Ezra Klein, former “giggly fratboy” at the old Pandagon blog, exhibits what is becoming an increasingly concerous conceit among the left today; he seems to believe that everything about American democracy started from scratch last January, including that pesky need to limit government’s reach and scope.
And he’s been toking from the same bong Lori Sturdevant and Nick Coleman have been bogarting regionally:
The modern Senate is a radically different institution from the Senate of the 1960s, and the dysfunction exhibited in its debate over health care — the absence of bipartisanship, the use of the filibuster to obstruct progress rather than protect debate, the ability of any given senator to hold the bill hostage to his or her demands — has convinced many, both inside and outside the chamber, that it needs to be fixed.
Again with the curious definition of “bipartisanship” – “doing what the Democrats want” – which is technically “monopartisanship”.
This might seem an odd moment to argue that the Senate is fundamentally broken and repairs should top our list of priorities.
No, Ezra Klein, it’s exactly the moment I expect Democrat propagandists to argue that the Senate is broken – when they’re not getting their way. When they’re putting a bill before the American people and their hired board of directors that most of the American people don’t want, and they want it jammed down the collective throat for the peasants’ own good.
It’s not an “odd moment” at all.
After all, the Senate passed a $900 billion health-care bill last month. But consider the context: Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican Party earlier this year gave Democrats 60 votes in the Senate — a larger majority than either party has had since the ’70s. Democrats also controlled the House and the presidency, and were working in the aftermath of a financial crisis that occurred on a Republican president’s watch. This was a test of whether a party could govern when everything was stacked in its favor.
And in response, the Democrats have floated a bill that, if I were Ezra Klein, I’d whinge “isn’t bipartisan”, but was rather drafted by the most extremely left-of-center Congress of my lifetime.
But I’m not Ezra Klein. I’m not under the convenient, circumstantial delusion that government’s primary purpose is to enact a vision (mine, as it happens), even to the point where it must be changed to accomplish exactly that.
Government – especially its legislature – isn’t supposed to be an assembly line. If things are working correctly, it’s more of a tropical rain forest. Only the absolutely strongest animals, or bills, survive. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Sorry, Ezra. Just because your agenda is dying on its merits doesn’t mean you get to change the rules.
Half the country is upset that we didn’t get the single payer system and the other half is upset that health care mandates were passed at all. There’s much more to the spectrum to that, but it is very heavy on the reds and violets [coincidentally each slang terms for people hated by conservatives].
It seems to me that the American ideal of standing for what you believe in and fighting for what you think is right and just has morphed into not accepting anything that doesn’t go exactly your way and refusing to work together to find a compromise everyone can agree with. Everyone. Right, left, middle, and wherever the Libertarians ended up.
As far as I’m concerned, America deserves whatever legislation it gets.
In a democratic system of government, the majority rules. The filibuster has become a de facto supermajority requirement. It should be abolished.
the majority rules…
…but there are protections for the minority. Which is why we have a Senate in the first place. Pure untrammelled “majority rule” is a cancerously stupid idea.
It should be abolished.
Let any of those m***erf****rs try. If they got their tender egoes harmed by the heathcare town hall meetings, just you wait and see what’ll happen when they try to give America over to the mob.
Of course when the Evil Bush was trying to get judges approved, Rick just love love loved that filibuster. Nuclear Option! Fascist takeover! Aaaargh!!!
The fillibuster has been abused of late but its there for a reason. Taking it out completely will just reinstate the old problem it was designed to fix in the first place. Perhaps some day they’ll find a more efficient way to regulate it (cap and trade fillibuster minutes?) but until then I suppose its up to us to do what we can to vote people into office that care about the issues and want to have a real discussion about them.
There’s certainly a way to make it more efficient, a-boy: return to the old rules that actually forced the Senators to go on the floor and give speeches about the bill rather than the bogus method they use now. If you make the Senators who want to filibuster actually have to do things like talk for 24 hours straight you’d get rid of folks like Byrd having any say on the issue. I’d really rather Senators have to actually do something to enforce a filibuster rather than just phone it in like they do now.
As for Rick, well, he’s now crying about the rule when he was celebrating it four years ago. Nice to see he’s as consistent on this issue as always — his better handle would be MindlessDFLShill.
Mitch:
“Which is why we have a Senate in the first place.” So problem solved. No need to add an additional and unconstitutional 60 vote requirement.
“‘just you wait and see what’ll happen when they try to give America over to the mob.” OK. The last time we had a fight about majority rule (1861-1865), the majority rule side won.
Kermit:
“Of course when the Evil Bush was trying to get judges approved, Rick just love love loved that filibuster. Nuclear Option! Fascist takeover!”
No. I thought it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the filibuster. Dems should have offered to vote for the nuclear option. I agreed with Matt Yglesias.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9483
So problem solved. No need to add an additional and unconstitutional 60 vote requirement.
Unconstitutional? Really?
Quit trying to blame your own side’s inability to get its own troops behind a (genuinely) unconstitutional bill put forth by a power-mad bunch of fringe extremists on either principled opposition or shortcomings in our version of democracy. You guys are overreaching, again, and it’s going to cost you, again.
Thank God.
The last time we had a fight about majority rule (1861-1865), the majority rule side won.
Did you learn your history by listening to the Grateful Dead, or what?
That was awfully insulting to the Grateful Dead, Mitch.
Yeah. Cumberland Blues is dead-on accurate.
No need to add an additional and unconstitutional 60 vote requirement.
Yes, Ricky-Roller, that rule is completely unconstitutional. Oh wait, I seem to recall something in Article I of that strange document:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Perhaps you ought to read the governing document sometime, Ricky?
The Democrats are quite able to rewrite the rules. But when they do so they will have to live with the results the next time they lose the chamber. But don’t expect Rick to celebrate the rule’s repeal when that happens.
Mitch:
“Grateful Dead” I leave the hippie crap to you baby boomers.
Nerdbert: Congress has the power to set the rules of its proceedings, but those rules can not be used to violate other sections of the Constitution. The Consitution lays out the specific cases where a supermajorty is required to act. Everything else only requires a majority. Where a procedural rule becomes a de facto supermajority requirement it becomes unconstitutional.
“But don’t expect Rick to celebrate the rule’s repeal when that happens.'”
A Republican Senate majority should have exactly the same ability to pass legislation by majority vote. I supported abolishing the filibuster in 2005 with a Republican majority and would do so in the future.
I leave the hippie crap…
…to your worldview and philosophy.
A Republican Senate majority should have exactly the same ability to pass legislation by majority vote.
But…they did! With less of a majority than the Dems have now, the GOP passed legislation!
Now, up through 2006 they did it by being largely indistinguishable from Dems, at least on spending.
From 1994, they did it by having better ideas and building allegiances on both sides of the aisle.
I know, Rick – yours is not to reason why, yours is to repeat the chanting points your superiors give you. Duly noted. But the Healthcare bill isn’t stalled because of a flaw in the system. It’s stalled because it’s a reeking turd that scares the bejeebers out of much of the Democrat party.
Mitch:
“the GOP passed legislation!” So what? The rule is wrong in principle.
The rule is wrong in principle.
The ONLY principle it violates is “the Dems are frustrated and disorganized and want to ram their crapheap of a bill through, Senate procedures be damned”.
Mitch:
Exactly. A majority of Senators want to pass a bill. Senate rules allow a minority to stop them. Those rules should be damned.
The dem imho have always been like an old neighbor of mine. If you were at his house you had to do what he wanted because it was his house, but if you were at your house you had to do what he wanted because he was your guest.
So RickDFL doesn’t know why we have a Senate? Nothing new.
RickDFL said:
“Where a procedural rule becomes a de facto supermajority requirement it becomes unconstitutional.”
Citation please?
The Consitution lays out the specific cases where a supermajorty is required to act. Everything else only requires a majority.
Dude, the Constitution lays out specific cases where a supermajority is required, yes. Where do you see in the Constitution that a everything else requires a majority? The Constitution says that the chambers may set their own rules as long as those rules don’t contradict the other sections of the Constitution (see US vs. Ballin where the Supreme Court said that, contrary to the present Senate rules, a simple majority is enough to change the rules).
So yes, the Dems are free to change the rule. In fact, they have to approve them every new Congress; the House dropped their filibuster provisions in the 1800s, for example.
But changing the rules means that a precedent has been set and likely those rules will still apply when control switches parties. The advantage of slowing the changes is that legislation and regulations will change more slowly, which is useful for business planning. With things whipsawing every time a new party takes power there would be a huge downside for business operations.
Nerdbert:
“Where do you see in the Constitution that a everything else requires a majority?”
I infer it from the nature of a legislative body and voting. The uniform practice of any voting body is that on any issue the majority prevails, unlesss there is a specific rule to the contrary.
Could a body of Congress adopt a rule that a supermajority was required for passage? Could they adopt a rule that bills could be passed with less than a majority? Either would certainly provoke a Consitutional crisis. I guess all I can say is that if the Senate adopted a ‘rule’ that 3/5ths were required to pass a law and there was a final vote on a bill that ‘failed’ 51-49, then I would advise the President to consider the law passed and to set about enforcing it.
“In fact, they have to approve them every new Congress”
Actually, that is not the practice of the Senate. Senate rules are considered to carry over from Congress to Congress.
Could a body of Congress adopt a rule that a supermajority was required for passage? Could they adopt a rule that bills could be passed with less than a majority? Either would certainly provoke a Consitutional crisis.
Welcome to today. The rules of the Senate require a 2/3 majority to change the filibuster.
The Supreme Court held otherwise in that ruling I cited, saying that only a majority was required (no link, since the spam trap seems to snap anytime that happens).
Care to bet who will win?
Nerbert:
“Welcome to today”. I was not talking about votes for cloture or to ammend the Senate rules. I was talking about a vote to pass a bill.
I love the new RickDFL who believes in democracy and majority rule! People should have the opportunity to vote on the public policy issues they feel most passionate about!
I’m sure that the new RickDFL will join me in calling for a direct referendum on these important questions:
Abortion rights.
Taxes.
Affirmative action.
Immigration reform.
Unionization of public employees.
Glad to see that you’ve joined the Tea Party, RickDFL!
Terry:
People have “the opportunity to vote on the public policy issues” by voting for candidates. Opposing super-majority legislative requirements hardly implies that you support direct referenda.
So you don’t believe in democracy, RickDFL?
These “Optimates” who are allowed to vote on these issues — what makes their opinion wiser than mine? If two thirds of the people — or 51% — want a particular public policy enacted how can their representative ignore their wishes? What authority does he or she have to ignore their wishes and impose his or her will upon them?
I’m beginning to think you are not really in favor of democracy, RickDFL, but in favor of rule by an elite.
Terry:
You need to distinguish the question of who gets to directly vote on a propsosed law (all voters vs representatives) from the issue how many of them it takes to pass the proposed law (anywhere from 1 vote through majority all the way to all in favor).
“So you don’t believe in democracy”
Government by a majoritarian legislature is one widely recognized form of democracy. In fact it is the most common form.
As for your questions:
“If two thirds of the people — or 51% — want a particular public policy enacted how can their representative ignore their wishes?” By not voting the way they want.
“What authority does he or she have to ignore their wishes and impose his or her will upon them?” More votes in the most recent election.
“What authority does he or she have to ignore their wishes and impose his or her will upon them?” More votes in the most recent election.
You seem to endorse the idea of representative democracy without justifying it, other than saying that that is the way we do it.
Perhaps the super majority required to amend the constitution should be eliminated so we can introduce direct democracy. The way we do it now seems to result, inevitably, in empowering a criminal class called the US congress.
“You seem to endorse the idea of representative democracy without justifying it”
Because this thread is about supermajority legislative reguirements, not direct referenda. There are fairly well traveled arguments for why representative democracy is better than direct, at least for running anything larger than a NE township.