Elizabeth Warren has been talking about this a bit. I'd like at least for filibusters to require actual talking and everyone on the Senate floor ready to take a vote. Having a situation where just the threat of a filibuster is enough to sink legislation is dumb.

Are there details of the plan snark is talking about?

2: This seems to be it - not very fleshed-out.

The problem with talking filibusters is that the Senate can't do anything while they hold the floor. Also, it's not all that difficult to organize appropriate shifts to keep the thing going for a very long time -- with cell phones, etc. it's much easier than in Jimmy Stewart's day.

I favor simple majority rule in the Senate. Debate in the Senate is essentially fictional anyway. No Senator has ever convinced another to change their vote through rational argument since ever. Allow enough time for the Senators and lobbyists to make the standard backroom deals, then have the vote.

I hadn't understood about this in the House until Yglesias explained it. You need not just a majority of representatives, but 218 members of the majority party to bring a bill to the floor in the House.

4: It might work as being too ridiculous to actually do except once in a very long while. If it doesn't work like that, you're right, it's useless.

5: Yeah, I knew about the 'nothing comes to the floor unless it's acceptable to the majority of the majority' principle the Republican leadership had been using, but 'nothing comes to the floor unless the Republicans could pass it without any Democratic votes' is news to me. And is frankly a bit implausible -- are they really doing that?

Is this the Democratic proposal because the image of a talking filibuster from that movie (Mr. Smith?) is so strong that it overcomes all other proposals? Like, all you have to do is flash that black and white image of a talking guy and everyone loves the filibuster again? Or at least won't oppose it? If so, that is a stupid icon to have that much power.

I'd thought that it was because somehow the Democratic base or netroots or some equivalent group of people got the idea that the Smith-style filibuster was the "real" rule and that the only reason Harry Reid wasn't making the Republicans get up and actually talk through the filibuster was because he lacked a spine. So now the proposal is that Reid should actually be able to do that.

I'm completely not sure that this is the case, but maybe the Democratic leadership thinks both that requiring Mr.-Smith-type fillibusters will be an effective way of making the Republicans quit it, and that the public already thinks Mr.-Smith-type filibusters are the rule, so there's no way for the Republicans to bitch about Democrats unilaterally changing the rules.

I don't know enough to buy this, but it seems at least possible.

Doesn't it seem like the popular image of the Mr. Smith filibuster sets a floor? At the very least, that must always be available? Simply because the movie exists?

When I was a kid I though 'filibuster' had something to do with breaking horses.

Doesn't it seem like the popular image of the Mr. Smith filibuster sets a floor? At the very least, that must always be available? Simply because the movie exists?

I would bet no more than 25% of the US population even understands this reference, and that at least half of the poeple who understand the reference think filibusters are pernicious. So, no, I don't think it creates a floor.

10%, tops.

Maybe the solution to filibusters is to make them humiliating-- not only is it necessary to actually speak on the senate floor, but also while dressed like Huggy Bear or a short order cook. While there's a calsithenics video show being taped in the visible background. A virtuous ordeal for a good cause, but not otherwise.

crossposted from the nightmare thread.

Stupid icons to be identified with are an advantage. John Rambo, Snoopp Dogg.

10: Might be -- if there's a thought process along the lines of what I spelled out in 9, the Democratic leadership might be thinking that there'd be strong public opposition to getting rid of the Mr.S Filibuster, because it's ingrained (because of the movie?) as THE RULES, and changing it would be CHEATING.

But I don't know either if that's what the Democratic leadership is thinking, or if they'd be right to think so.

12: I'd bet the people who matter, the Congress and the media, know that image. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington has done more damage to good governance than any move since Triumph of the Will.

Homer Simpson: Ah-ah-ah! Now, here's your biggest problem of all! Mel Gibson: The filibuster scene? That was Jimmy Stewart's favorite! Homer Simpson: And it was fine for the 1930s. The country was doing great back then. Everyone was into talking. But now, in whatever year this is, the audience wants action. And seats with beverage holders. But mainly action.

the people who matter, the Congress and the media, know that image

But these are also the people who know it's just an image, and not in any way reflective of reality. My point is that there is no meaningful public support for preserving the filibuster based on a 70 year old movie.

Fair point. 16 might be overstated.

I myself haven't seen the movie. Doesn't it get shown at Christmas every year or something? And everyone sings?

My inclination is to trust Merkley. If he thinks it's a good package and the best he can get, then I'll believe him. He's been consistently on the side of the angels on this from day 1.

That said, I think filibustering nominations needs to be ended, and I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the linked article.

21 - Contrawise, I think judicial nominations are possibly the only thing where requiring a supermajority is sensible.

As I said at the other place, the issue with "make them talk" is that it ties up 51 members of the majority; if you have a situation where any two members can bring a motion to end debate which passes automatically without an affirmative vote from 41 senators, then you tie up 41 members of the opposition. If they spend their time reading pie recipes and fulminating about the scourge of civil rights, they can, but at least they can all be miserable while they do it.

(It's been a while since I read up on it, but I believe that's basically the situation it used to be when it required a two-thirds vote to end debate. When the number of required votes dropped to 60, they inverted it. That plus the dual-track thing led to the conditions that allow today's filibuster-everything Senate.)

I'm ok with filibusters for cabinet/supreme court level positions. But the current situation at the lower levels is just insanity.

Here's a short (and not well-formatted) history of the filibuster by a pretty established authority on the subject. I'm against it.

The problem with filibustering appointments is that minority parties really do have an incentive to simply make sure the governing party can't govern; voters are notoriously bad at apportioning proper responsibility for this sort of situation.

25 - Everyone has problems with everything. If I see one more person asserting that the Democrats cruelly filibustered noble martyr Robert Bork's SC appointment I will literally explode be very irritated.

But, uh, they didn't filibuster him? Bork's nomination only got 42 votes; 6 Rs voted against, and they were a minority in any case. He'd have lost under majoritarian rules, too. I thought the usual talking point was that Democrats were super mean to Bork, not that they filibustered him.

If the idea is to create institutional rules that induce nominations to more closely track, say, the ideal point of the Senate median than that of the majority-party median, there are ways to push towards that, but the problem is that the comparison is with the status quo--and the status quo means an empty seat, which minority parties might well actively prefer even to a favored candidate (especially at cabinet level), at least until the next election, purely to hamstring governance. Not quite the same calculation with judges, because voters don't give a shit about federal case backlog, but each empty seat remaining when the minority finally regains power is one they have a chance to fill.

27 - You hang out with a less head-exploding crowd than I do.

They might appreciate being clued in to the fact that they're using deprecated talking points. I think the idea is that the Democrats being super mean to Bork, and then to Thomas, is what kicked off the nomination wars and the filibustering, because they were so mean, but the filibustering came later.

Democrats being super mean to Bork

And they* made Mrs. Alito cry!

IIRC, the Republicans made Dems talk their filibuster of judicial nominees in 05 or 06. It turned out to be a very bad idea for the Republicans, as the news carried long speeches about what awful judges those folks would be. It was so bad, the Village had to step in, and broker a Dem surrender that they could play as a Republican surrender. That was back when 'up or down vote' was a deeply-held non-negotiable Republican principle.

That said, I like the idea of a talking filibuster that stops all business in the body. If you really want to keep X off the federal bench, fine, but then you can't declare National Pickle Week either. And man are the pickle people going to be pissed.

My radical filibuster reform is that it takes 51 votes to do anything.

Or 52, once Puerto Rico joins the union.

6

5: Yeah, I knew about the 'nothing comes to the floor unless it's acceptable to the majority of the majority' principle the Republican leadership had been using, but 'nothing comes to the floor unless the Republicans could pass it without any Democratic votes' is news to me. And is frankly a bit implausible -- are they really doing that?

Aren't they doing that so the Democrats can't embarrass them by voting no as a bloc (which I believe they have done a few times)?

34: After we take mexico, canada, guam, american samoa, and the northern marianas, we'll only need 1 more for a round 100. I say we end this foolishness with cuba: if we're going to impoverish anyone as badly as we've done alabama, shouldn't they at least be able to elect assholes to USG office?

The supposedly Mr. Smith-style filibuster actually existed. You really did have people talking for 15-20 hours. Not often, but it isn't just some movie thing. I assume people know this, but some comments above make me wonder. Also, I like that movie. Cut the ending and it's really pretty cynical.

I think when the rule was 2/3, it may have been 2/3 of a quorum present (or some bar like that) but when it moved to 60, that meant 60 out of 100* sworn in, not 6/10 of a quorum. So if someone is sick and unable to attend, that's essentially a no vote.

*I have a vague memory of the threshold potentially changing to 59 or something if there were 98 Senators because of a retirement or death or disputed election.

I'd like to see a graduated filibuster. You can delay it, say, two days for debate with 40 votes. But it takes 43 votes for three days, 46 for six days, 49 for nine days. Anything that needs to be brought up in debate can get said in a nine-day window. But come two weeks after the first cloture motion, it's time to vote, people that we pay to vote on legislation. The president and then the courts get a chance to stop it if it's truly terrible law. I guess I'd want a stronger possible block for Supreme Court nominations just because.

Or make days weeks. I'm not in a hurry. I just want a final bell.

I agree with 39/40. Just guarantee that there will be a vote if a quorum wants a vote - ok, maybe with some deadline before the end of the session.

people that we pay to vote on legislation

I'm sympathetic to the rest of the idea, but I think "we pay them" is a dumb argument. We also pay them to block do what they can to block bad legislation. Voting is just one part of the job description.

When the Democratic senators in Wisconsin went to hide in Illinois for a few weeks to protect the right of public employees to unionize, Scott Walker and the Republicans kept bitching "You lazy Demoncraps! Yer not doin' yer jaaahbs!!!" They went so far as to dock the Democrats pay.

Which was bullshit, of course. The Democrats sure as hell weren't hanging out in Illinois out of lazyness.

Doesn't it get shown at Christmas every year or something? And everyone sings?

Right. It's something about an angel turning the world into a terrible place without filibuster reform, while Jimmy Stewart spies on Congressmen through his office window and witnesses a murder, which turns out to have been committed by U Chicago students who think they're smarter than everyone else.

Completely OT, but I listened to this this morning and obviously thought of you lot. I enjoyed it, and it has the actual Alice on it too, plus small children singing.

33: Yeah. These proposals to reform the fillibuster here are mystifying. Just ditch it, who gives a shit?

43: "We stood there and I kissed her for the last time, and she said, 'If you lose me you'll know that I loved you and wanted to keep on loving you.' And I said, 'Print the legend.' Attaboy, Clarence!"

I prefer the William Walker-style filibuster to the Mr. Smith-style one.

William Walker-style filibusters were also pretty reprehensible.

45 meet 42.1: we also pay them to do what they can to block bad legislation.

What went wrong in 2005 wasn't that awful judicial nominees were blocked, it's that Village led filibuster reformists got it lifted and a bunch of bad judges got on critical courts like the DC Circuit.

I can't see an argument that what the Democratic senators in Wisconsin could do was ok, but what 41 US Senators could do is inconsistent with a democracy. The Wisconsin constitution requires a supermajority for a quorum for certain kind of bills. This empowers a minority, if large enough, to take a blocking position.

In this next Congress, filibusters are only going to be used on nominations, since the House isn't going to be sending over any bills that McConnell can't/won't support. There's no substantive legislative advantage to be had. People should only support getting rid of it if they're willing to accept whatever bullshit appointments the incoming Perry/Palin administration wants to propose in 2017.

49: you can't cite this without also talking about the Republican filibuster has prevented Obama from making his own judicial appointments to even things up. There are three vacancies right now on the DC circuit and Obama has been prevented from filling them.

Right. I support a rule change that makes filibusters more costly to those who would engage in them. And the President could be making a bigger deal of this: the general public might not care that much, but the Village will, and he'll end up filling vacant positions. (We're about to have one here, as the guy nationally famous for forwarding an email slandering the President's late mother takes senior status).

But the ability to block truly egregious appointments? Worth keeping, I say.

And really, they should try some local politics. I don't know if it's common knowledge in NYC that there are 6 vacancies on the SD bench, but it certainly should be. And you'd think there would be sufficient muscle in that district to get some folks through. First, of course, they're going to need some nominees. (!!)

The same is true of the EDPa -- 6 vacancies, no nominees. Is Casey raising holy hell? Why not?

It might be worth considering separating out judicial from administrative appointments. It sucks when a president from the opposite party appoints someone you don't like as head of the EPA or Treasury Secretary, but elections have consequences and all that. Also, as someone pointed out up-thread, Democrats likely benefit more from having effective, well-staffed and run agencies and departments than Republicans. These appointments should receive an up or down vote quickly. If the appointee is truly screwing shit up, Congress has oversight authority to deal with it.

Judicial appointments--and especially SC appointments--are probably so contentious because they're for life. Here I think we should still move expeditiously confirm district court judges. Supreme Court judges seem to move quickly because of how high-profile they are--though I suspect the threat of filibuster plays a role in the move towards nominees with pure judicial backgrounds and away from those with more political experiences. Appellate court judges are powerful enough that some effective check should be retained on appointments, but they're low-profile enough that vacancies don't receive the same media coverage... not sure about this.

Of course, we could move to fixed-term judicial appointments...

I can't make out how the current filibuster reform proposal (based on the link in 3) differs from Merkley's original one, though it's said that it has been revised quite a bit.

The passing of a cloture motion (to end a filibuster) is the same as a motion to proceed, right? That is, proceed to a vote?

The passage that's puzzling me from the link in 3 is this:

The critical component, though, is a mechanism that would force senators to physically take the floor and speak in order to maintain opposition to legislation. The effort to end a filibuster is called a cloture motion. Under the proposed rules, if a cloture vote failed to win a simple majority, the bill would be killed and the Senate would move to new business. But if it won a majority -- though less than a supermajority of 60 -- the bill would remain on the floor for any senator who wished to opine on it. If at some point no senator rose to speak, after given several chances to do so, a new vote would be called -- and only a simple majority would be needed to pass it.

This means that a winning cloture vote would ... keep the filibuster (floor debate) going? But with more stringent requirements on what's required to filibuster. A winning cloture vote would not constitute proceeding to a vote on the actual bill?

It's quite possible I'm being exceedingly dense here.

Supermajority requirements mean a status quo bias; a bias towards those who are doing well under the status quo; a conservative bias. They're not particularly well-suited to protect rights, and there are much better methods to get at the "temporary and narrow majority enacts radical and far-reaching changes" problem. The Democrats in Wisconsin did the right thing given their beliefs and the institutions as they existed, but, no, those rules are also bad, as a general matter.

55 -- Srry, parsi, but I think dense is the correct answer this time. Cloture gets 60+ and you go to vote on the bill. You don't have to include that in a reform because it's already the rule.

56 -- I don't think anyone has to apologize for filibustering a judicial nominee who thinks that Social Security is unconstitutional.

Or a bill that takes away collective bargaining.

No, and you'll see that I have no objection to using the tools you've got. But you do have to apologize for keeping those rules in place, because over the long run they have already, and will continue to, hurt you. The main reason judicial nominations matter as much as they do, after all, is because the Constitution is so egregiously supermajoritarian, so much so that it was never a sensible use of resources to try and ratify the new deal or great society revolutions with textual amendments, and therefore much key constitutional change has been via interpretation. But it could be otherwise, and ought to be. The only reason we've only now taken this halting step towards universal health care is, again, because of how many veto points there are in the system (and not just the filibuster, though that's one of the most silly).

I care more about legislative vetoes than I do about confirmation ones, and I think the latter are more susceptible to being solved through bargains between increasingly disciplined parties--so I'm not going to argue more about that. But I don't understand why someone on the left would think supermajority rules are going to favor them on balance.

Awkwardly phrased; I meant that a less supermajoritarian system--like that of every other OECD country--would have had universal health care much sooner, what with it being very popular in the abstract--and, indeed, we see that basically every other OECD country did.

57: Oh, so the proposed new rules would still require a 60+ cloture vote to actually end the filibuster. That wasn't clear to me from the quoted portion. A mere simple majority (from 51 to 60) would allow the filibuster to continue, rather than killing the bill -- that's the change.

I believe I've got it now. At a first pass, this version of the reform seems inadequate. It's not clear to me whether the initial filibustering (prior to the cloture vote, which may result in second-level filibustering) requires actually standing and talking as well.

I'd happily trade a no filibuster rule for a 15 or 20 year federal judicial term. Stupid constitution (although I've never been clear on why "good behavior" necessarily means appointment for life).

But even without that I'm pretty sure that the end of the filibuster would be a net positive benefit. Getting liberal legislation passed when possible is more important than blocking conservative judicial appointments.

Why Obama hasn't focused more on lower court judges is a complete and utter mystery. It's especially important because a fair number of the Bush II judges are objectively awful (and I don't just mean conservative, but just affirmatively bad lawyers).

63.1: i really think this is the best outcome, but given the difficulty and time associated with an amendment, it would take years to implement.

Does the senior status option seem to work well? I haven't seen much data or anecdotal information about it but strengthening this option might be an interim step to fixed judicial terms.

The only other option would be to create retirement norm--as in, sure you can serve for as long as you want constitutionally, but you ought to retire after 20 years or whatever. This is probably too elegant of a solution to work in our political system, and I have no idea how you make this happen... maybe start impeaching anyone on the bench 20 years. After a while, staying longer than that becomes a breach of good behavior.

I asked Merkley what he thought of the "this won't really do anything, Republicans will just filibuster and Fox News will make the folks at home love them for it" criticism when I saw him in May. I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but I remember that it made me only slightly more optimistic.

49

In this next Congress, filibusters are only going to be used on nominations, since the House isn't going to be sending over any bills that McConnell can't/won't support. There's no substantive legislative advantage to be had. ...

McConnell can't prevent filibusters all by himself. It just takes one Senator who is mad about something (often totally unrelated) to bring things to a halt. And a lot of Senators like that.

||

Look I Found a Good Gif

Why does nobody mention among all the discussions of the famous train scene in La Chinoisie that for a good length of the argument between Veronique and her Professor Francis Jeanson, she is erotically caressing the knobbed window-handle like a penis? There are several minutes where Godard cuts her from the scene, leaving the Prof babbling at the right and only her hand stroking the knob at the left.

Did no one fucking notice?

|>

||

Well One Guy Did although he probably

Misinterpreted the Scene. Obviously a lot of people hear Jeanson winning because they want to.

There is sex and eroticism in Godard, but like the Seberg-Belmondo apartment scene in Breathless or the early stuff in Contempt, it's...different. Playful and companionable.

|>

||
Oh hai, here's an interesting election night story.

Question is: were there really enough voting machines in place in three states for Rove to have been able to rig the vote the way this story alleges he attempted? Or is it all just hot air? Either is possible, but one has to admit it does go some way to explaining the Mayberry Machiavelli's palpable shock at the Ohio results...
|>

69: Oh God, how I *wish* that were true! But if it is, I don't understand why they're not now presenting their evidence as they threatened they would in the earlier video. I get that an anonymous letter is more their style than a formal complaint, but these claims aren't going to go anywhere if they're just made by kids dressed like Batman villains.

I do think its commendable that they are spreading malicious rumors about Karl Rove.

71

I do think its commendable that they are spreading malicious rumors about Karl Rove.

So who benefits from rumors that votes for Democrats won't get counted?

I'm not particularly concerned about anyone benefiting, I just thing its good that Rove's name is being unfairly besmirched.

69: Well I did think they were going to steal it in the tabulators the week before the election.

Evidence for: They are not stupid or crazy, they are evil. Apo keeps telling me I don't have to repeat this, but here the fuck we are again, with story after story about "How Could Republicans Possibly Have Thought They Were Going to Win? They are Sooooooo Stupid"

Evidence Against:If I can imagine or see evidence for electronic vote-stealing, the Obama Campaign and Democrats sure as hell saw it months before I did. Because they are not stupid either.

But I haven't decided what part two might mean. Could they get away with a public threat or warning about fishy tabulating? Not so sure.