It's very hard to get to 60 Senators. Makes more sense to pass what you want and require the other side to get to 60 to repeal it.
Kill the filibuster and everything you do gets undone next time you lose an election.
Obama has Supermajority through first term
- Thread starter White Lightning
- Start date
It's very hard to get to 60 Senators. Makes more sense to pass what you want and require the other side to get to 60 to repeal it.
Kill the filibuster and everything you do gets undone next time you lose an election.
I can immediately think of at least eight Democrats who would oppose doing away with the legislative filibuster in 2009, either because they were themselves relatively conservative or represented relatively conservative states or simply because their voting record shows an opposition to even limiting the filibuster:
1. Joe Lieberman
2. Evan Bayh
3. Ben Nelson
4. Blanche Lincoln
5. Mark Pryor--voted against even limiting the confirmation filibuster in 2013
6. Robert Byrd
7. Mary Landrieu
8. Carl Levin--more liberal than the other senators I have mentioned but also voted against even limiting the confirmation filibuster in 2013.
Even by themselves, these would probably be enough to prevent a majority for abolishing the filibuster. (Remember that in the early days of the 111th Congress, Ted Kennedy's health already made it difficult for him to vote, Al Franken had not yet been seated, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.) But they are just the tip of the iceberg. I am sure there were many more, especially those who remembered how they had defended the filibuster (admittedly the judicial filibuster, but faced with Republican charges of hypocricy, it would be hard to explain the distinction to voters) in 2005. "The Alliance for Justice ran its own spot, with the character Phil A. Buster asking Americans to 'save checks and balances.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=V004NCn4Vm8C&pg=PA348
In fact, a list of Democrats who openly supported getting rid of the legislative filibuster in 2009 would probably have been shorter than the above list!
1. Joe Lieberman
2. Evan Bayh
3. Ben Nelson
4. Blanche Lincoln
5. Mark Pryor--voted against even limiting the confirmation filibuster in 2013
6. Robert Byrd
7. Mary Landrieu
8. Carl Levin--more liberal than the other senators I have mentioned but also voted against even limiting the confirmation filibuster in 2013.
Even by themselves, these would probably be enough to prevent a majority for abolishing the filibuster. (Remember that in the early days of the 111th Congress, Ted Kennedy's health already made it difficult for him to vote, Al Franken had not yet been seated, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.) But they are just the tip of the iceberg. I am sure there were many more, especially those who remembered how they had defended the filibuster (admittedly the judicial filibuster, but faced with Republican charges of hypocricy, it would be hard to explain the distinction to voters) in 2005. "The Alliance for Justice ran its own spot, with the character Phil A. Buster asking Americans to 'save checks and balances.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=V004NCn4Vm8C&pg=PA348
In fact, a list of Democrats who openly supported getting rid of the legislative filibuster in 2009 would probably have been shorter than the above list!
Hell, it's silly to talk about things like this as benefiting small states versus large ones, since everyone knows that's not a political division that matters in this country.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
This was toward the beginning of a new Senate session in 1975.
What happened is that Senate leaders of both parties met and decided that night that this would establish a “dangerous precedent.” And they used a different way to change the cloture rule from 2/3’s to 3/5’s, except that Senate rules would still require 2/3’s (!) (!)
Wow, they are married to tradition. And I think what the American people might like is simplicity and straightforwardness (or at least such would be a worthwhile experiment!)
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
Sure, a middle of the way system would be something like a senate w/o a filibuster, or maybe the senate stays out of legislation altogether and the house+the president passes stuff
you have the additional check and balance of the executive vs the legislative and an independent judiciary as a co-equal branch of the government (not the case with westminister system) but without something ridiculous like a super majority needed to pass -everything-
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I agree that it’s a long shot.
What Pres. Obama might do, is to first thank Pres. Bush for leading with the first bailout, then say, yes, we have to bail out the very banks who got us in this mess in the first place. The take home lesson is that “too big to fail” is a bad situation to be in. The next step, using Sherman Anti-Trust or similar, and in an orderly, lawful way, is to break up the largest banks. And I mean, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and the Citigroup for starters.
We will have infrastructure projects to help boost the economy, but people need to understand that these are more immediate term projects.
For quicker jump-starting of the economy, we will have tax cuts, including immediate cuts in withholding [which I think Pres. Obama did do]
I welcome health care legislation on the part of Congress. It’s important to the lives of many Americans, and it’s important as s baseline for future economic growth. I will insist that it be straightforward and understandable reform. [that is, Pres. Obama sets himself up to advocate for the American people, rather than trying to sell a particular plan]
Obama takes a page from Reagan and hits the main points in broad strokes
———————-
Democrats who are in the Senate can take up the cause of ending the filibuster. Maybe they can challenge fellow Senators by asking, are we a legislative body or an overhyped debating society?
If asked, Pres. Obama can give a Reagan-esque optimistic answer of, That’s for the Senate to decide. I’m confident they will act as a solid legislative body in either case.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And a future thread need not be so Obama-centric (president-centric).
I think a majority of citizens had energy for breaking up the big boy banks, and believed “too big to fail” was a crummy situation to allow to continue. And a case can be made that such breaking up would have been both good politics and good policy.
Maybe in a future thread leaders of Congress take a lead in doing this.
I think a majority of citizens had energy for breaking up the big boy banks, and believed “too big to fail” was a crummy situation to allow to continue. And a case can be made that such breaking up would have been both good politics and good policy.
Maybe in a future thread leaders of Congress take a lead in doing this.
1. Even if Obama had started out with a Senate supermajority, it would've been moot after November 2010 -- spending bills originate in the House.
2. Trying to nuke the Senate filibuster would probably make the 2010 midterms go even worse for Democrats in both chambers.
2. Trying to nuke the Senate filibuster would probably make the 2010 midterms go even worse for Democrats in both chambers.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I’m wouldn’t be trying to nuke it. Just retiring it in graceful and respectful fashion.
But yes, it might be perceived that way.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think a lot of voters wanted to see Pres. Obama focusing on fixing the economy, and instead they see him going all in on health care.
White Lightning
Banned
I think talk about repealing the legislative filibuster is redundant. It was never going to happen during Obama's term, it probably won't happen next time Dems control all 3 branches of government again. What I want to know is what Bills could have been passed with a potential supermajority for Obama's first 2 years that weren't knowing at this time that the majority of Dem Senators were either conservative leaning or institutionalalists who did not want to make any dramatic changes to the system?
Not a whole lot would actually would change.
The healthcare bill wouldn't be all that different. Whiles it true that the House democrats wanted a more liberal bill than the senate was proposing most of the changes they wanted were inherently to with the financing, which was mostly addressed in the reconciliation process IOTL.
Dodd frank would be slightly more liberal as they wouldn't need Scott Brown as the 60th vote, although it wouldn't really make any significant difference to the bill that ended up passing.
The only bill that could end up passing that didn't IOTL is the DISCLOSE Act which would of tightened up campaign finance laws. It only needed one more vote to get 60 votes in the senate and break the filibuster.
The healthcare bill wouldn't be all that different. Whiles it true that the House democrats wanted a more liberal bill than the senate was proposing most of the changes they wanted were inherently to with the financing, which was mostly addressed in the reconciliation process IOTL.
Dodd frank would be slightly more liberal as they wouldn't need Scott Brown as the 60th vote, although it wouldn't really make any significant difference to the bill that ended up passing.
The only bill that could end up passing that didn't IOTL is the DISCLOSE Act which would of tightened up campaign finance laws. It only needed one more vote to get 60 votes in the senate and break the filibuster.
RousseauX
Donor
disagree: 2009 America on both sides of the aisle were ready to bring the hammer of god down on wall street: tougher dodd frank regulations and tossing some bankers into jail would have being really popular
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
More than that. Use Sherman Anti-Trust or similar to break up Morgan Chase, Bank of America, etc, etc.
Problem: once people find out the UK and Germany have mega banks, well, don’t we need mega banks, too?
Potential answer: If there are huge mega projects, the banks can jointly provide capital. They don’t need to be super big all the time.
————-
This answer may or may not satisfy enough people. It’s a glitch. It’s a stumbling block. It may or may not cause enough delay that the heat of action fades away.
The Senate wasn't going to nuke the filibuster. Neither party is willing to risk losing it, for the same reason neither party has tried to get rid of other "tyranny of the minority" mesures. Namely, they might need to make use of those, if and when the other party gets in power. Neither of them is gonna get rid of it because it's a surefire way to infinitely delay any legislation they don't like, which is a weapon you're not gonna want to destroy, whoever's hands it's currently in. You're gonna want that weapon on your side.
trajen777
Banned
Regulations were not only financials but on everything. For example we make biocides. Under obama testing costs went up to insane levels with no added value. This was the same to almost all manufacoring segments
RousseauX
Donor
it's gonna be gone once the following scenario occurs a 2-3 times tops:
X Party president
X party 55 senators
X Party 240-270 house seats
Minority party Y filibusters key campaign promise
This is likely going to occur within the next 30 years or so
X party is likely to be D at this point, you just have to get to the point where President Bernie or whoever campaigns on single payer and it gets filibustered: rince/repeat a couple of times across multiple electoral cycles, then the pressure to get rid of it from the party base is going to be enormous
Heck, we still haven't gotten rid of the Electoral College, and that only benefits one party.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
That wasn't clear until 2016, most people thought the democrsts haf the advantage until then, and its way easier to get rid of the fillibuster than the Ec since the Ec is in the Constitution