Republicans are following this course for three key reasons -- first is payback against a major industrial union; second is payback against states like Michigan and Ohio who have been moving away from the GOP; third is the desire to advantage Japanese auto manufacturers who disproportionately do business in their southern states.
What even the White House can see at this point is that having one or more of these companies go under right now will rapidly accelerate the economic crisis, and in unpredictable ways.
I believe there is a fourth reason the Senate Republicans are "following this course," and that is because it is (conveniently) consistent with their "philosophy," discredited though it is. There are still some of those guys who wouldn't understand if you pounded it into them with a two by four.
Update: There I go again, giving the Republicans too much credit. Their own internal stragegy memo calls their stance on the Big Three Bailout "their first shot against organized labor."
2 comments:
How do you propose that the Senate change the rules of its own , which would reqyuire a two thirds majority (67 which used to be the threshold to invoke cloture) if they can't get 60 votes to shut down debate, or take up a bill?
The majority does not set the rules, and extrodinary majority is required. The "Democrats" couldn't change the rules even if it was a good idea. nThe controling party doesn't change the way the chamber operates. The Jefferson Manual, amended is the book of "Senate Rules and Proceedures."
A good question! And the answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(filibuster). Or just search for "nuclear option" on Google.
The Republicans were, just a few years ago, prepared to do away with the traditional/historical rules that governed how filibusters were ended, and they thought they could do it with a simple majority vote. Their interest was in getting more troglodytes appointed to the courts was the motivation. It took the "Gang of 14" to prevent that from happening.
Post a Comment