3 ms·

There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster. It's just a rule the Senate invented. And they can un-invent it. Whenever the new Congress forms, the Senat

by jmyeet 4y ago

There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster. It's just a rule the Senate invented. And they can un-invent it. Whenever the new Congress forms, the Senate Majority Leader sets the rules for that Congress. This includes the number of seats on committees and so forth. What you have is Democrats who hide behind "institutions" as an excuse to do nothing and Republicans who quite literally will change the rules whenever it suits them. Examples include: 1. Firing the Senate parliamentarian when he blocked the Senate from advancing Bush tax cuts; 2. Deciding completely without basis that with 11 months left of Obama's term, it somehow wasn't proper to hold a hearing or a vote on Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court; and 3. Deciding that any nomination (not just judicial) couldn't be filibustered (Harry Reid had previously changed the rules to make Supreme Court nominations filibuster-proof). But what is the filibuster? Up until I believe the 1970s it was a process where a Senator who had the floor could refuse to yield and keep talking to block a vlote as long as they could keep standing. This is real "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" type stuff [1]. This Senate refused to change the rules on this so here we are. Two proposals have been made: 1. Eliminate the filibuster entirely. It's pretty much only ever used to block progress (eg by blocking civil rights legislation in the 1960s); or 2. Require a Senator to actually filibuster by going back to the old system of holding the floor and refusing to yield. Both of course failed. Why? Because the corporate interests that own Manchin and Sinema don't want that because that might allow some form of progress, all under the guise of institutionalism. But this is a post-facto justification. I guarantee you the second the next Republican president holds office and the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, the filibuster is gone. The current rotating villains of the Democratic Party couldn't even bring themselves to bypass the filibuster to pass legislation to protect voting rights, which shouldn't even be controversial. But of course it is controversial because voting rights might endanger the red wave of voter suppression. None of this has to be the case. Schumer won't go nuclear on this either because Schumer represents the interests of Wall Street. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPv0S1-ETdI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPv0S1-ETdI

jibe 4y ago
"Firing the Senate parliamentarian when he blocked the Senate from advancing Bush tax cuts" Not a great example. Democrats and Republicans have both switched up the parliamentarian when they've taken control of the Senate. Democrats fired Alan Frumin in 1987 when they won a majority and appointed Robert Dove. In 2001 (your example), four years after winning the majority back, Republicans fired Dove and reappointed Alan Frumin. Frumin went on to be a key figure in helping Obama with passage of elements of the ACA, so not exactly a hardcore partisan. The parliamentarian has hardly been a nexus of cutthroat politics, just the normal ebb and flow of power and control in the Senate.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  To be clear, my argument isn't firing him was right or wrong. My argument was that Republicans are willing to bend, change or just completely ignore rules when it suits them. Republicans talk about institutions when it suits them and don't when it doesn't. Democrats largely are LARPing in a world that doesn't exist of civilized debate. My argument more simply is that Democrats should be more like Republicans. Not in policy issues but in terms of effectiveness: whipping votes, advancing an agenda and punishing dissent.
  - acheron 4y ago
    If you talk to a Republican supporter they will say the same thing about their side, that the useless Republican politicians in Congress won’t stand up to the Democrats and actually accomplish anything, and the Democrats are full of dirty tricks that the Republicans just roll over for, and so on. For both parties it’s partially right and partially wrong, but what it’s not is anything unique or inherent to one side.

by jmyeet 4y ago

jibe 4y ago

"Firing the Senate parliamentarian when he blocked the Senate from advancing Bush tax cuts" Not a great example. Democrats and Republicans have both switched up the parliamentarian when they've taken control of the Senate. Democrats fired Alan Frumin in 1987 when they won a majority and appointed Robert Dove. In 2001 (your example), four years after winning the majority back, Republicans fired Dove and reappointed Alan Frumin. Frumin went on to be a key figure in helping Obama with passage of elements of the ACA, so not exactly a hardcore partisan. The parliamentarian has hardly been a nexus of cutthroat politics, just the normal ebb and flow of power and control in the Senate.

jmyeet 4y ago
To be clear, my argument isn't firing him was right or wrong. My argument was that Republicans are willing to bend, change or just completely ignore rules when it suits them. Republicans talk about institutions when it suits them and don't when it doesn't. Democrats largely are LARPing in a world that doesn't exist of civilized debate. My argument more simply is that Democrats should be more like Republicans. Not in policy issues but in terms of effectiveness: whipping votes, advancing an agenda and punishing dissent.
- acheron 4y ago
  If you talk to a Republican supporter they will say the same thing about their side, that the useless Republican politicians in Congress won’t stand up to the Democrats and actually accomplish anything, and the Democrats are full of dirty tricks that the Republicans just roll over for, and so on. For both parties it’s partially right and partially wrong, but what it’s not is anything unique or inherent to one side.