Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
It seems to me that a great deal of what is wrong with Washington is its tendency toward ossification. The members of this forum are no fans of the Department of Education and yet, yesterday in his post on scattering the federal government, Rob acknowledged that it could never be closed down -- that's just not how Washington works.
Yet on Wednesday, Senate Democrats will vote on changing the Senate's rules. According to sponsor Tom Udall (D-NM), the proposed changes would allow filibusters only for final floor votes, not for blocking debate. And they would require Senators to actually, well, filibuster -- making their case through oration on the Senate floor. The changes would also put an end to the practice of secret holds on nominations, instead requiring, you know, actual filibuster. Finally, the changes would allow minority members to introduce amendments to bills for a fair vote.
I understand that the high principles expressed by Udall and other Democrats are situational and that these measures will make the minority Republicans less effective at the margin in exercising influence in the Senate.
But I can't help thinking that these proposals make sense. They embrace transparency and expose the negotiation and compromise of the Senate to greater scrutiny. And personally I would thrill to hear Rand Paul and Marco Rubio take to the Senate floor to articulately and forcefully argue against the majority.
So Ricochet, tell me why I'm wrong.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
But wouldn't you also thrill to hear Paul and Rubio take to the Senate floor to recite Shakespeare?
In all seriousness, though, I'm with you on this, Trace. This proposal makes sense to me. It sounds like it will make the filibuster process more efficient and effective.
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Also, while the Senate Dems are aiming to make the Republican minority less effective and influential, John Boehner seems to be after the exact opposite in the House:
Nov '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
That, by itself, is good enough reason to oppose the rule changes. You are far too trusting, Trace. The Dems would not propose this unless it gives them some sort of unfair advantage in the Senate. They are very obviously trying to fortify their position against the new Republican majority in the House.
The problem with Washington is that there is too much legislation. Our Founding Fathers intended to make it difficult to pass legislation, in order to avoid the kind of mess we find ourselves in today.
Any attempt by the House or the Senate to "grease the path" of legislation should be viewed with great suspicion and vigorously opposed.
Jun '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I am for the "talking filibuster" for the entertainment value if nothing else. Few of the Senators have the oratorical skills that they believe themselves to have so the requirement to speak will reveal, I think, even more foolishness than we suspect. Former-Representative Alan Grayson might well have been reelected if he hadn't just loved to take the floor to show off his rhetorical flourishes.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09amMay '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Although I am keeping an open mind that the rules change may be a good idea, the argument for changing the rules now that is being advanced by Dems in the Senate is not being made in good faith and solely for political advantage.
The filibuster is also an important tool that distinguishes the House from the Senate. But don't take my word for it, here is a Senator that agrees with me.
"The filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check" "Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that's true."
Preserving the filibuster is the "most important issue I've dealt with in my 40 years of public service."
The Senator: Harry Reid in 2005. Now that his majority is the one to be kept in check, he's not so worried about preserving the filibuster.
Jul '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
The mistrust felt for Democrats has been richly earned; any chalice they offer has an unexpected ingredient. The Republicans are called The Stoopid Party for how nicely they play when it's their turn.
Dec '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I'd expand the filibuster during the lame duck session, actually. The easiest way to prevent the shenanigans from the last lame duck is to change Senate rules to require a 2/3rd's vote to cut off debate during that session (on any legislation that permits a filibuster, I think budgets are off-limits, for example), postponing it to the next Congress.
As for these rule changes, we shouldn't allow it now on principle. They lost. Badly. They shouldn't get a reward. Any attempt at goodwill on the part of Republicans will be returned with nothing more than a sneer.
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I'm with Pilgrim. I'm fine with retooling some of the more awful and sneaky rules -- the secret holds, especially -- and I love the idea of allowing amendments from the floor, because that's what the Senate is supposed to be about -- debates on the floor. But I sort of like the filibuster, if it's returned to its former glory.
Meaning: they have to actually talk. And talk. And talk. This business of a "virtual" filibuster has got to go.
Jun '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Allow me to offer some insight into the Honorable Tom Udall from a New Mexico resident. He's a non-entity. Someone put him up to this because he doesn't have the grey matter to do anything this imaginative. He's a carpetbagger from an old political family; same for his brother serving in Colorado. They Udalls are the southwest's version of the Kennedys. Dollars to donuts Harry Reid put him up to this.
May '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
By a huge margin, most large, sweeping legislation--the kind that prompt divisive tactics such as fillibusters--is bad. (In fact, most sweeping legislation that is good is usually just an undoing of previous sweeping legislation that is bad--e.g., welfare reform.) Therefore, a good rule of thumb is that any rule which will foster or ease the passage of legislation is bad.
Another rule of thumb: If reasonable people can differ on whether a change is good--as seems to be the case here--then we should, like good conservatives, err on the side of no change.
Jul '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Tradition and the history of the Senate.
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."
"The use of the Senate," wrote James Madison in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, "is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." An oft-quoted story about the "coolness" of the Senate involves George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson visited Washington and asked why the Convention delegates had created a Senate. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
Jul '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I propose that cloture contests be decided by physical combat between two Senators of opposing parties, chosen by lot.
A mud-wrestling contest between, say, Dick Lugar and Claire McCaskill, live on C-span, would be a wonderful metaphor for the true level of dignity in the Senate.
Jul '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Exactly my thought, too, Paules. Udall is a sock puppet.
Nov '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Michael Tee:
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."
Once again, I propose that we should formally adopt G. K. Chesterton as the "Patron Saint of Ricochet." Everything he says, and, especially, the way he expresses himself, is a perfect fit for the forum. Chesterton sets the standard for all of us.
May '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Kenneth
Udall is a sock puppet. · Jan 4 at 10:15am
Calling EJHill....
Aug '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I'd be less suspicious of attempts to change the rules if there was some way to ensure that the rule changes would remain more-or-less permanent over the long term.
I'm worried about politicians changing the rules in one session to take advantage of the short-term makeup of the Senate, and then change the rules again in a later session to take advantage of the makeup of the Senate at that time.
The rules of a legislature should be more-or-less set in stone, and it should be very difficult to change them, much like a nation's constitution.
Oct '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
In principle I am in favor of greater transparency in government. In principle I understand that the function of the Senate is to be an impediment to "the general will". I am all for "fairness", but, doggonit this is war! This proposal can only be a Trojan Horse from the Democrats. Unfortunately, as the article points out, all they need is a simple majority to change the rules on the first day of the new Senate.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 12:07pmJun '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
Trace Urdan
I understand that the high principles expressed by Udall and other Democrats are situational and that these measures will make the minority Republicans less effective at the margin in exercising influence in the Senate. ·
I think the Dems are really playing with fire on this one. The next 2 years are basically gridlock anyway as long as Obama holds the veto pen, but in 2012 the GOP has at least a shot at the trifecta: control of both houses plus the White House. But I think a 60 seat supermajority for the GOP is extremely unlikely, so if the GOP tries to pass a repeal of Obamacare on a party-line vote in 2013 the filibuster will be the last best hope the Dems have to block it. So I'm thinking: let them erode those protections now so we can turn the tables and hoist them on their own petard.
Jun '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
I say these changes are wonderful ideas and should be implemented immediately upon the moment the Republicans retake control of the Senate. Until then, FAGITABOUTIT. Once again, they must think we are stupid.
Oct '10
Re: Senate Rules Changes: A Good Idea?
but isn't this the "nuclear option" the dems tried to defeat a few years ago?