Pages

Sunday, May 19, 2013

On Filibuster Reform Harry Reid Draws Line in the Sand

     The good news is that while Reid made a mistake in accepting watered down filibuster reform he knows this. It's now clear that the GOP can certainly push things too far.

      "Reid recently told a group of major donors that he believes he made a mistake in agreeing to watered down filibuster reform earlier this year, the aide says. But Reid doesn’t regret this, because he still believes he did not have the votes to pass more ambitious reform via a simple majority vote, due to continued reluctance among “old bull” type Democrats in the Senate to exercise the nuclear option."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/17/harry-reid-eyeing-july-for-the-nuclear-option/

     What he's looking at now is ending the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees. 

    "Reid is eyeing a change to the rules that would do away with the 60-vote threshold on all judicial and executive branch nominations, the aide says, on the theory that this is a good way to immediately break an important logjam in Washington — without changing the rules when it comes to legislation."

     Reid has spoken to the President privately and Obama has told him he has his support if he pushes for the "nuclear option." The line in the sand are several nominees currently on the dock. According to a Reid aide:

    "Reid views three upcoming nominees as a key test for whether he will exercise the nuclear option: Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Thomas Perez as secretary of labor; and Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency."

      The GOP then would be wise not to go over that line. The wildcard, though, is immigration reform-the worry is that if Reid does this then GOP will walk away from immigration reform. For this reason he has set the target date for the nuclear option for July. 

    The GOP will try to get away with as much as they can then. They may be smart an not go over the line or not entirely. At the end of the day, Dems don't ideally want to go here anyway. 

    “You think you’ve got gridlock now?” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. “You think you’ve got problems now? You will have a huge, huge outpouring of real anger.”

    “That means the next Senate,” he added, “if the Republicans control it, you can expect them by majority vote to put through any rules change they want.”
     "But the level of frustration among Democrats now has pushed many of them, including Mr. Reid, to believe that the situation has deteriorated so badly that it can be fixed only by doing something they once would have never considered."
     I understand Levin's concerns. Still, there's a really good case that the filibuster is not the democratic institution that it's so often held to be. Supposedly it's about protecting the voice of the minority. However, the filibuster and much of the arcane rules of the Senate go back to the Dixie South and it's attempt to impose it's will on the country though in the minority. Perhaps the filibuster will one day be seen as a relic up there with 3/5 of a person or the poll tax. 
   I don't mean it's quite equivalent morally to those things but it is inherently a undemocratic practice. Between the filibustered Senate and the gerrymandered House, the minority has more than a voice these days; it effectively controls the agenda. Much like the Slave South once did. 

No comments:

Post a Comment