When I was much younger, I liked to play card games with my Granny. I also liked to change the rules to my advantage as the game rolled along. For example, during a game of "Go Fish":
Brad: "Got any nines?"You get the point. What does any of this have to do with the Senate? Well, it all comes down to one word: rules. In my card games, I understood that changing the rules had the potential to change the outcome of the game. The same thing is true in the Senate, where rules like the filibuster stand as a major impediment to passing not only poor legislation, but almost any legislation at all. Now, my changing the rules mid-game is more accurately labeled cheating, and make no mistake about it, the accusations would fly fast and furious if the Senate were to change the rules when a bill with the magnitude of health care reform is under consideration. But in between games--at the start of a new session of Congress, say--changing the rules should be completely acceptable. After all, both parties will be equally constrained to operating in accordance with the changes.
Granny: "No. Go Fish."
Brad: "Got any sixes?"
Granny: "You already asked if I had any nines and I told you no. Now you have to reach into the pile and see if you can draw one."
Brad: "Nah uh. You get to ask three times before you have to go fish."
And so, after health care reform has passed, the Senate needs to reform itself by doing away with the filibuster. No one elected official should be given the power to prevent a vote in the Senate, as is now the case. I am joined in thinking this by a large number of others--some of whom even have their own outlets in the media. I share with you their contributions to this issue now.
Norman Ornstein writes about Our Broken Senate in The American, and Ezra Klein really tees off on the subject here, along with interviews with Sen. Tom Harkin, Prof. Barbara Sinclair, Sen. Jeff Merkley, and Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern. Of course, all of this just begins to scratch the surface. The bottom line: The filibuster needs to be laid atop a funeral pyre, set ablaze, and pushed out to sea.
Subscribe to Wright on Health to see what else I have to say during the week. You can also contact me here.
Follow D. Brad Wright on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradwrightphd
The filibuster has a purpose, and sopmetime benefits the people, ... but not when it is done from the comfort of a chair by remote. Make them stand and read and tell jokes, ... as had been the case for decades. Do you see Joe Lieberman caring enough about anything to stand for 24 hours straight and read his mommy's recipes? Highly unlikely.
Make them work at it if they want to obstruct a bill!
I can't help but wonder how the civil rights advocates ever made any progress when it only took one elected official to stop them.
Changes need to be possible, not easy. It is time to quit whining and do the work necessary to make appropriate changes.
In order to reignite the base the DEMS MUST do the following.
1) Campaign Finance Reform (the people who govern cannot all be rich)
2) Reform The Senate
3) Change the lobbing rules, for my money eliminate them (yes there are good ones, but they all have to go)
4) GET RID OF GEITNER SUMMERS AND EMANUEL (this will light an immediate fire and carry the DEMS to victory in the fall)
6) Treat women equally and stop eroding our rights.
7) Stop ignoring climate change and act upon it now.
8) Stop Wall St.
9) Do not pass this excuse for Health Care Reform without first regulating and controlling every related to health care, especially insurance and drug costs.
10) Stop ignoring the homeless.
Let's see, first we have a rational argument about fairness (quote)...
"Now, my changing the rules mid-game is more accurately labeled cheating, and make no mistake about it, the accusations would fly fast and furious if the Senate were to change the rules when a bill with the magnitude of health care reform is under consideration.
"But in between games--at the start of a new session of Congress, say--changing the rules should be completely acceptable. After all, both parties will be equally constrained to operating in accordance with the changes."
Okay, so at the very START of a new Presidency or Congressional session -- and BEFORE any new laws get proposed -- THAT'S when we can determine the rules. Okay, I'm basically down with that. Of course, I love that the writer THEN says in literally the very next line (quote again)...
"So, after health care reform has passed, the Senate needs to reform itself by doing away with the filibuster."
LMAO!!! I love that it's "AFTER health care has passed." So in other words, the REAL point of this article is "We should set the rules at the beginning to be totally fair. Uh... well... when I say "start", I actually mean AFTER I get something really, really big that I want. I have to get my way FIRST.
"But THEN we can set the rules."
I disagree cahnge it in the middle because it is not cheating - the rusle say taht if you have 51 votes you can change the rules - and the filibuster goes against the main rule - the constitution
There is also a way in which one person, Joe Biden, can eliminate the filibuster forever. The problem with most people taking senate rules to the Supreme Court is that they don't have standing. But the Vice President can say that the filibuster rule in effect eliminates his authority to be the tie-breaking vote in the senate. The constitution makes it pretty clear that the approval of half of the Senators, plus the Vice President, is all that is needed for a law to pass the Senate. Any rule that places a higher standard, particularly one which makes the Vice President irrelevant, is unconstitutional.
This I don't get. How would it be any different if they knew they had the same kind of leverage because they'd be the 49th or 50th vote (assuming there's no filibuster)? I realize that the VP is an extra vote no matter the count.
HOW PERFECT for a Suddenly Corporate Communist Democratic Party to try and become a ONE party system like in China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, And many African Nations!
It is only majority tyrrany when you are in the minority -because buddy the last 8 years were minority tyrrany becasue bush naver had a mandate and the democrats won large majorites in both houses and the executive - the people voted for the agenda
http://bit.ly/4JV1RX
I would think it would be a little hard to stand on the senate floor and state for the record that
"the reason I don't like this bill currently before the senate is because my corporate sponsor would lose billions of dollars if it passes."
Money talks, and the legislature listens, and acts accordingly.
HOW PERFECT for a Suddenly Corporate Communist Democratic Party to try and become a ONE party system like in China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, And many African Nations!!
How is the weather in China right now?
What I prefer is going back to the old form of filibuster -- where the Senators actually HAD to filibuster. Senators who are forced to sleep on cots and pee in bottles will only do it sparingly on what matters to them. It won't be done arbitrarily.
HOW PERFECT for a Suddenly Corporate Communist Democratic Party to try and become a ONE party system like in China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, And many African Nations!!
You just want what the CHURCH has always wanted!
Centralized Power in the hands of ONE person, like "GOD".
With filibuster, minority party prevents you from legislating, then campaigns AGAINST you for failing to legislate. It is a retrogressive way of governing.
Guess what?, the DEMS may not be the MAJORITY in 2 yrs time, so it goes both ways.
59% of Americans oppose their health care bill and yet they still try to push it through by buying votes.
That is broke!!!
the Public option was removed because Insurance TOLD OBAMA TO DROP IT!!
how much you being paid to lie?
Why should we also forgive the debt of Haiti? Has anyone forgiving our debts?
I realize they mneed help but so do us americans. They blew it on health reform , to find out we're going to pay additional taxes? What the hell is going on. There will be retaliation from the americam people, Just wait and see.
I you ever took more then high school level history or constitutional law you would understand that the founders would were not stric contructionists - even jefferson used the cluases that he opposed to justify the luisian purchese and other actions
Let's face it, the founders created a nice foundation and in theory it can be changed thru amendment but in modern times there are SO many factors that make it nearly impossible, from massive media that reinforces the status quo to unanticipated rise of corporate power over politics to the general comfort of a population that is pacified by by electronic toys and entertainment.
People like to fret over minor incursions to the holy writ of the Constitution but the needed BIg Changes need go without so much as discussion.