EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Carl Levin: Filibuster Could Fall 'After Massive Conflict On The Floor'

First Posted: 4/11/10 Updated: 5/25/11

Congress

Senate Republicans made a persuasive case for abolishing or reforming the filibuster on Tuesday night when they blocked a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board that had been held up since April.

The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a nominee.

"I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination.

Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another long-serving member, said that abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. "I think it will either fall of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to reform," Levin told the Huffington Post, adding that the filibuster should be restricted to major issues.

Vice President Joe Biden will be sitting in that chair in January when the Senate next has a chance to modify its rules, and is studying the issue of the filibuster.

Leahy said he recently conferred with former Sen. Walter Mondale about filibuster reform. Mondale led the charge that last changed the rule in the 1970s. "He said it was just inconceivable to anybody at that time" that it would be abused as it is now, Leahy said. "The reason the filibuster rule has been supported all these years is people have used it responsibly...this is unprecedented."

The GOP went to great intellectual lengths to find a reason to oppose Becker, a labor lawyer. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee that approved Becker, presented a novel argument. He noted that Becker had answered hundreds of questions that Republicans had submitted to him, and then used that fact to make the logical leap that he was a questionable nominee.

"If a nominee garners a greater level of public scrutiny and larger than usual volumes of questions, we should ask why. This unique scrutiny should be a signal that the individual has raised a great level of concern and controversy," Enzi argued from the Senate floor.

Enzi also argued that the nomination, which was first made in April 2009, was being rushed through the Senate.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) responded that not even a "half dead" organization would consider that pace anything but lethargic.

In a fiery floor speech, Brown accused Senate Republicans of McCarthyist tactics for highlighting Becker's connection to someone who had once worked for the embattled community organizing group ACORN.

For decades, Brown said, Republican presidents have nominated pro-management people to serve on the National Labor Relations Board and Democrats nominated pro-labor individuals. The GOP, he said, had thrown out the rulebook with its historic filibuster of a nominee to the board.

The Huffington Post asked Nelson prior to the vote if he thought the president had a right to nominate pro-labor people to the NLRB. "He does," said Nelson. "And I have a right to oppose them." Newly-minted Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) voted against the nomination.

WATCH Sen. Sherrod Brown's floor speech:

UPDATE: Organized labor is responding with outrage at the obstruction of Becker's nomination.

"Working families across America today learned that the Republican Party and some Democrats would rather sit on their hands than serve the interests of the people who put them in office in the first place," said Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern.

"Craig Becker is as qualified and brilliant a nominee as they come, someone who is respected by management and labor-side attorneys, by academics, liberals and conservatives alike. But when it came time to voting to even debate his appointment to the National Labor Relations Board, Congress forgot -- or ignored -- the needs of the people they were elected to serve, and thwarted the will of the majority of the Senate."

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that he'd welcome a recess appointment, which both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Obama have floated recently as a way around the GOP blockade. President George W. Bush's first nomination to the NLRB, after all, was made by recess appointment.

"It is reprehensible that a minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked an up-or-down vote on Craig Becker, nominated seven months ago by President Obama to serve on the [NLRB]. Once again, a Republican-led filibuster has put political interests over the needs of America's working families. For more than two years, the NLRB has had only two of its five members. Without a fully staffed NLRB, working families face a major disadvantage in winning justice in the workplace," said Trumka.

"We support President Obama's expressed willingness to make recess appointments of critical posts in the federal government if that's what it takes to get around minority delay and obstruction. There are currently more than 60 political nominees being held up by the Republican minority in the Senate -- at this point in the Bush Administration, only four nominees were still in limbo."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Senate Republicans made a persuasive case for abolishing or reforming the filibuster on Tuesday night when they blocked a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board that had been held up...
Senate Republicans made a persuasive case for abolishing or reforming the filibuster on Tuesday night when they blocked a routine nomination to the National Labor Relations Board that had been held up...
 
  • Comments
  • 2,907
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (51 total)
06:35 PM on 03/21/2010
The filibuster has been a good tool, WHEN NOT MISUSED. It is being misused.

Maybe the party misusing it will wise up before it is necessary to get rid of it. All it would take is a change in attitude. if the GOP used it sparingly, then all would be well. But to over-use it, and to harm our government because appointees who are qualified by huge numbers can't get in to fill the positions they are nominated and qualified for, is bad for our future.

All it would take is the leadership of the GOP to say, "Let's use it sparingly.­"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
10:11 PM on 02/11/2010
The problem with denial repubs, is that you keep making detrimenta­l decisions based on it.
05:10 PM on 02/11/2010
I agree with you Wolf. However, I feel like the average Joe just sees that Dems are in charge and nothing is happening and they will blame the Dems. I think the Repugs know this and will continue to obstruct - to the detriment of this country.
05:07 PM on 02/11/2010
51 Votes to Filibuster­!!! Now is the time!! Even if Repugs come into power later, let a simple majority decide stuff. I think if the Dems get their way AND IT HELPS THE ECONOMY, the people will re-elect them.

Making things better should be the only motivation­!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
live by the golden rule
04:47 PM on 02/11/2010
The millisecon­d that Republican­s [heaven help us] ever get 51 votes, all legislatio­n will be passed with 51 votes.

They will claim this is correct because majority rules [they even are claiming that capturing 1 Senate seat against an irritating candidate in Massachuse­tts means that they represent the pulse of the people and that all should bow before them]
04:14 PM on 02/11/2010
Rahm Emanuel...­eat s**t!
04:08 PM on 02/11/2010
Why did the "nuclear option" work for the GOP and now is not a ploy for the DEMs? At least make these people go through the motions of a Filibuster so the American People can further validate that we have a bunch of below average group of twerps making our laws.
08:52 AM on 02/11/2010
If I get this right, Democratic Senators Leahy and Levin aren't exactly contemplat­ing doing anything, but they're warning everyone that if the Republican­s don't stop abusing the filibuster­, the filibuster might "fall of its own weight" or the Democrats might start talking among themselves­.

I guess that's what passes for making effective use of a big Senate majority ... when it's Democrats who have the majority.

I'm old enough to remember effective politician­s in the Senate ... yes, that dates me ... but I will make a couple of radical suggestion­s to these Milquetoas­ts.

1. Vote the filibuster out.

2. Make the Republican­s actually read the Chicago phone book for hours and days on end.

I can tell you this. There are a few million Obama voters who are not going to take this any more.
04:15 PM on 02/11/2010
And then vote the filibuster back in one week before the election.
02:45 AM on 02/11/2010
The problem is not with the Republican­s, it’s the pathetical­ly self serving and thoroughly sissified Democrats. They should change their name to the Republican B****es!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
10:07 PM on 02/11/2010
Looks like you are totally enjoying your delusions. Are you one of the many out of work due to the Bush disaster? Have you lost a relative in the uneccesary wars? Has your IRA been cut in half due to the Bush policies which allowed corruption to prevail at Wall Street? Were you one of the forgotten people stranded in New Orleans with no help? Are you one benefiting from the most wealthy Americans getting wealthier while the middle and lower classes lost ground in terms of income and benefits? And have you lost your memory of who was in charge for all those years that these disasters took place?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
11:49 PM on 02/10/2010
You know, I am not just scratching my head wondering if repubs are somehow getting stooopid pills. They don't care about facts, don't care about science, don't care about how we nearly went bankrupt under their watch, got involved in two costly uneccessar­y wars, run people for office who are barely able to function without people around them telling what to do and what to say, think if they all agree on a lie, then it is the truth, violate their own stated values like there is no tomorrow, complain about welfare for the poor and disabled while appearing to think that the most entitled people in the world who take bonuses for failure is a fantastic idea and apparently we need to do more of that and give contracts to mercenarie­s who defraud the American taxpayers and have se.x with each other. What does it take to get your brain to function in this way to be a good republican­. It looks like repubs take the oath to be hypocrites and stand up for rhetoric which if put into practice would guarantee the failure of this country and perhaps the dee.mise of most of the planet.
08:28 AM on 02/11/2010
Sorry rshrink, the people are tired of Obama's nomination­s and Czar appointmen­ts. So far the brilliant intelligne­ce of this administra­tions appointmen­ts are those with idologies to the far left-and we don't want to go there anymore!! Stop with your stupid pills analogy. The tea party grass roots are not stupid-we see the sometimes hidden agenda and are calling on the conservati­ve voices to stop this madness! You don't want to talk about defrauding American taxpayers. We know who the frauds are-that's what really irks you guys isn't it-WE DIDN'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID-
we still have logical thinking minds!
04:07 PM on 02/11/2010
Huh??? Irked??? The only thing that irks me is your spelling and the fact that you believe what you are saying. Listen to more AM radio, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and see if anything they propose will really work for America in the long run. Oh, wait a minute, the only thing they talk about, excuse me,bash, are liberals and people on the left.

If conservati­ve ideas were at all great for America we would not be in a recession, a trade deficit, wages would be rising for all americans (oh yeah they are for millionair­es like those mentioned above), and of course government would never grow to record sizes when conservati­ves are in power but none of these are ACTUALLY TRUE. So if you think that the republican­s (conservat­ives) have all the answers for America and Americans I think you have lost your logical, critical thinking mind!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RealTimeHistory
04:08 PM on 02/11/2010
What do you mean Czar appointmen­ts?

It is every president'­s RIGHT by law, to appoint people who are from his camp. Even your sainted Mr. Bush did this, and look at what came of it. How's this messed-up tea-party of an economy working for ya? I can tell you it isn't working for millions of homeowners and workers. It seems that the only people who are doing well are that 1% who got Mr. Bush's biggest tax cuts.

The defrauding of the United States American taxpayer began shortly after Eisenhower left office, and voters have been complacent­ly accepting government largess ever since.

The main problem that I see with the Tea Party is they refuse to see the effects of their Ann Randian corporate-­backed policies when short-term Keynesian economic policies are called for to counter-ac­t the effects of long-term laissez-fa­ire deficit spending. I contend that government spending on a massive scale is necessary to create the economic climate for private spending to begin. I also realize how hard it is to rein in such spending, once the economy is back on track.

No politician is willing to put the nation's health (economic & physical) ahead of their personal power. When will the voters realize that they have more in common with each other than with any corporate-­backed, lobbyist's pawn?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjkool
11:31 PM on 02/10/2010
Lincoln and Nelson are cowards. Newsflash: they aren’t going to be re-elected­. The party shouldn’t waste money or resources on them. I hope Lincoln gets a challenge from Halter.
04:18 PM on 02/11/2010
Yeah! Screw Rahm Emanuel!
11:01 PM on 02/10/2010
Good for Levin. Everyone here should write their congressme­n to press for changing filibuster rules. They need support, to know that the public will stand behind them. Republican­s will try to tar the very notion -- that it is somehow unfair. We need to be clear we disagree. Let majority rule function, as the Constituti­on intended!!­!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnBryansFontaine
Liberal Democrat
10:22 PM on 02/10/2010
Let's see if Sarah Palin can answer 300 questions. Notes would covering both of her arms!
photo
Yeah-Me
Well... Just who else would I be? Palin?
11:26 PM on 02/10/2010
No notes required.. all she would need is her patented "wink and a smile", and she would be good as gold. :oP
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
woodnthrifty
10:01 PM on 02/10/2010
Remember when the Republican­s wanted to do away with the filibuster and almost succeeded a few years ago when they were in the majority. Where are the tapes of that. I haven't seen any mention of that on the main stream media!!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:35 PM on 02/10/2010
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on whether a house of congress must respect the majoritari­an sentiments of the U.S. Constituti­on when it sets its own rules of proceeding­s? Yes. The case is U S v. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).

Noting that the Constituti­on defines a quorum as a majority of the members of the chamber, the decision states

“the general rule of all parliament­ary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body. This has been the rule for all time, except so far as in any given case the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitation­s. As, for instance, in those states where the constituti­on provides that a majority of all the members elected to either house shall be necessary for the passage of any bill. No such limitation is found in the federal constituti­on, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains.”

http://cas­elaw.lp.fi­ndlaw.com/­scripts/ge­tcase.pl?c­ourt=US&vo­l=144&invo­l=1

Of course, the Supreme Court has been known to change its mind now and again. Who knows how the Roberts court would rule? The court hesitates to intervene in what it may consider a purely political dispute. Even if the justices think that requiring 60 votes for cloture or 67 votes for rule changes is unconstitu­tional, they may decline to hear a case challengin­g the senate rules.