I spent 12 of the most interesting years of my life in Congress and I grew to love the place. I was fortunate to work with people of good will and good ideas in both political parties; service was particularly satisfying when we were able to cross Washington's partisan divide to help move the country forward.
Sadly, those moments are rare these days. Ideological purists in both parties appear to have taken control of Congress and of the national dialogue. Voices of moderation and conciliation are being drowned out on the airwaves and inside the Capitol; critical problems are going unaddressed.
Things are especially bad in the Senate. Both parties have figured out that the minority, currently the Republicans, can use the filibuster rule to pretty much shut the place down.
Here's how the obstructionists work. To begin debate on a bill, senators must first adopt a "motion to proceed." But debate on that motion, as on most everything else that comes before the Senate, is unlimited unless at least 60 senators vote to end it. That means a minority of as few as 41 can block any action simply by refusing to permit a vote on the motion to proceed.
Thus the filibuster does not extend debate -- its supposed purpose -- it stops debate. In recent years, filibusters have prevented senators from acting on presidential nominations for judgeships and other offices, as well as bills to hold down interest rates on student loans, force the rich to pay their fair share in income taxes, and end tax subsidies to oil companies. Rather than debating bills and exchanging ideas on the floor, in view of the public and press, senators are pushed by the filibuster into back room deal-making sessions to get a vote on even the most routine legislation.
When the 111th Congress opened last year, the filibuster rule even denied my friend Sen. Tom Udall a chance to make the case for filibuster reform to his colleagues; the minority used the filibuster rule to block discussion on Udall's proposal to change the rule.
Simply put, that's unacceptable. It's an affront to our democracy and not the way the Senate was supposed to work. And it has real consequences for real people.
That's why Common Cause filed suit on Monday to stop it.
Our lawsuit argues that the Constitution sets out super-majority requirements only in special cases, to override a presidential veto or ratify a treaty, for example. It does not permit the Senate to require more than a simple majority just to begin debate; and the Supreme Court already has said that a legislative body's rules cannot conflict with the Constitution.
Congressional plaintiffs in our suit include Reps. John Lewis, D-GA, Michael Michaud, D-ME, Hank Johnson, D-GA, and Keith Ellison, D-MN.
Our other plaintiffs are three young people who recently put themselves through college, graduating with honors, after being brought to America by immigrant parents. They are eager to assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood and of U.S. citizenship; one even wants to join the brave Americans who daily put their lives on the line in the Marine Corps.
But their path ahead has been blocked by the Senate's refusal to debate and vote on a bill, the DREAM Act, that has passed the House and is supported by a majority of senators.
The filibuster also is denying justice to tens of thousands of Americans. Twelve of President Obama's nominees for vacant federal judgeships, all with bipartisan support and nominated in states where the backlog of pending cases is so large that court administrators have declared a "judicial emergency," are being kept off the Senate floor by filibustering senators.
We had hoped that an agreement worked out by Sens. Reid and McConnell, the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, at the beginning of this Congress in January 2011 would go a long way toward solving the filibuster problem. The Reid/McConnell arrangement has had little effect however, and the Senate remains too often hamstrung.
Open and at times extended debates are a Senate tradition worth preserving. There is no basis for the claims, made by some filibuster defenders, that reform of the filibuster rule would permit the majority in the Senate to run roughshod over the minority. In today's Senate, it's the few who are running roughshod over the American people. If the Senate won't address the problem, the courts must.
Follow Bob Edgar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BobEdgarCC
-------
Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process.
“The filibuster shouldn't be jettisoned simply because it's inconvenient to the majority party's goals," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. "That's abuse of power."
...
Common Cause on Monday launched an online petition in opposition to banning the filibuster ..."It's clear that many Americans believe that the right of the minority party to dissent must be maintained," Pingree said. "It's important to the integrity of the Senate."
Equally important is the right of the public to have their elected officials engage in a debate and evaluation of these judicial nominees. ..
"To remove a long-standing parliamentary maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals violates core democratic values and is an anathema to the Senate's long standing commitment to consensus and a bipartisan deliberative process," the Common Cause petition reads.
To his credit, Mr. Edgar was quite candid this morning in explaining how and why Common Cause has re-evaluated and changed its position on the filibuster. He made no attempt to hide the switch; he brought it up without prompting.
Tyrannical Rule Of Majorities
The unique Senate rule of the filibuster has long been a feature within the halls of the Senate. I think without such a feature we could have a formula for tyrrany. I could establish several examples but they are too numerous to mention- but if you look at the acts of the Congrss when the Progressives controlled the WH and both houses you will see that the destructive policies of Obama have been slowed with this rule.
Ayn Rand once said this about the tyranny of the majority- ...a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
He has been working from inside our government to stop our government.
All the while enjoying a generous salary and taxpayer funded benefits (he doesn't use the dental plan, apparently).
The entire Senate term has been his temper tantrum for being denied Senate Majority Leader status.
Mitch thought Sharon Angle, Joe Miller and Christine O'Donnell were the answer to his dream.
Since not getting the leadership spot, he has been insufferable.
He's not letting anything get done.
If they are in control, they are irresponsible, incompetent and downright dangerous. If they are in the minority they use every tactic at their disposal to make Dems look bad, regardless of the consequences.
The Republican party no longer has beliefs or principals except to damage Democrats and President Obama at every opportunity.
May the wind be at your back.
Yes, changing the rules will help and ineffectual Dem leadership. But not without a cost. And it will water down protection for minorities. It's really a shame to watch the president of Common Cause display so much ignorance.
Phoning it in is a sham.
Now, 5 months to Nov elections, GOPers have a change to 50/50 senate or 51/49 senate and Common Cause is now interested in changing the Filibuster Rules?
Why the law suit? The Constitution is very Clear that Congress makes and sets their OWN rules. Both chambers had the Filibuster rules. The House ditched the filibuster rule because it became unworkable. The senate kept the rule and had a gentleman's agreement for it to be used sparingly. From 1840-1900, the Filibuster rule was used 16 times. In 1971 or so, it was amended. But since 2009-2010, the filibuster rule has been used over 130 times. Common Cause where were your group then?