Senate tied in knots by filibusters

McClatchy Newspapers ^ | July 20, 2007 | Margaret Talev

[CharlesWayneCT]

WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.

By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.

This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced an all-night session on the Iraq war this week to draw attention to what Democrats called Republican obstruction.

"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who's served in Congress since 1973, complained that "the Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I've been here a long time. All modicum of courtesy is going out the window."

But many Republicans say the Senate's very design as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives is meant to encourage supermajority deal-making. If Democrats worked harder to seek bipartisan deals, Republicans say, there wouldn't be so many cloture votes.

"You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes — otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

To which Reid responds: "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans. I don't know what we can do to create less cloture votes other than not file them, just walk away and say, 'We're not going to do anything.' That's the only alternative we have."

Some Republicans say that Reid forces cloture votes just so he complain that they're obstructing him.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the all-nighter on Iraq "meaningless, insulting" and "an indignity." "There is no doubt that there are not 67 votes present to override a veto. There is little doubt that there are not 60 votes present to bring the issue to a vote."

Republicans also say that Democrats are forgetting how routinely they threatened filibusters only a few years ago when they were the minority, especially to block many of President Bush's judicial nominees. Back then, Republicans were so mad that they considered trying to change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters — but didn't.

"The suggestion that it's somehow unusual in the Senate to have controversial matters decided by 60 votes is absurd on its face," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Although this year's Congress is taking it to a new level, the frequency of cloture votes has been climbing for decades — the result of more polarized politics in Congress and also evolving Senate rules and practices.

Associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie said that since the nation's start, dissident senators have prolonged debate to try to kill or modify legislation. The word "filibuster" — a translation of the Dutch word for "free-booter" or pirate — appears in the record of an 1840s Senate dispute about a patronage job.

From Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was largely a tool used by segregationists to fight civil rights legislation. Even so, filibusters were employed only rarely; there were only three during the 88th Congress, which passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 after two months of filibustering.

Filibusters were infrequent partly because the Senate custom of civility prompted consideration of minority views — and partly because they were so hard to overcome that compromises were struck. In 1917 cloture rules for ending filibusters were put in place, but required a two-thirds vote — so high it was rarely tested.

Post-Watergate, in 1975, the bar was lowered to three-fifths, or 60 votes, and leaders began to try it more often.

By the early 1990s, tensions between then-Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas upped the ante, and the filibuster-cloture spiral has soared ever since as more partisan politics prevailed. The use of filibusters became "basically a tool of the minority party," Ritchie said.

The current Senate has two other complications: the 51-49 Democratic majority, which includes a pro-war independent and an absent Democrat recuperating from brain surgery, makes it harder to find 60 votes. And the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposing parties, which increases confrontation.

The Senate "has always been a cumbersome and frustrating and slow body because that's what the Constitution wanted," Ritchie said. The new majority's decisions are: "How often are you willing to lose on these issues? Would you rather campaign on the other side being obstructionists? What's a tolerable compromise? They're still working these things out."

Republican Senate leader McConnell said Friday in a news conference that when he became minority leader, "it was not my goal to see us do nothing. I mean, you can always use the next election as a rationale for not doing anything. But as you all know, we've had a regularly scheduled election every two years since 1788, so there's always an election right around the corner."

"A divided government has frequently done important things: Social Security in the Reagan period, when (Democrat) Tip O'Neill was speaker; welfare reform when Bill Clinton was in the White House when there was a Republican Congress. There's no particular reason why divided government can't do important things. We haven't yet, but it's not too late.

"And I think clearly the way to accomplish things is in the political middle, and I would challenge our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and take a chance on something big and important for our country."

Of course, Democrats say similar things — but then neither side often compromises.

[CharlesWayneCT]

This figure accompanied the article:

I don't think we have enough information to come to any conclusions. For example, the minority uses the filibuster sometimes not to BLOCK legislation, but to force the majority to give them consideration of some of the minority views.

So it could be the reason for the filibusters is that the new Democrat majority is being intransigent, pulling bills rather than allowing republican modifications with wide support.

Also, we know Reid is calling for an unprecendented number of cloture votes. He's filing cloture the minute he brings bills to the floor. That is not how it is done, and that could be the reason for all the extra cloture votes.

Also, Reid is calling for cloture when he knows he will lose. Most majority leaders would only call for cloture in that case in a few instances where they wanted to send a message.

In fact, most failed cloture votes are meant to send a message, and it's clear McClatchy is trying to help Reid send the message he wants -- it's not My FAULT.

[2banana]

But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

No - they have a 50-49 majority. Lieberman is an "I"

From Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was largely a tool used by segregationists to fight civil rights legislation.

WRONGO. It was used by DEMOCRATS to fight civil rights legislation

[Schnucki]

What about judicial vacancies?

Could the blockage of most all of Bush's judicial candidates have anything to do with this?

[Brujo]

The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party.

But I will anyway ... /sarc

[E. Pluribus Unum]

GRIDLOCK is GOOD.

[VRWCmember]

"The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "That's not the way this place is supposed to work."

Can anyone find Ms McCaskill's complaints about the decision by the democrats that any federal appellate court nominee by W required 60 votes just to get an up or down vote for confirmation? I don't remember her outrage back then.

[dfwgator]

This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

He says that as if that was a bad thing.

[dfwgator]

Oops, he is a she.

[VeniVidiVici]

WRONGO. It was used by DEMOCRATS to fight civil rights legislation

Yeah, funny how the author weasled her way around that. Also managing to connect Republicans, fillibuster, segregationists and civil rights all at the same time.

Excellent propaganda piece. Her employer must pay her well.

[johnny7]

it's clear McClatchy is trying to help Reid send the message he wants

That was the sole purpose of the piece...

[Red Badger]

Senate tied in knots by filibusters

They say this like it's a bad thing..........

[Joe Boucher]

If the senate is tied up in filibusters at least the fools aren’t making piss poor laws and spending MY MONEY.

[bray]

Do Nothing Nancy and Harry Reitard have proposed the most outrageous legislation in 200 years.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Kerretarded]

To which Reid responds: "The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans."

Man, where is the BARF ALERT. Yep. That's the problem, Reid. Not enough moderate Republicans. The problem couldn't be that there are TOO MANY whack-job Democrats that act like children. You guys were whiny cry babies when you lost power with no desire to fix problems like SS and tax reform and then you cried "Advise and Consent" on Judicial nominees that have ALWAYS only required 51 votes. You made it become 60 votes and now you guys have the gall to complain about a perfectly legitimate Parliamentary Procedure?

You guys show more and more of your true colors when things don't go your way. Your true intentions are to silence the Republicans and Americans that disagree with your madness and to convert this country into Russia-West. Well, fugetaboutit!

[gridlock]

The Democrats are calling cloture votes when they do not have the votes to carry them. This is new and different. But that does not mean the Republicans are more intransigent than the Democrats were.

Previously, if a matter did not have enough votes for cloture, the vote was never called. That was back when adults were in charge of the Senate. Now we have Reid with all of his petulant antics and slumber parties, so we can expect a lot more of this nonsense.

The Democrats burst the dam by threatening to Filibuster judicial appointments. I will not cry any tears for them now that they are getting payback from the ‘Pubbies.

[gridlock]

GRIDLOCK is GOOD.

Well, it's about time somebody around here said it!

[cinives]

The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans.

Don't have many moderate Democraps either ... they're all lefty-looney socialists.

[upsdriver]

“The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “That’s not the way this place is supposed to work.”

Hey, Dems, paybacks a bitch, ain’t it?

[zerosix]

"The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

No, Margaret dear, the filibuster tactic was honed very effectively when Republicans held a one vote majority and stupidly agreed to "share" with their arch enemies, the dimocRATS, only to have the dimocRATS stop any and all legislation until it had their liberal/socialist fingerprints all over it.

This time, neither Trent (we've gotta do something about talk radio)Lott and Bush's handpicked successor, weanie Bill Frist, are in charge, Mitch McConnell is in place to pull some parliamentary tricks out of his hat.

[tobyhill]

I believe it’s 49-49-2 but both Independents caucus with Rats. If Lieberman would have caucused with the Republicans because the way the Rats treated him Cheney would have been the tie breaker and Republicans would have held on.

[mrmargaritaville]

Good

[the anti-liberal]

"GRIDLOCK is GOOD."

Except in a time of war.

There must be some way to hold the Democrats accountable for aiding and abetting the enemy, as they have been. I'm getting very sick of it - killing the John Doe amendment in committee, for example.

[Kerretarded]

The longest and most notorious filibusters were against civil rights, voting rights, and school bussing.

Amazing how this hit piece conveniently leaves out that SENATOR BYRD, a DEMOCRAT, went on for 14 hours in his notorious filibuster AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I will say that again for the author of this piece of Charmin to absorb it.

SENATOR BYRD, A DEMOCRAT, IN ONE OF THE MOST NOTORIOUS FILIBUSTERS, WENT ON FOR 14 HOURS AGAINST A CIVIL RIGHTS BILL!!!

[gridlock]

The problem we have is that we don't have many moderate Republicans.

Republican positions are moderate positions. It is the Democrats who want to nationalize healthcare, embrace defeat, let judges run the country and raise taxes through the roof. Cooperating the Democrats when they are jumping off the deep end does not make one a Moderate.

[ExpatGator]

“The minority party has decided we have to get to 60 votes on almost everything we vote on of substance,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “That’s not the way this place is supposed to work.”

Note to Claire: Yes that is the way it is supposed to work. Gridlock is good.

I swear I did not vote for this retard.

[Sooth2222]

"By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate."

52+49=101, plus 1 -Tim Johnson (D, SD) not voting-...

Hmmmmmm. When did DC get statehood???

[cinives]

Yep. Just wait until the Fairness Doctrine gets debated - the lefties will pull out the same argument as this, that all Republicans are extremists and Dems are only moderates doing their best for the country.

Makes me want to puke.

[tobyhill]

The Rats and MSM used lying and cheating tactics that had nothing to do with issues to get elected in the majority so the Republicans owe the new majority nothing. The culture of corruption was the slogan the Rats and MSM ran on and they used Foley (I’m still glad he’s gone) to sicken American into thinking it was the straw that broke the camels back even though there has been no indictments to this day and probably no actual crime. They also used Delay who had already stepped down and has yet to go to court on the made-up alleged crimes. The GOP has been absent when coming to their own defense and that’s something they will need to correct and quickly. While public figures can’t really sue the media for libel or slander the GOP as a business certainly could.

[StormEye]

The overall tone of the article: Filibusters by Democrats are good and righteous. Filibusters by Republicans are obstructing
necessary legislation and progress and they are blocking the government business.

[denydenydeny]

Of course, when the Senate was run by Republicans, we saw none of these headlines in reaction to Democratic filibusters. The “tied in knots” and “delaying tactics” rhetoric was nowhere to be found.

[Kerretarded]

If Lieberman would have caucused with the Republicans because the way the Rats treated him Cheney would have been the tie breaker and Republicans would have held on.

That is what pissed me off the most about Lieberman's decision to caucus with the Dems. He got bashed by the Democrat Party, he had to go Independent to keep his seat and then he decides to caucus with them. Why do I's get to choose who to caucus with anyway? They are I's. I mean, they can vote with the D's as much as they want, but the party with the majority of members should BE the majority. In this case of 49-49-2, the Republicans should have retained control. This caucusing should not determine majority and minority leaders.

[Logical me]

No - they have a 50-49 majority. Lieberman is an "I"

Yup, and this brings us back to the Lieberman issue. He is a stone nut and a liberal completely.

[tobyhill]

Exactly, the Independents are a third party and should caucus as such.

[tobyhill]

Bernie Sanders is also an Independent.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats are hypocrites. They wouldn't allow up and down votes on judges when they were in the minority. We're simply returning the courtesy extended to us when we where in the majority in kind. Dingy Harry can go pound sand.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[BulletBobCo]

So how long before the Dems use the nuclear option?

[gridlock]

Note to Claire: Yes that is the way it is supposed to work. Gridlock is good.

Stop, STOP! You're embarrassing me!

[Lancey Howard]

Excellent comments.

[daviscupper]

Actually, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents. (Sanders and Lieberman are independents and caucus with Democrats) But currently, Johnson from South Dakota is severely ill and incapable of performing his senatorial duties. So it really is the case where there is a questionable majority of Democrats in the Senate.

Democrats should be more conciliatory if they want something passed. If they continue to cater to their base with ultra-leftist proposals then they will get nothing passed. Not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.

[Steamburg]

I wonder if anyone really looked at the quality or intent of the proposed legislation being offered? Could the competence of the Democrats offering the legislation be a factor?

[gridlock]

So how long before the Dems use the nuclear option?

That would require every single Democrat Senator to care more about the Democrat platform than about maintaining his own power and perogatives. That is not, and never will be, the case.

The cloture rules give individual Senators a tremendous amount of power. The Senators like it that way. Not even the Democrat Senators want to be pushed around by Harry Reid.

[BFM]

With all this delaying going on, may-be, just may-be they could find some time to actually READ some of the stuff they pass. But that’s just me...

[CharlesWayneCT]

A Virginia liberal blog picked up this article, and used it to argue that the democrats should target the remaining moderate republicans, since they voted to put the current republican leadership in place.

Tonight I’m going to point out that, if the democrats succeeded, they would simply ensure that the republican leadership was even MORE “extreme” by their reckoning, since there would be no moderates to fight for a more “moderate” leadership.

[Paulus Invictus]

You may be right. Check out Dick Morris’ very good book called “Outrage” in which he deals with The Congress and Senate as they really are—losers all.

[gridlock]

So how long before the Dems use the nuclear option?

The will start talking about it about 30 seconds after they read your post!

But to extend my previous comment, they ain't gonna do it. The Senate rules have been carefully constructed over time to work to the maximum benefit of all Senators, but particularly those in the majority. 51 Democrat Senators are not going to vote to kill the Golden Goose out of a sense of loyalty to Harry Reid.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The Democrats burst the dam by threatening to Filibuster judicial appointments.

Absolutely - most people have already forgotten how unprecedented this was.

Prior to the 'Rat judicial obstruction, there had never been a filibuster of a judicial candidate who had the votes to be confirmed. (Abe Fortas, the Nixon SC nominee who was filibustered, did not have enough votes to be confirmed due to GOP defections).

The article also misses the point that prior to the Gang of 14 betrayal, the nuclear/constitutional option was going to be used to eliminate judicial nomination filibusters only, since it was basically a de facto constitutional amendment changing the requirement for confirmation from 51 to 60. The traditional filibuster would have remained in place - another fact conveniently left out of this slop piece.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The filibuster is not a bad thing in theory. The original idea in the Senate was that they wouldn’t vote until everybody had said what they wanted to about the legislation. It’s a good rule if people are civil — otherwise if 51 senators supported something, they could bring it up, move to end debate, and have a vote without the opposition ever having a chance to try to convince people to vote no.

But this was also used when a person wanted to kill legislation, they could simply talk forever. Of course you can’t talk forever, but you can talk long enough to make people upset. Remember that in Mr. Smith goes to Washington, he filibustered but would have failed if it wasn’t for his friends showing up at the last minute and convincing the other senators to vote with him.

Nowadays you don’t have to talk forever, but 60 senators can decide enough is enough.

That’s a good compromise, because if 60 senators don’t think there’s been enough debate, there probably hasn’t been.

Except when it’s used instead for the minority to simply stop the vote because they won’t win, NOT because they want to convince people to add something to the bill.

The filibuster this year has been used both ways by the minority. There’s been a LOT of filibusters because the majority wouldn’t let the minority talk at all, or introduce amendments becuase the majority feared those amendments. That is one new thing.

It was very rare in the past for cloture to be called simply to limit a reasonable amount of discussion.

The Democrat judicial filibusters were mostly about stopping the vote, because they never offered any NEW discussion or suggested there would ever be a time when they had said everything they wanted to say. Plus there are no amendments to offer, so there’s really no reason to block the vote in order to “compromise” on the measure.

[michigander]

The number of cloture votes taken in a given period of time has no relation to the number of filibusters threatened.

Unless the side that wants to limit debate knows it has 60 votes, why bother voting on cloture at all?

[CharlesWayneCT]

People also forget that the Fortis filibuster was not intended to work in place of a vote to defeat him.

Instead, the purpose was to delay the vote, to prevent embarrassment to the administration by giving them time to withdraw the nomination.

If Fortis hadn’t been pulled, the filibuster would have been ended, and he would have been voted down.

When the Democrats did their first judicial filibuster, they claimed they simply had more questions and needed more time. But eventually Frist offered them access to the candidate and another hearing, and they STILL wouldn’t agree to a time certain for a vote.

Since then they dropped the pretense and simply argued that Judicial nominees were too important for a simple majority vote.

[ExpatGator]

Don’t let it go to your head. ;)