Tweet
Elements of the failed Senate rules reform effort will get a vote as soon as tomorrow, including the “talking filibuster” proposal. Backers concede that they don’t even have 50 votes for passage, let alone the 67 that would likely be needed to pass any rule change.
This would be the way in which the fairly useless substitute on rules changes will get passed into law. They would all need 67 votes, or possibly 60 if they were conceived as a standing order and not a change to Senate rules. Votes on the “talking filibuster” and other elements of Harkin-Merkley-Udall not incorporated in the substitute would get votes of their own, which would be an opportunity to gauge overall support in the Democratic caucus on the record.
Ultimately, the reformers were stabbed in the back by putative allies of their coalition.
Udall’s most far-reaching idea is a provision that Democrats could just change the rules in a simple majority vote, despite provisions in the chamber’s standing rules requiring a two-thirds majority to alter the rules. Senior Democrats, such as Reid and Levin, believe that such a unilateral change in the rules would fundamentally alter the chamber and would result in an even more forceful rules change by Republicans whenever they reclaim the majority.
Because of that fear, some major unions and abortion rights groups have mounted a behind-the-scenes effort to scuttle the Udall-Merkley proposal, which has support from other ranks of the liberal coalition such as MoveOn. “We have a longer range perspective on this. . . .We will need the filibuster to protect our core interests,” said one union official, requesting anonymity to talk about the liberal division on the issue.
This is simply absurd. Republicans will not suddenly forget that there are tools, which have precedent regardless of what happened this session, to change the Senate rules. The next time they have control of all branches of government, they will move to make changes. You can pretty much bet the house on this.
On whether or not the reformers could have gone further than this, I don’t think there’s much of a question: of course they could have. They lost the support of leadership, they lost putative allies, and they did not have unanimous consent to bring rules changes to the floor, which they claim was needed to bring forward the Constitutional option. First of all, they had to wait around for an hour to get a Republican to object to their unanimous consent request – they could have asked for UC at that point. If denied, they could have denied the motion to adjourn, and basically come back every day to offer the request and grind the Senate to a halt. The ENTIRE POINT of the rules changes was predicated on the fact that one Senator can bend the Senate to his or her will: if they wanted to be hardasses, they clearly could have done so. Echoing Brian Beutler, writing in the context of a health care repeal bill, which will eventually get a vote in the Senate because they are that determined, “In the Senate it’s basically impossible to deny a determined member a vote on an issue, full stop.” That’s as true for Senate rules as it is for anything.
Now, the pragmatic side kicked in for these reformers, who didn’t have the votes, didn’t have backup support from leadership or outside allies, and were fighting a battle they were destined to lose. They want other items on their agenda to eventually get a fair hearing. They were unwilling to sour the relationship with leadership. OK, fine. That’s their prerogative. But let’s not claim it was somehow impossible to get a vote. Things are always possible. Watch the Senate spring into action to extend the Patriot Act as it nears expiration next week. The Senate works when it wants to work. Rules reform would have, in large part, removed the excuses for why some things work and others don’t. And renewing the precedent with the Constitutional option, that these changes can happen in any Congress, would have been a powerful step. We’re not getting it because decisions have been made at the top, and the rank and file is going along with those decisions.
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The Democratic Senators “leading” the charge to change the Senate Rules, have been blowing smoke up each others skivvies, and the robust smell isn’t all that ‘tangy’. Thus, all done for the sake of attempting to impress each other with their “august” personalities.
However, the Senate Democrats will continue to stave off their “reality” or until such time as an “impressive” Progressive decides to reach for the Gold and establish a Progressive Caucus in the Senate. And when this Caucus is established, the Democratic Senators will have to scurry back into the cloak room in order to replace the old camouflage with a newer one, and simultaneously hope that the Democratic “base” hasn’t noticed the differnce.
Jaango
I would say that they got shanghai’d when all their support went away. But that has to be partially on them.
I can’t wait to see who the NO votes are in the Dem Caucus.
BTW Notice the veal pen providing the Dems cover here.
Very disappointing.
David,
This current behavior is indicative of what the Democratic “base” can expect over the next two years. Nada! Zilch! Zip City!
And yet, only a Progressive Caucus can go toe-to-toe with McConnell and Kyl, and walk away winners on a great variety of the issues. Of course, there is always the “alternative”!
To wit, the Democrats have to raise over $1 billion to successfully compete with the GOP. Anything less, will just go to prove that the Democrats “can’t govern” according to the Right’s Great Wurlitzer. Therefore, Democrats “selling out” their fellow Democrats, is the new meme or the “new norm”.
Jaango
As someone who rightly saw the folly in letting the future GOP Senate majority have free reign to ram its legislative agenda through without any check on that power whatsoever, I can say with confidence that this “failure,” as anti-democracy proponents call it, is actually a blessing in disguise. You really do NOT want the Republicans (or the Democrats, for that matter) enjoying greater ability to make back room deals and stifle democratic debate.
This is wrong. Liberals want change. Conservatives, specifically big business conservatives, don’t want change. If the filibsuter is abolished, bad laws will get repealed over time. Good laws will last.
According to latest reports, there will be no vote. This is going to be a gentlemen’s agreement.
Stifling or eradicating democratic debate is a conservative position, not a liberal one. And there is nothing to show that eliminating the filibuster — which hasn’t actually been used in twenty years — will result in the repeal of bad laws or the passage of good laws. For those actions, you need good politicians. Eliminating their ability to block bad bills from passing and horrible appointees from occupying positions in government won’t make this happen.