It is interesting that Reid blamed obstruction and deliberate negative strategies on the Republicans for this rationale to eliminate the filabuster only to see the same performance happening when Trump is in. Reid was warned that eliminating the filabuster would come back to haunt the Democrats. You broke the dam then tried to selectively put a finger in the damn to prevent the flood. Now you want to blow it apart. Dumb short term politics when the house is progressively getting more partisan. Some sanity has to return to our politics. That's why the Senate exists...
12
“The filibuster is suffocating the will of the American people”? Perhaps so. But if the ‘will’ of the American people is so sacrosanct consider abolishing the Electoral College while you’re at it. It makes possible presidents of the United States against the ‘will’ of the majority of voters!
144
@Lewis Sternberg
The founders knew the tyranny of the majority is oft times worse than the tyranny of the minority. A mob is a mob is a mob. Ask Jesus (or Moses) about majority rule.
4
The tyranny of the minority vs the oppression of the minority...mutually opposing forces, both of which we strive to contain.
5
When Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the filibuster was ok. Now it needs to be eliminated. I don't disagree but there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here.
8
No. Autocracy and Malicious Power Grabbing Is Suffocating the Will of the American People. Everything else is just mechanism.
8
The Senate Is Suffocating the Will of the American People
To save our country’s future, the people must abolish the arcane Senate.
Fixed it for you.
6
Harry Reid on changing Senate and House rules; that’s rich. Certainly paid off for assigning judges to our courts. Time for Mr. Reid to disappear from the spotlight and to stop offering more horrible advice.
8
Keep the filibuster, but restore it to its original purpose and deployment: stand in the well of the senate and read from Plato (or from "Green Eggs and Ham" if the member is from a red state (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HJuaQL3KRI)) and call for repeated cloture votes until 60 votes are reached. If the filibuster lasts a week, roll in the cots and so be it.
But the new no-fuss "voiceless filibuster" (threatening a "no" vote and then going out for drinks) is an obscenity and a cancer on this once great deliberative body.
13
I have an idea: how about we try democracy? Kill the Electoral College; have direct popular election of president/vice president. We needn't protect slave states anymore. We're a 21stC nation-state: time to get democratic.
I know: the Trumpian neofascists will scream and whine about how they need a thumb or twelve on the scale because they simply aren't adult enough to compete on a level playing field in the marketplace of ideas.
Everything they say is pretty much projection and/or gaslighting. Ignore them.
12
The filibuster is not the reason that the Senate is dysfunctional. As long as they are mostly corrupt and self-serving they really don't deserve any more power.
4
So nice that Harry Reid is not the current senator but an ex-senator. To save our country's future what we need more than Democrats abolishing filibuster we need a press without an agenda but just report the news. Michael Goodwin who worked for NY Times before working for the NY Post has just said The New York Times 'has created a monster'
Goodwin wrote in a column about the NY Times of today, "The mandate of opinion-free news coverage was tossed overboard during the heated 2016 presidential election, and the paper now displays its bias on every page. The quaint motto is still there, but these days the Times doesn’t cover the news as much as promote an agenda. As it says repeatedly, the paper has a 'mission.' The mission is obvious: The Times aims to elect left-wing Democrats to virtually every office in the land and transform America culturally, educationally and politically." As an independent observer, I agree with Goodwin except that I could not have said it more eloquently and clearly than Goodwin even though I have tried for the past 3 years.
9
Harry did enough damage ... best we not listen to him twice.
Let's change the rules .... Hillary can keep it going when she is president.
Would rather have nothing vs majority rule .....
1
Who knows what the will of the American people is? A public option? Probably yes. Open borders? Decidedly not. The filibuster saves us from the bullies on either side. The filibuster lets the hot coffee cool in the saucer.
Keep it. If we want to get things done, then we should elect some real leaders.
2
Reid, as you are a big part of the extreme hyperpartisanship sponsored by the so-called two party system to which you pledge prior allegiance (over your public fiduciary duty as an elected holder of an office of public trust), I'll just disregard your bought and paid advice against US interest, thanks.
4
While the idea of majority rule is a great (small d) democratic principle, just because a majority -- or, more often, an extremely noisy, well-funded minority -- wants something does not means it's a good idea.
Over the past two years, we've seen great policy stifled because Chuck Schumer can bottle a bill up. He caused the government shutdown with the filibuster. He has had it within his power to end the "abuse" at any time and permit majority votes. He does not appear to be in any hurry. He wants to be the majority leader before he emasculates the ability of the minority to prevent legislation from advancing: a very typical leftist perspective. "Do as I say..."
We owe the author a debt of gratitude for killing the filibuster for judicial nominees. He killed it to permit BHO to stuff the courts with leftist politicians. It boomeranged, though, and prevents Schumer and the extreme left from standing in the way of actual judges who won't impose leftist policy from the bench. Although unintentional, the country owes him a great debt for paving the way for a judiciary populated with people who understand the job description.
Query: is it really so terrible to insist that a policy have somewhat greater than a one vote majority?
The Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that it is utterly outside the historic mainstream of American politics. One shudders at the prospect that 51 extreme leftists could destroy what it's taken 200+ years to create.
6
Maybe the true problem isn't the filibuster. Maybe the real problem is the power of FOX NEWS.
4
How many filibusters did Mr. Reid direct ?
2
If some highly selective "bug" wiped out all the members of congress, would anyone notice their disappearance?
Not I
1
Democrats should run on a platform that includes “Fix the Senate.”
1
Please solve the problem I created by playing games with Senate rules for cynical political purposes.
Regards,
Harry Reid
6
I can’t tell you much I hate Harry Reid. For generations, the Senate was governed by Gentlemen (and women) that had to reach compromise in order to pass a bill. Harry destroyed that when he was Majority Leader and decided to implode decades of tradition for his immediate desire to pack the Federal courts with like-minded liberals. It was a selfish act and he deserves all possible condemnation.
7
Meh. American Democracy is a joke. It is a joke because it has been corrupted by money, that makes things a joke. The American military-industrial complex is a joke. American factory farming is a joke. American police state is a joke.
4
The problem is the Senate doesn’t even do a real filibuster anymore, they’re so lazy all a senator has to do is say “filibuster” and that’s it. Showing my age here but back in the day I remember senator Everett Dirksen standing at the podium reading the phone book; at least then at some point he’d get laryngitis or need a bathroom break. So keep the filibusters but make them actually stand there and bloviate, doubt this collection of wussies would last through that.
7
Good idea to get rid of the filibuster but Harry Reid's got it wrong. It is the Dems who stall and do nothing and the Reps try to get things done, especially our great president. Time to get rid of Pelosi, Schumer and all things DEM.
4
So it's the "Will of the People" now, is it? Perhaps when this is achieved, we will have "The Triumph of the Will"?
It's tragic when a lawmaker in a constitutional republic resorts to such rhetoric. What next, Peronism?
3
Dear Senator Reid,
What a bunch of hypocrisy thinly disguised as something for the good of the country. Quit blaming all the current ills of this country on the mean ol' Republicans use of the filibuster.
"But what is happening today is a far cry from what the framers intended. They created the Senate as a majority-rule body, where both sides could have their say at length..."
Wrong. There was no "both sides" aspect when the Senate was designed. Each state had two senators who were to represent the interests of the states. In effect, senators were ambassadors. The 17th Amendment changed that, and I argue that it for the worse.
The filibuster is always seen as the villain by the majority party and a savior by the minority party. At this point neither side wants to give it up for purely political reasons. You had 60 votes in the Senate at one point yet you decided not to go for it.
Here's a rule maybe you should push for. Before Senators speak at any hearing or on the Senate floor, they should swear an oath to tell the truth. I seem to recall you making knowing false statements about Mitt Romney's tax returns:
https://www.opslens.com/2016/12/harry-reid-says-necessary-lying-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/
None of your op-ed has any meaning if you and others can't be counted on to tell the truth in the most deliberative legislative body in the world. Shame on you Senator.
8/12/19 @ 11:47 p.m.
5
Should have done something when you were in charge.
1
" The Filibuster Is Suffocating the Will of the American People"
oh, noticed that, did you? You're about ten years and change late...
3
Remember searchlight Harry they are following your lead and you should have and could have done what you are calling for but now you want a do over?
1
Reid is not going far enough. The developed, educated and growing elements of the U.S. are anchored to a large collection of third-world hangers-on, gun-wielding extortionists: Montana, Alabama, Idaho, Georgia, Dakotas North and South, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, &c. Abolish the Senate.
Simply put God back into the equation.
1
Reids list of what we would have had it not been for the filibuster reads like a leftists utopia dream. Full blown amnesty, govt run healthcare, and higher and higher taxes to finance redistribution of wealth. In other words, the end of America as we know it. The fundamental change of America, from the land of opportunity, to a socialist welfare state. Amnesty would only encourage more and more illegal immigration. The masses would be incentivised more than they are now to just waltz across the border, have a couple kids, pay no income taxes, and live off the American taxpayer. Amnesty for 20 million would mean they would all be eligible for not just welfare, but the new govt run healthcare that would be enacted. The 1% already pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 70% That's not fair? So whats fair? 80%? 90%? Does he really think the rich would just sit around and take it? Creating jobs means investing capital. They expect a return on that investment. If they cant get it here, they will take that capital someplace else. Its a lot easier to do that nowadays. So all these new entitlements would be paid for by a smaller and smaller pool of wealth. We already have 22 Trillion in debt, costing us 527 billion last year in interest. Slowly but surely, down the tubes. Notice all the folks recommending these drastic changes never ran a business, or created a job in their life. No thanks. Honestly, what the heck happened to the Democrat Party?
3
I agree that both parties are to blame for what has happened in the Senate, however, at this moment, much of the stalling has come down to Mitch McConnell. I pray the voters of KY vote him out for good, and Americans start taking a more serious part in our democracy by voting and insisting that our elected officials are held accountable for their deeds. #mikeforky #MarkKelly2020
2
Fellow Democrats, If we ever get a super-majority again, we must abolish the Senate and the Electorial college to save America!
1
Be careful what you wish for.
Dang fillibuster. if it weren't for that Senate rule my Virginia concealed carry permit would have to be honored in New York, New Jersey, and the other slave states. Be careful what you wish for...
Dear Mr Reid,
Your nuclear option proved you don't have a clue to the long term effects of congressional decision making.
Please, sir. You're retired. Stay that way.
4
It's idiocy to think any member of Congress listens to debate and forms opinion form it. In the era of billionaire, lobbyists write their opinions before they walk into the chambers. Voters don't even have a say anymore. Our elected leaders are bought and paid for, and they vote accordingly. Why even go through the charade of speaking at all?
Already in paragraph two Reid is wrong about the Founders. Reid writes, "They created the Senate as a majority-rule body, where both sides could have their say at length"
The error is BOTH SIDES. They expected for open debate and free opinion to inform the Senators. They feared the rise of FACTIONS, not groups with common interests, but self serving cliques like the two Parties have become. That there would be two sides whose main motivation would be self perpetuation and Party Power should gag any loyal American both than and now.
2
The Supreme Court is very reluctant to tell the other two branches how to run their own operations. Thus, various practices like the filibuster show up that have no foundation in the Constitution. Today we have McConnell, who maximizes the toxicisity of both the filibuster and the informal power of the majority leader to keep bills from being brought to a vote.
He laughs when being reminded of his own words about not confirming Court nominees during an election year. Obama = bad, Trump = OK. He smiled as he called on the Senate parliamentarian to rule that only 51 votes are needed when it suited him, so the filibuster rule is not a senatorial courtesy, it is a weapon for the majority leader to use and abuse.
The filibuster is not a good rule, but in the hands of this ruthless partisan it undermines democracy.
4
In his retirement Reid has apparently forgotten political rule #1: what goes around, comes around. Our politics is so polarized, the asserted positions of the parties so opposite, that at this juncture in our history our government stands inopposite to good governance. Furthermore, the ever optimistic Reid foresees a Democrat Senate; to say the least his thick spectacles are also rose colored.
Sad as it is, and in the face of needed legislation to deal with many serious issues, the filibuster is a last means of thwarting an onslaught of legislation crafted by and in service of the special interests that have brought our Democracy to the precipice and Donald Trump to the White House.
The Democrats must first craft a strategy to win the confidence and votes of the electorate; they must shed their past affiliation with the financial institutions that have dictated our laws to so called legislators; they must prove they can lead us out of this morass.
1
Careful what you wish for. The Minority has Rights. The Framers instituted the Senate specifically to curtail the mercurial will of the People and protect those Rights. The filibuster is a primary tool in that function. They gave us a Republic, not a Democracy...”if you can keep it,” as Mr. Franklin reputedly advised.
1
Frankly, I think Harry Reid, and now Nancy Pelosi, is as corrupt as any of the Republican leaders, since their interests, and their donors are substantially the same. I like the filibuster. What I DON'T like is the Electoral College. If they want to abolish something that is truly undemocratic, it would be the offensive, destructive, anti-citizen Electoral College, which steals our votes in every general election.
Senator Reid leaves out the historical perspective. He and Mitch McConnell agreed to a "gentleman's filibuster." Many of us remember the days of Southern filibusters when the American people actually saw Senators lying in beds and standing up reading meaningless things and got a view of who it is that was blocking any action by the Senate. Perhaps if we saw all that again Republicans wouldn't be so willing to obstruct the passage of any legislation since they'd know whom voters would punish.
1
Everything about the design of the Senate and the way it currently operates is suffocating the will of Americans.
Darwinian theory applies to political systems too. What worked under one set of circumstances needs to evolve through time. As well, one system might work for one country, yet is entirely wrong for another ecology.
North America, USA & Canada, with vast land mass coming from colonial occupation, imported immigrants from all over the world. Each adopted different forms of democracy. To India, also coming out of colonial British rule, democracy is a burdensome curse. Russia never truly transitioned into a workable system. UK? Never mind. Just look at Brexit. China, being an ancient civilization, arrives at modernity with one-party rule, probably the most workable system given its history.
The critical issue is whether each country's political system can evolve fast enough to meet modern challenges and benefit their people. Facts & evidence should be the guiding principle, not ideology and dogma. Real politics is like watching sausages getting made. Ultimately the test is in the sausage.
So far China seems to make the best sausage. The one-party system works for them. Small tweaks here & there. There is no reason for them to change a successful formula yet.
Filibuster & Electoral College are part of the messy process in USA. Looking at its paralyzed government, polarized people, racial conflicts, broken infrastructures, rampant gun violence, income disparity, stagnant economy, ... USA's old political system has reached expiry date a while ago. Time for updates.
Just replace the word "filibuster" with the word "greed" (or simply "money") and Senator Reid's article is spot on accurate.
Oh, this is rich. Coming from Harry Reid who obstructed anything and everything GW Bush tried to get through. I'm embarrassed to be in the same state as Mr. Reid.
3
I'm not sure about this. Without the filibuster, what keeps the majority from ignoring the minority, same as what's happening now. The problem isn't the filibuster, the problem is the cowardice of the Republicans.
1
Another major reason our political system no longer works for "
We, the People" is the vast sums of money that corporations and the wealthy can spend to influence issues and elections.
One example is a recent luncheon for Trump that cost $250,000 to attend----- absolutely ridiculous! Republicans are the worst offenders, but not the only ones.
How about enacting a law like this----- "If you are not eligible to vote for a candidate, you cannot contribute to them"? Then, in addition, impose contribution limits like we have in Montana.
1
Reiterating what has already been said. Go back to 2017 and eliminate the filibuster. What happens? Obamacare? Repealed. Abortion rights, gone. Border Wall funded. Mass deportations, implemented. EPA, gone. Medicaid, gone. All for the will of the American people. Are we enjoying ourselves?
Better yet, get rid of the Senate entirely. It was a sop to slave states, absent which they would have refused to join the union. The ends of democracy would now be better served by a unicameral legislature.
Our Lobbyocracy is so broken and outdated in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start. Other countries are building their middle class while we destroy ours. Where will the 0.1% sell their stuff when we go fully feudal?
Ironically, it is the Democrats who are relying on the 60 vote threshold to block legislation at the moment.
2
It's meant to. The Senate is supposed to balance the House, with one reflecting the immediate views of the people, and the other slowing a rush to judgement. The filibuster is part of that.
2
Just old-timey politicians waxing nostalgic a la Joe Biden pining for bipartisan compromise that garnered uncontemplated consequences like mass incarceration. Trying to cover his past action of removing the filibuster from Obama’s judicial appointees by going all the way here in this op-ed. It’s silly season electioneering.
Just trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Can someone please suggest a source that explicates the evolution of the powers of the Senate Majority Leader? Seems too powerful for a non-Constitutional governmental office. Thanks.
1
Sorry Harry, but you know the issue in the Senate is republicans know they can refuse to accept anything and bring the legislative process to a grinding halt if they don't get their way.
In the Senate, they use reconciliation to bypass Democrats and push legislation they created, expecting Democrats to do as they're told. In the House, they used their majority status to eliminate Democrats for the same purpose ... conservative only legislation.
The issue here has nothing to do with the filibuster ... it has everything to do with a political faction misusing Article 1 powers to push their ideological agenda through and the other political faction being too timid to stop them.
Note, even though republicans are responsible for the anger the public has with Congress, the blame is equally assigned to both with republicans successfully shifting as much blame as they can on to Democrats simply by saying "they" refuse to cooperate. And it works.
Perhaps it may be a better strategy for Democrats to follow republicans and refuse to work with them unless they do as Democrats want. If it comes to a budget and they need a few votes to make the magic number 60, then make sure there are enough strings attached Democrats get their issues approved ... just like republicans have been doing all along.
Once you start playing their game on them, perhaps they'll reconsider their options and start to work rather than fight.
1
Eliminating the filibuster is not going to fix what's wrong in the Senate. We need to also eliminate the ability of the Senate Majority Leader to pick and choose what legislation can even be discussed on the floor (much less see a floor vote), allowing only those issues that advance the will of their own party to rise. It's time for the electorate to be served and take center stage, and for the elected servants to actually represent US and not the corporate "people" who stuff their pockets. We are all just sick to death of the atrophy and posturing.
1
The Filibuster isn't the issue, the scorched-earth hyper-partition party extremists on both sides are the problem. Our two-party duopoly is a problem, along with a few voices in each party that steal all the air. I would like an election where I don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
The fact that we didn't achieve mitosis of the Republican party from the "never-Trump" camp was the greatest loss in 2016.
3
Senator Reid is right. The filibuster was for a long time useful in developing moderate policies that kept our country moving towards a more perfect union. When it was weaponized by McConnell, it became an obstruction to the growth that this country had experienced. It's a sad thing.
Many here are complaining about how the senate is unfair in its representation. It's not, every voice there represents their state equally, now the house, that's a horse of a different color. But it can be repainted, and that will fix the electoral collage too. REAPPORTION THE HOUSE, make each congressional district about the same size. Wyoming should be the standard for the population of one congressional district, 50% more, you get a second rep and so on. As the number of representatives plus the senate is the electoral collage, that would spread the vote equally across the country. This hasn't been done in over 100 years, but there's no reason it can't be done based upon the 2020 census. Small states won't like it, but fair is fair.
While I'm on my soapbox, one more thing would make our congress work again, bring back earmarks, something for my district, something for yours. Deal.
The larger problem with the U.S. Senate is that it does not represent the majority of the American people, but rather some arcanely drawn state borders. The elimination of the filibuster will reduce legislative paralysis and add to the power of the presidency (who would want to give Trump even more power?), but it will not address the most critical problem of unbalanced representation. To change that, the number of senators representing a given State should be proportional to that State's population. Unfortunately, that is out of sight for now.
2
In the past--I don't know when the change happened--senators who wanted to filibuster had to actually speak continuously. They had to stand up and continue to hold the floor. When they couldn't any longer, there was a cloture vote. At a bare minimum, the Senate should revert to forcing senators to actually put some effort into delaying consideration of an issue. One individual should be allowed to stand and state their case. When they can't continue any longer, a simple majority vote should allow the Senate to move on. Individual legislators could state their case to the public and make their objections known, but they couldn't hold the country ransom to their obstructionism. True, another senator could then do the same thing, but serial obstructionism would take a toll on the obstructors, and their actions would be subjected to public scrutiny, rather than allowing them to do so in anonymity as the presently can.
2
Harry, are you not the one who changed the rules for your advantage. Now, you seem to want to do it again, for your advantage.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave".
3
It's so easy to get lost in the weeds!
Taking action on the filibuster highlights a micro problem when we keep avoiding the macro issue of candidate funding by the monied interests, a miniscule slice of the population. If we want to rid ourselves of Congressional gridlock, FIRSTLY we must right how elections are funded.
i can't say it better than Lawrence Lessig in his TED talk, and I would encourage everyone to find twenty minutes of quiet time to listen to it. Copy and paste this link into your browser and watch:
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en
harry,
if i remember correctly, uou and yourolleagues had a chance to do away with the 60 votes rule for stopping the filibuster. even when you saw the obstinency of the other side why did you not change the rules? why was dick durban who was venerating the 60 vote rule?
1
So obvious a 7th grader could figure this out. It gives parties the means to, oh...steal a SCOTUS' seat from the American people who voted that Congress in.
1
People outside the US are not asking you to lead on climate change. All we want is for you to get out of the way
When someone like Harry Reid starts lecturing us on ethics and fairness, you know the universe is turned inside out.
4
In this present hyper-uber-super partisan atmosphere, why on earth would we ever want to remove barriers to these politicians.
If we had to choose between Racists and Socialists, I choose Gridlock.
PS. Not all Democrats are Socialists and not all Republicans are racist.
1
I don't know. Dick Durbin wants Blagojevich released. I don't think it's just the filibuster.
Going nuclear? Again?
1
Agreed.
2
Somebody, please, take Harry aside, give him a warm drink and gently tell him it’s over.
4
The framers never foresaw assault rifles: do you support banning them?
The framers never foresaw non white people as equal to “them” [white European]in our culture and democracy.,.........
It's OK when the majority is Democrat, huh?
3
Where were you for the Decade you ran the Senate and went over 1,000 days without passing a budget. It was YOU who got rid of regular order in the Senate. https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/01/20/1000-days-without-a-budget-facts-on-the-senates-failure/
4
A little late with your concern. As an expert on being just a mean liar and a historic manipulator of the body politic you would now expect due consideration on your now concern for us in America. You have left the problems you created behind. We will dig out by ourselves.
4
Can you imagine the current Senate without the 60 vote rule. We would have becomea Fascist state two and a half years ago. I strongly believe that the 60 vote rule is what would bring the Senators to reevaluate and compromise. It is a good rule.
1
The "Buffett rule," not the “Buffet Rule” (amazing how often this misspelling comes up).
3
First is was Russian collusion, then race, then white supremacy.
Now the filibuster.
All to try and stop Trump.
But he keeps going and going.
LOL
5
This is basically arguing that a 51% majority should be able to dictate to the 49% minority. The filibuster forces both parties to seek compromise and work on issues where there is agreement. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
5
McConnell refusing to consider Obama's Federal and Supreme Court nominees is suffocating the will of the people.
McConnell eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees is suffocating the will of the people.
McConnell refusing to even send to committee any bill passed by the House is suffocating the will of the people.
McConnell refusing to bring to the senate floor committee-passed bills is suffocating the will of the people.
McConnell is suffocating the will of the people.
4
I disagree. Instead of abolishing the filibuster, it should in effect be mandated in an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment should require at least 60 votes to pass ANYTHING in the Senate, including legislation and confirmations, and it should require the full Senate to vote on ANY legislation or confirmation that at least 35% of Senators want brought up. The power of the Majority Leader to control what comes up for a vote would thereby be abolished, as it should be.
With these kinds of rules, the American people are guaranteed at least a modicum of bipartisanship in federal law (unless one party really sweeps Congress), and legislative proposals and confirmations taken seriously by a large number of senators will have to be taken up even if the majority doesn't want that.
2
Many people are in a delirious state, naively believing the Democrats or Republicans are the solution (or problem), which is sad. Political parties are toxic and spend more time trying to win points with their supporters than they do trying to advance the causes of what we truly are: Americans.
1
The filibuster is a good thing as long as both parties are acting in good faith. Either party should be able to force full and thorough debate on an item but not totally block it indefinitely. The Kavenaugh hearing was a case in point. A complete and thorough look at his background may have led to a different outcome. Additionally, McConnell should not have been able to block vote on Garland's nomination. Rather than outright abolishment the filibuster should be replaced with this common sense alternative..
3
The filibuster is a two-edged sword, depending on which party is in power. Either you believe in democracy (eliminate the filibuster) or you fear it. It is interesting that virtually all other democracies use a parliamentary system where the party in power (or a coalition) can pass any laws it wishes with a majority. Our system, with its built in checks and balances, would probably work quite well without throwing more sand in the gears with a filibuster.
Harry Reid had ample opportunity to do away with the fillibuster and to some extent the current paralysis lays directly at his feet.
The Republicans are in power because the Democrats were ineffective at governing. They believed in a world long gone even before Obama - a world of civility and bipartisanship.
The Democrats need to be concerned about more than winning power, but also about using it to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
Tthey cannot do that under the current filibuster rules
The filibuster, the Electoral College, gerrymandering, campaign finance, the electoral distortions of the Senate. All problems, to be sure. But fixing them will not fix America.
Well said, Mr. Reid.
This is one arcane and outdated procedure that must be abolished.
The other is the Electoral College. The Framers could not have foreseen multiple national elections where the "winner" is the man who received fewer votes.
It happened in 2000.
It happened in 2016.
It may well happen again in 2020.
This nation needs to stop clinging to ancient policies and procedures that are outdated. (And please don't get me started on the 2nd Amendment....)
3
Realistically the Senate, as currently constituted, has no place in a nation that calls itself a democracy. The fact that it holds such sway over the judicial branch make its anti-democratic structure that much more intolerable.
2
The problem with the Senate is not the filibuster. The problem with the Senate is the Senate, the only legislative body in America based not on population but on a historical accident: the buy-in of 13 self-interested states required to create the United States.
The Supreme Court finally recognized, in Reynolds v. Sims, that land area was no way to represent a political jurisdiction in voiding state senates based on the federal model. But we're stuck with the U.S. Senate because its creation was a bedrock of the Constitutional Convention.
Fiddling with Senate rules is rearranging deck chairs atop our sinking democracy.
1
A legislative body that does nothing year after year is a candidate for overhaul.
The filibuster is being abused, and will continue to be abused as long as it's in place. This is toxic to our democracy and should be changed.
We expect the Senate to vote on bills and discuss them. That is the work. Harry Reid's proposal might help them do that.
Perhaps that public debate of issues that occurs during legislation is push in the right direction to put partisan concerns aside and go forward together, as Americans.
2
I'm not sure why Harry Reid wrote this now, because the Democrats are in the minority and have used the filibuster and other tactics to block legislation and make their voices heard and to slow the confirmation of appointees (until McConnell recently changed the rules). In fact, if Harry Reid had not changed the rules for judicial appointees, the Senate would not have rammed through so many new judges.
Mr. Reid's support for getting rid of the filibuster assumes the Democrats will take control of the Senate in 2020 or hopes this issue will drive more Dems to the polls. But, I'm not sure that the Senate will be secured or that it won't also energize the other side. Oddly timed.
3
Anyone who reads this article would have thought the Democrats won the midterm election and had a majority in the Senate, which they do not. It is the Democrats who are currently using the filibuster to block bills in the senate. I agree with Mr. Reid that the filibuster should be abolished, but be careful what you wish for. It is the republicans who would benefit from elimination of the filibuster at this time.
2
Ha! The tale of "give the other cheek."
No, fight.
After all, everybody knows that Republicans have not hesitations to filibuster. Inexorably, slowly and surely, the American People is realizing which side is convenient to the country.
Each fight, a bit more of the masquerade falls.
1
It's not the filibuster itself, it's abuse of the filibuster.
2
Well Harry, you have a lot more experience and knowledge than I do but from my perspective, our Government is a whole lot more broke than just the filibuster. Here is a list of some governance issues that concern me:
Gerrymandering
2-party stranglehold
electoral college
A government incapable of removing a president clearly unfit for office
2nd amendment
Unchecked power in the senate majority leader
Money in politics
One party packing the courts altering the balance of power
Too much power given to small states diluting peoples voice in favor of land....
The list is long. Maybe it is time for a serious revamp of the constitution.
1
Sen John Dingell's farewell article in The Atlantic should be required reading for all Americans. His recommendation was to abolish the Senate entirely, and publicly fund elections.
There he says:
"The Great Compromise, as it was called when it was adopted by the Constitution’s Framers, required that all states, big and small, have two senators. The idea that Rhode Island needed two U.S. senators to protect itself from being bullied by Massachusetts emerged under a system that governed only 4 million Americans.
Today, in a nation of more than 325 million and 37 additional states, not only is that structure antiquated, it’s downright dangerous. California has almost 40 million people, while the 20 smallest states have a combined population totaling less than that. Yet because of an 18th-century political deal, those 20 states have 40 senators, while California has just two. These sparsely populated, usually conservative states can block legislation supported by a majority of the American people. That’s just plain crazy."
Indeed. While abolishing the Senate is a stretch goal, an amendment to overturn Citizens United and publicly fund elections is not. Abolishing the filibuster is tinkering around the edges, Citizens United is the root cause of all our problems, since it created a formal Oligarchy. Anyone who thinks we live in a representative democracy is tragically mistaken.
2
I mourn the passing of the Deliberative Body that that the Senate used to be. I mourn the passing of a Supreme Court that was where the poor, the powerless could get a fair shake. I mourn a Presidency in which the leader at least tried to serve all the people and bring people together. I mourn the loss of a country that acted on values such as those written on the plaque. I mourn the loss of an Environmental Protection Agency that sought to improve air and water quality. I mourn a country that tried to protect endangered species and provide responsible stewardship of our national parks and forests.
So much to mourn, so much to not give up on. Jay Inslee, who is trying to make climate change a topic of conversation and action in this presidential election cycle, was the first person I heard to champion elimination of the filibuster.
The time for mourning is over. We must do what we can to protect what's left and reclaim what's been lost.
1
Yeah, Mr. Reid is just full of good ideas. Like doing away with the super-majority so he could get his preferred federal judicial candidates through confirmation. Then the Republicans extended the same to SCOTUS nominations. Look what that got you, Mr. Reid.
No thanks.
4
Mr. Reid, by bringing up the filibuster, is directing attention away from the greater problem of the power of the Senate majority leader, which he himself abused at times, and which Mitch McConnell is abusing even more. It shouldn't be possible for any senator, regardless of position, to prevent indefinitely a vote desired by a significant number of senators, even if they are a minority. Mr. Reid probably would concede that the Founders intended no such thing. It's just that political parties and their leadership have found setting up this sort of obstruction to be useful for partisan purposes. The United States is supposed to exist for the benefit of all of its citizens. OK, after everyone is done laughing at me, it remains true that this the ideal that we should take what actions we can to try to achieve. I'm not advocating "nonpartisanship", which is a formula for not rocking the boat, when the boat often needs to be rocked. But I am advocating something more than the careerism of professional politicians that uses extreme partisanship as one of its chief tools.
2
Maybe the problem isn't just the filibuster but the fact that the rules of both the Senate and the House of Representatives are not based on laws but based on archaic suggestions from Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson created a process for how both the House and Senate operated. None of these processes were turned into law so naturally, the leaders of the House and Senate can change them at whim.
How about creating the rules and procedures for the House of Representatives into law and making them unchangeable by the whim of the Speaker of the House then do the same for the Senate and the Senate majority leader.
One of the most important changes should be that neither leader can block bills from coming to the floor for a vote.
1
How about a filibuster rule requiring the votes of senators representing at least 60% of the population according to the last census. If a bill passes that threshhold, it would then go to the floor for a final vote requiring affirmative votes of a majority of senators ( with the VP as tie-breaker.)
2
Rather than abolishing the filibuster, perhaps restoring the real filibuster would be more effective. The Senate, by design, over-represents a minority of Americans. As Bill Maher often asks; "why are there two Dakotas?" (with four senators representing a total of about 1.5 million people, while California has only two senators representing almost 40 million people). If the filibuster were abolished senators from smaller, less diverse states could completely run roughshod over the majority of the country. Restoring the "real" filibuster--requiring those who wish to delay a vote to actually stand on the floor and keep talking, keep debating (along with a requirement that debate be germane to the bill in question--no more Ted Cruz "Cat in the Hat" speeches) would limit frivolous filibusters while preserving the ability of senators representing the majority of the population to have a say.
2
I completely agree with Leader Reid. I would add only this, that the filibuster encourages the deep irresponsibility that now characterizes Republican politics. It has also contributed to the radicalization of the GOP and the extremism of public debate.
It does this by encouraging senators to pander to, or at least indulge, the harshest rhetoric of their supporters--- knowing, all the while, that with the filibuster in place there is no chance of turning that rhetoric into legislation. The debacle over the ACA is the best example of this. Republicans spent the better part of a decade gleefully invoking "death panels" and vowing to "repeal and replace," only to be exposed as cynical poseurs when they actually had a repeal vote in front of them.
Someone will object that, absent the late Senator McCain, they might actually have pulled it off. But so what? In that case they would have owned the honest-to-gosh revocation of health care from tens of millions of Americans. LET THEM OWN IT. Let them own a federal ban on abortion as well, as another poster imagines. I for one would not want to be a GOP candidate running for relection after stealing health care and bodily autonomy from my constitutents.
In a healthy democracy, politicians take responsibility for the policies they advocate, and this includes owning the consequences when they are enacted into law. The filibuster encourages a politics of empty, extreme rhetoric--- a politics of posturing, not acting. Eliminate it.
2
I agree with Reid in principle, but I have my doubts that enough Democrats will want to do this. Too many of them are dependent on big-money donors who may not care if they talk a progressive game but who definitely wouldn't be pleased to see them actually pass the kind of big high-end tax increases, vastly expanded social programs or massive infrastructure projects that they routinely promise their constituents they'll "fight" for. Procedural gridlock suits these Dems just fine. Expect lots of high-minded excuses for keeping the filibuster.
Didn't notice the name of Mitch McConnell. He has brought the " . . . more deliberative body of the United States Congress " to a screeching halt.
When the filibuster is put up for discussion, consider also the elimination of a "king" as created by McConnell.
Congress is in shambles but special criticism has been earned by the Senate.
2
While we at it.
How about the House of Representatives becomes the final say for legislation instead of the Senate?
That way, a majority of Americans are better represented.
Two senators from lightly populated states like Wyoming or North Dakota should not have the same power as the two senators from heavily populated states like California and Texas.
2
The worst thing about the modern filibuster is that it isn't a filibuster. It's a minority veto.
A real filibuster involves delaying a vote pending a debate in the chamber on a matter before it.
If a Senator wants to speak on the floor about a matter before it, the Senator should be able to do so - before the vote. Go to the podium and speak about the matter until you're done. Then, there can be a vote.
No more shenanigans - to filibuster you have to actually speak, and no reading Green Eggs & Ham or the St. Louis phonebook. Once you stray off-topic, the mike goes dead.
3
Both the Senate and House rules of procedure are arcane and obstructive. A total revamp is in order.
Live speeches and debates on the Senate and House floors, with the majority of members in attendance, are a waste of time in the age of electronic communications. Opinions, like laws, should be stated in writing and circulated electronically for review and analysis. Votes on proposed legislation should be conducted electronically, not by acclamation or roll call.
The powers of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House to advance, impede, and ignore legislative proposals must be curtailed. These tin-pot Napoleons are not granted extraordinary authority by the Constitution or the nation.
Individual Senators and House members should not be granted deference to obstruct legislation. Filibusters and procedural "holds" are political stupidities, like the fictitious electoral college.
The primary duty of Senators and Representatives is to decide on legislation, not to write laws. The job of analyzing proposals, conducting hearings, and writing laws should fall to a competent, well-paid staff of legislative analysts.
Senators and representatives should be deprived of their overpaid personal staffs. These "public" servants serve the political campaign, not the legislative effectiveness of the member.
Let's insist on bringing our moribund Congress to life!
2
the popular will, the popular will can break through any senate procedural idiosyncracy. the reason we have a stagnant congress is that the american electorate is divided.
A significant part of that electorate wants things to stay as they are, or go back to the way they used to be; wants to pretend that things as they are now can go on forever. you know ... corn chips, selfies, sports channels and cheap gasoline -- now and forever more.
Given the long term demographics of our country, it's time to amend the Constitution so as to expand the House and dissolve the Senate. The Senate is now even more inherently anti-democratic in terms of legislation for and representation of the nation's population.
The Senate is now largely used not to deliberate, but to obstruct. It's an 18th Century Enlightenment anachronism amidst in a technological age that can now do better in representing its people.
2
NOW you say this? When Rachel Maddow asked you if you'd be doing something about the filibuster when you got back in session, you demurred. I understand that you came from a senate that was collegial, but I watched in frustration as good legislation when to your senate to be shot town. You knew what was happening but didn't do anything to fix it.
As an alternative, perhaps the filibuster should have gone back to making the person putting a hold on legislation o before the body and actually filibuster--speak until they dropped.
Mr. Reid, you had a chance to make these changes, but you didn't. I for one think it rings hollow that, long after you are gone, you are weighing in on this. You should have done it when it counted.
1
The US Senate does not reflect the will of all of the people.
It is an anachronism wrote into the Constitution in 1787 to assuage the fearsome smaller states that larger states such a VA would control the country.
A US Senator from ND represents a fraction of the citizens of a US Senator from CA.
The Senate is the least representative of the will of the people and the filibuster today keeps the minority of citizens from controlling the majority.
1
NOW you say this? When Rachel Maddow asked you if you'd be doing something about the filibuster when you got back in session, you demurred. I understand that you came from a senate that was collegial, but I watched in frustration as good legislation when to your senate to be shot town. You knew what was happening but didn't do anything to fix it.
As an alternative, perhaps the filibuster should have gone back to making the person putting a hold on legislation o before the body and actually filibuster--speak until they dropped.
Mr. Reid, you had a chance to make these changes, but you didn't. I for one think it rings hollow that, long after you are gone, you are weighing in on this. You should have done it when it counted.
Um... Harry?
The problem with abolishing the filibuster is that the Senate is heavily gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.
Consider:
Idaho, 1.7 million people, two senators.
Wyoming, 600,000 people, two senators.
Montana, 1.1 million people, two senators.
North Dakota, 700,000 people, two senators.
South Dakota, 900,000 people two senators.
5 States, 5 million people. 10 senators. Nine of whom are Republican.
California, 39 million people, two senators.
Because of this gross Injustice, it will be very difficult to keep the Senate Democratic even if we manage to take it over in 2021. And then Republicans will just repeal any legislation that we pass.
You would do well to consider adding states like Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and Guam, as well as splitting California up into at least three states, if you want your kill-filibuster strategy to not backfire in the long run.
1
@David
Rhode Island: 1.05 million people, 2 Senators
New Hampshire: 1.35 million people, 2 Senators
Vermont: 627,000 people, 2 Senators
Maine: 1.34 million people, 2 Senators
6 (D)s,
2 (I)s who caucus (D)
8 Senators representing 4.367 million people over 4 states. All have 2 [who caucus] (D) Senators
Texas: 29 million people, 2 Senators
__
In your example:
10 Senators representing 5 million people over 5 states
9 (R)s, 1 (D)
It all comes out in the wash in that respect or is that inconvenient truth unfair?
10:09A CDT
8/13/19
This whole issue could go away if we had term limits for Congress. We need to get rid of these career politicians and partisan hacks. Let them serve two terms and they're done.
2
The filibuster was instituted by people who expected a senator to actually care about the country. That time has come and gone. Look at Mitt Romney, who supposedly has one of the best GOP resumes in the Senate. Now a total Trump toady.
1
Like everything in the Constitution and the rules governing legislative procedure, the filibuster has always had the potential for abuse by people of ill intent. Throwing out the filibuster because one man, Mitch McConnell, has decided to make right wing obstructionism his legacy is a very slippery and dangerous slope.
Mr Reid makes his case, but he conveniently skips past the part where HIS decision to do away with the filibuster for judicial nominees laid the groundwork for McConnell's decision to extend it to SCOTUS nominees as well. McConnell even warned Reid at the time that this would come back to haunt him, and it has: Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh. Harry Reid seriously miscalculated what his successor would do, perhaps never imagining the Republicans gaining control of the Senate. Whatever the case, the SCOTUS fiasco of the past few years had its genesis in Reid's decision to eliminate the filibuster.
Now he proposes we eliminate it in its entirety, without acknowledging the serious damage his actions have spawned. Its as if he's decided since the boat already has a hole in it --- one he put there --- we might just as well sink it.
The solution to the abuse of the filibuster rule is not to get rid of the filibuster; it's to get rid of the abusers. We get the government we deserve, and Mitch McConnell is the clearest confirmation of this.
1
I find it truly AMAZING how many people don't understand their own government. Several notes folks:
1) Even if the Democrats got every single seat in BOTH houses of Congress. They still COULD NOT amend the constitution without the agreement of 38 states PERIOD.
2) The number Senators per State is HARD locked an UNAMENDABLE every state is GUARANTEED an equal number irregardless of anything congress says, does or passes. It's in the Constitution and not within congresses purview. Unless of course you believe every single state would agree?
4) 38 States would have to AGREE to get rid of the Electoral college. So unless you believe 38 states are going to cut their own throats to benefit a comparatively small number of states? It's NOT going to happen!
For all of you "Progressives" calling for Constitutional Convention. Be careful what you wish for . It would likely be 1 vote per state. And progressives would NOT have a majority in those circumstances.
So folks we must deal with what is not with what we wish for!
The Senate is going to get reapportioned, The Electoral college isn't going away. We must win under the rules that ARE. Not indulge in fantasies about changing the rules to benefit a handful of states.
I do believe it is way past time for a Constitutional Convention. Not to benefit one party, but to benefit us all. A year or two of pre-convention idea sharing- on PBS, specials, lawyers, legal scholars, political scientists across the nation, from all parties- share ideas. Then we listen, comment, perhaps polls, straw votes...
38 states you say- what might be beneficial to them? What alternative ideas of representation might be out there?
What we have is outdated and failing us, again and again. Fantasy? The only fantasy is believing we can survive without a major update.
The simple threat of a filibuster for background checks for online gun sales caused then Senate majority leader Reid to doom the bill.
The bipartisan bill was 54-46, but it was considered a loss.
The faux threat of a filibuster showed the cowardice of Senator Reid and other elected officials as the fear of the NRA had them running for the hills.
I am not sure I agree with Harry Reid. His inability to do the right thing when he had a majority in the Senate showed that.
But then again, maybe he used it as an excuse to hide his true feelings on gun control, having ear marked millions for a fully automatic gun range in Nevada during his last re-election cycle.
@Herry
Better a range for fully automatic gun usage than my Walmart or downtown entertainment district....
Former Majority Leader Reid suggestion of abolishing the Filibuster in the U.S. Senate isn’t the only rule which must change. The absolute power of the Majority Leader must be restrained both Majority Leader Reid and Mitchell have used their positions to prevent legislation from even being debated if the Majority Leader won’t bring it to the floor. It is time a mechanism be created to allow legislation to be introduced without the Majority Leaders approval. Even the House of Representatives under Republican rule invokes the Hassett Rule to prevent legislation from being voted on and most likely passed without a majority of Republicans in favor of the legislation. While I’m not aware of any similar procedure under Democratic rule, the fact Nancy Pelosi will not initiate an Impeachment Inquiry again places to much power in one individual.
1
The Constitution permits Congress to establishes its own parliamentary rules, but not rules that contradict the Constitution. Federal courts have ruled many times that the Constitution provides that all measure that come before the Senate except treaties, constitutional amendments and impeachments are to be settled by a simple majority vote.
The Senate’s 60-Vote Rule and the House’s Hastert Rule—also known as the “majority of the majority” rule—are unconstitutional. If Congress refuses to abolishes them, the federal courts should rule them unconstitutional along with other parliamentary devices designed to prevent measures from being brought to a vote.
2
The Republicans have owned the senate since 2015. They don't need a filibuster; their record on appointing far-right justices to federal courts --not just the Supreme Court--has gone unchallenged since Trump took office. Harry Reid is now fighting the battle that should have taken place in the 1950's. Ask the shade of that southern gentleman Richard Russell (D. Ga.) for details.
I’m torn on this one.
On one hand, we have Mitch McConnell, who fancies himself a traditionalist and a defender of the Senate’s norms, but who in reality is neither. He has instead abused the filibuster, as Sen. Reid details, wielding it as a political cudgel to block all legislation and nominees put forth by the opposing party, not just those with which he and his party might strongly disagree.
Never before has the filibuster been so abused. It has always required people of good faith, acting in a spirit of comity, to function as intended. McConnell, and the Republican Party in its current form, fits neither of those profiles.
On the other hand, we are also facing a structural problem in the Senate as more people move to large urban centers in a few states, resulting in increasingly disproportionate power by lightly populate large rural states. That representation will almost certainly trend Republican, likely creating a situation in which the minority party, by voting total nationwide, retains a permanent majority in the Senate. In that situation, the only recourse Democrats would have to assert any influence would be through the filibuster.
The best possible solution would be to once again elect people of good faith to the Senate, but with the Republicans currently being led by McConnell in the Senate and Trump on the national stage, both of whom specialize in poisoning the well, I despair of that ever happening.
1
Senators from the twenty least populous states represent approximately 33.5 million people, out of a country of 330 million (or about 10% of our country's population).
Residents of these states collectively get 40 votes in the U.S. Senate, compared to California's 37 million residents, who get 2 votes.
Add to this that with one more senator and the filibuster, this privileged 10% can effectively veto the preferences of the other 90% of the country.
4
We don't need to eliminate the filibuster, we just need to make it hurt again. It used to be that when a bill was under filibuster, no other senate business could take place. When that rule changed in the name of efficiency, there was no longer any consequence to filibuster, and the minority just began to automatically filibuster everything. Make the filibuster hurt, and it won't be so ubiquitous.
4
The filibuster can be retained given that:
1. The filibustering senator actually holds the floor and speaks
2. To a senate having at least 40 senators being present
If the filibuster is eliminated then we will end up with two of the same chambers in the US Congress. We might as well merge them. What gives the Senate its stature is the power it gives to the minority party so that the majority cannot overpower the deliberations.
By the way, I am a Democrat.
1
I know relatively little about the actual rules governing the filibuster, but it seems that the current rules are a faux filibuster; it takes 60 votes to end debate, but no one is actually talking during the "debate." The single senator standing and talking for hours on end does not seem to be a feature of today's filibuster.
For the reasons stated in many of the comments, I also worry about eliminating the filibuster. There are good reasons to keep the filibuster to allow the minority party the ability to influence the final legislation.
Perhaps the filibuster should be maintained, but that a senator or senators must keep talking during a filibuster. That would require them to actually take action and not just a vote to block legislation they don't agree with.
It’s clear that the filibuster is a goner after 2020, regardless of which party is in power. But I submit that requiring 60 votes to pass legislation or advance a nomination may arguably save our country, rather than destroy it (Brett Kavanaugh, anyone?).
Here is a very real scenario:
Trump is re-elected in 2020. The Senate is 50-50, and Republicans retake the House by one seat (218 to 217). The first thing the Senate does is eliminate the filibuster. The House passes a federal ban on abortion (and there is absolutely nothing the minority party in the House can do about it - nothing). The Senate, without the filibuster, ties 50-50 on it, and Vice President Pence breaks the tie. Trump signs the bill. Half the world sues, and the Supreme Court upholds the ban 5-4.
How do you feel about the filibuster now?
137
@Mike Sorry, but the Congress has no ability to ban abortion. That is a matter of state law. Congress can only do things like preventing federal funds from going to places that perform abortion.
19
@Mike
I still say get rid of it.
Elections have consequences.
Elections should have consequences.
12
@cds333
Supremacy Clause. Sorry.
5
I think we should trade the filibuster for 3 other rules that would increase bipartisan legislating and decrease gridlock.
1. Allow any group of 33 senators to force a vote on the floor.
2. Require that all presidential appointments receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate within 120 days.
3. Require that any bill passed by one house of Congress receive a floor vote in the other house within 30 days.
Now even with these changes, the majority can still run roughshod over the Senate if they wish. However, all senators would be on record as having voted for issues which today are either filibustered or swept under the rug by King McConnell. I bet that more senators would vote their real conscience if they have to respond personally.
240
@Ken L My sentiments exacly. If one body of the house deems legislation worthy enough to vote on it, so should the other. It should work both ways.
11
@Ken L
What would be the punishment if these new time limits were violated? Everyone needs to remember, this administration has broken rules with impunity. Reform must come with more than guidance. There must be political pain associated with a refusal to implement new rules.
3
Spot on. I also suggest that 150 Representatives could force a vote in the House.
The problem is, as others have pointed out, is enforcing the rules.
I think a Constitutional convention is way overdue.
5
Any discussion of repealing filibuster should include the discussion of failed repeal of ObamaCare. If filibuster was not in place Obamacare would have been gone now. It doesn't mean that the filibuster should be kept, but one should be realistic -- there will be negative consequences of cancelling filibuster. Whether they outweigh the positives or not, I don't know, but the article seems to only focus on positives.
133
I don’t think Obamacare would be repealed had it not been for the filibuster, on the contrary, it was the filibuster that gave the people on the right cover in all their talk of repeal. Once they had control of all aspects of the government, they failed to repeal. It was never going to get repealed because the GOP knows that had they repealed it, they would have been voted out of office.
21
@Sergey
Um, no, the filibuster did NOT save Obamacare.
Mitch McConnell used the tactic of budget reconciliation -- an exception to the filibuster rules -- to bring what was, in essence, Obamacare repeal to a vote.
Senator John McCain cast the deciding, fifty-first "No" vote.
62
You do have a point. On the other hand, last year's failed repeal demonstrated that a least a few of them (notably John McCain) were willing to actually give some real thought to the consequences when the vote became more than a mere formality.
In the absence of a filibuster during Harry Reid's tenure as majority leader, Obamacare would have included a public option, and Merrick Garland would now be on the supreme court.
21
How can Mr. Reid attribute the Senate's legislative desert to the filibuster when it's one person blocking a vote on any legislation? All the Senate is now is a rubber stamp to confirm whatever unqualified person Trump's staff has chosen, from a list drawn up by the Heritage Foundation, to be a judge for life.
As far as I am concerned, the Senate is broken. Abolishing the filibuster won't do a thing to fix that.
357
@Phobos
Dilly-dilly...
Abolish the Senate, and keep the Electoral College...
At least for coastal states...
1
@Phobos
Yes, all true, but it will help the Democrats if they regain a Senate majority by a hair.
2
@Phobos
It won't help until there is a Democratic majority. But with a Democratic presidency and 50 votes the Senate can act again. If the filibuster remains in place then nothing can get done aside from Presidential appointments even if the Democrats hold the chamber. They would always need enough Republican votes to get to 60
5
The other procedural change that we desperately need in both chambers is the ability to force majority leaders to present legislation for a vote.
Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi should not have "pre-veto" power that is more extensive than that of the President.
448
@Scott
This is the most important comment on American politics I've read in a long time. By forcing every senator to record their vote for or against a legislation, we enforce accountability. Like Justin Amash said in his town hall, floor rules that control legislative bodies are the most important, least discussed thing there is. With majority leaders having control over which legislation even gets voted on, in case of Congress and Senate being controlled by opposing parties, as it is now, the government is turned from tripartite to 'quadri-partite'. Ofcourse one can expect gridlock to arise since there is no tie breaker structure.
17
I believe both the House and Senate have procedures in place to bring up bills that the Majority Leader and Speaker do not support. It requires bill supporters to get the signatures of a majority of their chamber's members. That seems reasonable to me.
The only way to deal with GOP intransigence is to make the GOP the minority party in the Senate.
11
@Scott - your proposal, which I agree with 100 percent, requires elimination of the filibuster. All the filibuster does is allow unlimited debate on bills, which in turn prevents floor votes. Unless sixty (60) senators vote to end debate (cloture), the bill cannot be presented to the senate for a vote; instead, debate continues and the bill eventually dies. You are absolutely right, in my opinion: All legislation must be given an up or down vote. Neither the majority leader nor a minority of senators should be able to prevent that.
4
I must be missing something, because I don't see the filibuster as the biggest cause of obstruction in a do-nothing and grossly suffocating Senate. Yes, it certainly seems like a rule that needs to be abolished. But it's cynical, hyper-partisan hacks led by McConnell who are using their excessive power to obstruct any good legislation from even reaching the floor of the Senate. It's the Grim Reaper's grotesque strangehold on the Senate that stifles progress, while at the same time his cowardice and political maneuvering have left Trump's abuses totally unchecked by the governmental body that is responsible for oversight of the executive.
It isn't the filibuster that enables McConnell and makes a mockery of our democratic form of government, allowing minority rule in a country where the majority is supposed to have the most suasion. McConnell is the classic deceitful pol, blocking meaningful change while complaining it's all the fault of the Dems. I think some aspects of our founding documents and principles are failing us. That includes the Electoral College, the allowance for congressional terms of such length, and the formula for representation in the Senate that has stymied real progress by the increased power of minority figures who are badly out of step with majority values. It's a formula for breakdown in our republic.
57
add partisan gerrymandering and unrestricted campaign contributions
4
@TRJ,
It's moronic, ill educated citizens that are failing us.
2
I heard this in the 1960s when Southerners were interfering with civil rights legislation at the time. Be sure that you know whose ox is being gored and whether your ox will be gored one tomorrow.
26
"Senate business requires 60 of 100 votes" and 50 is not enought to advance even the most bipartisan legislation".
But if a legislation was bipatisan, all 100 senators would vote for it.
Is it really evidence of democracy, when 51 persons may impose their will on 49 others;
It is not the system that creates this mess; It is the stuborness and almost fanatic ways of our constituant bodies, from the President to Congress and even the Suprem Court that precludes adopting reasonable agendas
And this is contagious in the gerrymandering system;
Another questionable aspect today is the over representation of "small" states; While it may have been logical and necessary in1789 to give equal right to each colony, that was more than 200 years ago, and today this imbalance creates ingalities and inequities among american citizens. That all states be represented in a separate chamber is one thing, but that Rhodes Island with a population of 1 million people would send as many Senators as California with 40 millionns or New York, with 20 millions may seem at least outdated
Yes, by all means the Senate should abolish the filibuster.
And while we're abolishing rules that are not constitutional or legislated, let's take away the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader's ability to prevent bills from being debated and voted on.
Perhaps most importantly, if it's really true that all that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump for obstruction of justice is a Department of Justice memo stating that a sitting president can't be indicted, someone please write another memo!!!
This DOJ memo is not in the Constitution, it wasn't a law passed by Congress, so why does it carry so much authority? It's allowing a criminal to remain as president of the United States.
Our federal government is dysfunctional (for all but the wealthy). If it's in the powers of the newly elected Democratic House, Senate, and President in January 2021 (please God, let it be) to change these rules, then they should change them.
Then they need to get down to the people's business fast! They will have a little over a year to show the American people that the Democrats are the ones who care about the 99%, so they had better start writing laws to serve those of us who aren't billionaires and millionaires pronto, and reversing Trump's executive orders, and cleaning house of his appointees.
Make our government work again!
67
@JediProf. You must have not heard mueller’s testimony. He said the doj memo was never considered because proof never reached a level where it could or should be invoked.
Federal government isn’t really supposed to do anything beyond its enumerated Powers. Take a read and figure out what the Constitution actually says. It’s not that complex.
2
@Bob
Sorry Bob. You are wrong. That is not what I heard. The DOJ guidance was at the core of Mueller's decision to not make a recommendation.
He also said that they had no basis for exonerating Trump.
Mueller handed the process of prosecution off to Congress. He gave them the project on a silver platter. They just don't know what to do with it. Politics have reined over justice.
2
So, basically, Democrats can’t pass the legislation they want, and therefore the filibuster must be discarded.
Following Mr. Reid’s advice would have been a catastrophe for Democrats. The republicans would have passed whatever they wanted to in Trump’s first two years, because they could have ignored Democrats completely, just as the Democrats did in Obama’s first two years (specifically Obamacare).
No - we need the filibuster as a partisan check on both parties’ power, especially for grand legislation that will effect large segments of our population.
The times have indeed changed and it is time for the filibuster to go. Republican members of both houses are to afraid to compromise now for fear of ridiculing from Trump, chastisement from Fox and a primary election challenger. In other words, it is all about them now and not about the need to govern responsibly.
When I grew up, with privileges came responsibilities. You earned one by executing the other well. When how you govern is motivated by how you satisfy your donors and not your constituents, you've abused the privilege to serve. Get rid of the filibuster, money in politics and impose term limits.
29
@Tom Q
I will never understand how anyone fears ridicule from the most ridiculous person ever to hold office.
2
In a saner time that argument might work. We live in a world where the D's and R's are fighting over rigid orthodoxy and binary choices. Either there is a conspiracy (by Oligarchs via Republicans) to thwart a real democracy, where informed citizens deliberate and compromise instead of plutocrachy, or the orthodoxy is based on silly, non important, divisive issues, fostered by both parties, and funded by oligarchs. Citizens United kind of proved these assertions. I believe the subtext is that money can buy opinion, and the Republicans represent the oligarchs (the money) and the xenophobes (the fearful) which approaches a majority. Dems have their own faults. The Political/Media/Industrial Complex preys on those who don't value critical thinking, aka a return to Medieval thought were foreigners are enemies, the Church tells you the moral answers and men serve the alpha male and women are discounted, etc. Trump and that political complex are the cancers. If you want a deliberative body, the cancer has to be removed.
18
During the first two years of Trump's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both the House and the Senate, and of course they had Trump in the White house. At that time, the only check on their power was the filibuster in the Senate. So go ahead and abolish the filibuster, you will regret it soon enough.
34
@A Cynic Did the filibuster save the ACA? No, if Republicans got the 50 votes, it would be gone. The filibuster protects nothing from Republicans because they're not looking to pass anything, just tear stuff down. If there was anything Republicans really wanted to do that the filibuster got in the way of, it would be gone in a second.
4
@A Cynic,
Harry's tradition defying negating of the rules has already blown up in Democratic faces. SCOTUS?
Thank Harry for his myopic partisan stupidity.
If Mitch McConnell didn't invoke the "nuclear option" against filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, we might have avoided having Brett Kavanaugh on the court. If we're to end the filibuster, it must be replaced by a new rule that cannot be discarded requiring a super-majority for high-level government positions like cabinet officers, federal judges, and Supreme Court justices. This simple rule change would end, once and for all, the rampant partisanship that has polarized the courts and the country and would be the most effective way to "drain the swamp" of corrupt and incompetent partisans and bring balance back to our courts and competence to our government.
Agreed. Too bad Mr Reid didn't come out against filibusters when he was Majority Leader.
2
Do we need a Senate?
Can we just extend the House to a four year term with half the House running for election every two years?
The filibuster should be called the Silly Buster. A much more accurate description of what goes on in the Senate. The essence of what is wrong with the Senate goes well beyond it's arcane procedural rules.
In the beginning the Founding Fathers decided that every state should have two Senators regardless of population and that state legislators should elect Senators. Two characteristics that insured that the will of individual American voters would be blunted.
With a half million voters Wyoming has the same number of Senators as 39.5 million Californians. And while Americans can directly elect their Senators the most populous states are still more separate and unequal than the least populous states.
But even more fundamental is the delusional ludicrous notion that America is or was ever meant to be a democracy, America is a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states.
The Electoral College selects American Presidents. American Presidents nominate federal judges for life with the advice and consent of the Senate. While the size of the House of Representatives and Electoral College are capped to the disadvantage of more populous states.
2
Abolish the filibuster. Then abolish the revolving door that swings between House/Senate and the Lobbying Industry of K Street. Or put a 10 year time-limit on it. Set a limit. It must be a decade before any former member of the House/Senate join the ranks of K Street. Between these two reforms maybe, maaaybe, American government will begin to return to representing that which it was originally formed to support, the People. Maaaybe...
John~
American Net'Zen
1
Abolishing the filibuster isn't even remotely close to enough. As Jamelle Boule has pointed out, at the time of the Republic's founding the most populace state (Virginia) had roughly 13-times the population of its least populace one (Delaware). Today California has 67-times the population of Wyoming and yet, of course, each has equal representation in the US Senate. In fact, the population of California is greater than the totaled populations of all the states West of the Mississippi if Texas, Missouri, Minnesota and Iowa are excluded.
Now, of course, will come the right-wing pedants who will, demonstrating their attentiveness in high school civics and/or their BSA troop meetings, hasten to point out that we are a 'federal republic not a democracy'. Your attention to detail will be duly noted when final grades are assigned. Meanwhile, huge areas of public policy languish unattended to because some guy in Gillette, Wyoming has 67-times the legislative influence in Washington of a techie in Cupertino - or dairy farmer in Merced.
Sooner or later, either cataclysmically or gradually, this will come to an end. We've amended the constitution 27 times, often for reasons far less compelling than this disparity in trepresentation. If the GOP really cares about the Republic, they will recognize and help redress this injustice and that of the Electoral College. If not, expect a ball of furious flame that will engulf us all.
2
I'm not a fan of Harry Reid, although he is write about the filibuster. Is is certain that it is being abused.
Agreed.
With politics so polarized, and with democracy hanging in the balance due to Putin's manipulation of America's sovereign election, the filibuster is am arcane rule of a different era.
Eliminating the filibuster should be part of a great movement to increase democracy and ensure representational voting.
The day and age for disproportionate representation are over.
It is high time to give the right to vote to people over land.
Ending the Electoral College closes a major loop in Putin's attack on American soil. It ensures democracy shall not perish.
The filibuster, gerrymandering, voter roll stripping, voter suppression, the Electoral college, and other blockades to the voting booth, must all be sent to the trash heap of history with the rest of the Trump dumpster fire.
Putin must be sent to the trash heap next, with his fortune distributed to the Russian people.
3
Consensus is what effectively operates the Legislative branch.
The Founding Fathers also created an Electoral procedure for the Executive branch as well, as it requires a consensus of states... and not simply from states with high populations. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. And it has worked overall.
So, what's wrong now? I believe that it is "we the people" who have simply gotten nastier and unwilling to find compromise. Collectively, we look for -- and vote for --- people with "extreme" views, whether left or right. It's idiotic behavior, but we're doing it anyways.
I think it's been this way, more or less, for 20 years. 5-to-4 Supreme Court decisions; 51-to-49 Senate votes, and so on. Stuff gets "rammed" through solely on party affiliation. Why? Why? It's because WE want it that way. We, as voting citizens, do not want to find common ground. We love the DRAMA of it all... and no, it's not going to stop.
What's the answer? In my opinion, first and foremost, is to see things from the viewpoint of someone else (i.e. love your enemy). Maybe they have some good ideas (along with some crummy ones). So what? We CHOOSE to find some common ground.
In summary, we will either PRAY FOR one another, or we will PREY UPON one another.
2
If someone in the Senate claims s/he is going to use the filibuster, then s/he should be required to do a REAL filibuster, not a token one. A real filibuster requires the Senator to stay at the podium and continue to address the Senate nonstop until the Senator can no longer do so. Just because a Senator says “I’m filibustering” should not be a filibuster. Watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to see what a real filibuster looks like. No wonder it was rarely used until the format changed to just claiming a filibuster in one sentence. Sheesh—what a waste and disgrace the U.S. Senate is today.
2
The baby is the filibuster.
The bath water is Mitch McConnell.
Let's start with grim reaper of representative government before we decide if the latter is necessary.
Senator Reid, I expected far more from you than just a feeble, inarticulate pitch against the filibuster. I am profoundly disappointed.
The filibuster was designed as a shield from “the tyranny of the majority.” The principle was that any truly “legitimate” legislation or appointment needed to have at least some measure of involvement and consent from the minority. But it was precisely the absence of the 60-vote rule that gave us the shameful spectacle of Judge Garland v. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The issues you mention in your opinion piece, such as climate change, human rights and gun violence, should be of equally critical importance for both Republicans and Democrats. They are not stalled because of Senate rules; they are stalled because of a hopelessly corrupt Mitch McConnell and a handful of equally corrupt senators, all backing the most outrageously corrupt and incompetent president in history.
The Senate is only sick from the lack of moral integrity. Don’t call them “leaders.” We don’t like it from the GOP, and we certainly don’t want it from the Democrats either. It is time to fix the real problem. Let’s restore common decency and patriotism to the U.S. Senate in 2020.
2
Get rid of Mitch McConnell and perhaps the Senate can do something but with McConnell as majority leader he refuses to bring to the Senate floor any legislation passed by the House of Representatives. He - and he alone - is responsible for the lack of deliberations of any kind - filibuster or no filibuster - in the US Senate. It is outrageous and someone ought to give him a good shaking ; but the people of Kentucky apparently are getting what they want.
3
What this piece is truly about? Obviously the filibuster needs to end. Might as well write a piece demanding an end all forms of evil. Reid doesn't give a clue as to exactly how any GOP controlled Senate (which looks to be under GOP control for at least the next 200 years) will reform itself. It'll happen when pigs can fly. He must know that. So what is he really trying to say?
For too long the needs and desires of a majority of Americans have been blocked by the tyranny of the minority. The longer this continues the flatter the minority will be when the majority rolls over them. Do I expect a less extreme result? Not from the GOP, let them be flattened.
The failure of leadership does not come down to the filibuster alone. It comes down to people putting partisan dogma ahead of being an American and what is good for the country. BOTH parties. During your time in the Senate, and especially as leader, you allowed this failure to happen.
Not a word of culpability for the culture you helped create and allowed to fester. Do you not see that?
You and James Comey should teach a class on revisionist history Op-Ed pieces . History will judge you accordingly...
1
Harry Reid was proud of his "Monarchy". Just as McConnell, he refused to allow votes from an opposition held House. And of course could have ended the filibuster if he pleased to. He knew was not politically expedient to his interests. But like most politicians, hypocrisy is their nature.
2
Filibusters cut both ways, Harry, just as your own rule change for judges has empowered Mitch McConnell to transform the courts for decades to come.
1
Harry -
What took ya so long? Where were you in 2016 when not a single Republican would meet with Garland in an unprecedented move by McConnell. The real problem is not the Republicans of the Democrats but rather the electorate which has been gerrymandered to absurd lengths. Without this scientific selection of voters members of the Senate would be the most deliberative body in the world. However, at this junction the bottling up of the Senate is right. When the people want the Senate to work they will elect better representation.
1
Didn't Reid also have the opportunity (as Senate majority leader) to change Senate proceedings so that a traditional fillibuster would be required? As in, you actually have to speak for hours to fillibuster, instead of simply saying "fillibuster."
I believe this procedural change can be done every so often and only requires a simple majority vote. Yet, he didn't do it. I wonder why.
It seems that many politicians want to make changes when they don't have the power to do so....
Like most Liberal Democrats, Harry Reid
has a selective memory. The last rule change in Congress to a simple majority put numerous conservatives on the federal bench as well as in the Supreme Court. Lastly, if you felt so compelled to change the rule, why did you not enact this change when you held the majority?
When it works in their favor Liberals endorse it. When the same rule does not, they whine like children.
1
Now is the time to do it, when the republicans are in power. The risk is they could use it if they get the house back in 2020, but that will always be the risk.
Scrap it, even if it temporarily benefits republicans.
This article is so partisan, it is not even worth reading. The country is polarized, that is a given. But the type of legislation that is championed by Reid, and the NYT, is so far left of the country, that it is simply a distortion of the way the country as a whole is thinking. Reid was a wild leftist and still is. Thank God for the filibuster. It keeps things oriented largely toward the center.
A governing body established to promote minority decent has become an instrument of minority rule. Leaders in the past have abused this fact to their advantage, and leaders will do so in the future. When we get one as devious as M. McConnell the proverbial hits the fan. He has distorted the Senate to an unwieldy, partisan group of antagonists who are more loyal to their party, and power, than committed to the welfare of the nation. Add a Trump to this mix and one has a disastrous situation.
The time to abolish the Senate has come.
Abolish the Senate and shift the advice and consent duties to the House. It’s insane for Wyoming (pop. 600,000) to have the same say as California (pop. 40,000,000).
When the Commissioner changes the rules, his preferred team scores a touchdown and spikes the football but doesn't change the rules back to where they were before he steps down is it unfair for the other team to spike the football when they score a touchdown?
The changed rule may have been wrong from the start to meet a specific objective because the other team had too many defenders on the playing field.
Now that Commissioner sees the error and wants the rule changed because the wrong successor was named.
Don't worry, the pain will be short term. The League rules will change when the Commissioner's team has 3:2 players on the field.
7:31A CDT
8/13/19
Do you all remember how you used to "fill the tree" thereby preventing the opposition from filing amendments to a bill! How much did those actions contribute to U.S. Democracy?
1
Obstruction and inaction was put in place by the SCOTUS in 2010 with the passing of the misleadingly named "Citizens United" AKA corporate person hood and money as free speech. Since then we are under corporate totalitarianism. 20 sates understand this. 14 more need to join them. Visit: movetoamend.org The fight to break the filibuster is in your backyard and neighboring state.
2
Many arcane Senate rules need to be changed if the Senate is to reflect the will of the American people.
Thank you, Harry Reid, for not doing anything about it when you were majority leader and for speaking out now. From retirement.
lol.
2
While we’re at it, how about chucking the Citizens United decision ? The longer it stands, the more we toddle along the path to oligarchy.
3
The irony that Harry Reid is writing about procedural maneuvers that stifle the system is overwhelming.
1
A good compromise between retaining the filibuster and sinking to the low level of the House is what I call the "Mullibuster": Any measure that failed to receive a 3/5 vote would automatically be tabled for say 2 weeks, at which time it would require only 50.1% to pass. This would give time to mull over measures that had only narrow support, and perhaps even read the bill.
Maybe even the House would adopt such a rule...
For details, see my "The Mullibuster Option", at https://blog.independent.org/2017/03/12/the-mullibuster-option/ .
1
Soon, 1/3rd of the US population will elect 2/3rds of Senate. Abolishing the filibuster will also mean that 1/3rd of the US population will indirectly appoint Judges.
How about fixing the bigger problem, first. Such as more Senators from more populous states, and let each vote get equally counted when choosing a POTUS. In other words: no more slave state compromises in US Constitution.
2
Maybe we should ask Joe Biden why he did not throw out the rules when he was the presiding officer of the Senate as Vice President.
1
I doubt that the Democrats will ditch the filibuster they might though, but of course Biden is against it.
What I don't doubt though is that if we do not change and become more democratic states like California,Texas and New York will break up the union.
4
I agree with others on this thread that the Senate needs to be completely reformed so it is not so totally undemocratic. It allows voters in states with small populations to wield much more power than voters in states with larger populations. The original idea was good, but the Republicans have forgotten that they are supposed to be governing for the entire country not just the wealthy and powerful and the fearful minority.
One (older, white) man's opinion .......
6
Let me refer you to the NYT 04/04/2019 Editorial Board’s Op-Ed,
‘Sure, Let’s Make the Senate Even Less Deliberative’
“Republicans muscle through a rules change to shorten debate on nominations, further eroding the influence of the minority party.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/senate-filibuster-mcconnell.amp.html
2
"The will of the American people"?
George W. Bush and Donald Trump LOST the popular vote. Yet they still entered the White House.
Who am I to say that both of these Administrations have been unmitigated failures on every objective level? Well, for one, I voted with the majority in both instances. That's who I am. I'm the one whose "majority voice" was rendered silent. I'm the one whose "better judgement" was rendered irrelevant. I'm the one who's "political will" was rendered mute. That's who I am.
So please, don't tell me about the "Will of the American people" unless you're going to add that "And that will is currently unheard, unheeded, unused, and meaningless".
Because, for 12 of the last 20 years, the "wisdom of the majority" has been subjugated the "incalculable idiocy, corruption, and moral degeneracy" of the minority.
11
Harry Reid ,give me a break. You were the leader of legislative obstruction for years. The US people are fortunate you can only have an opinion like the rest of us.
4
Like a repeating bad dream, Nevada Harry, he who served as the role model for corrupt senator Pat Geary from the Godfather, is not finished shilling for the Democratic party. Now the problem is the filibuster. Actually Harry, your essay is a perfect demonstration of why we have gridlock since it serves as a metaphor for the filibuster. Why do we not have gun restrictions, unaffordable environmental regulations, and sanity at the border? Why it is the filibuster! Thwarting the WILL of the American people (who continue to elect Republicans in moments of amnesia!).
Mr. Reid: tell your party to craft responsible, affordable bills. Tell them to compromise with Republicans (and vice versa). You'll get your 60 votes.
1
I seem to remember congress passed an immigration bill before the end of the last session. Wasn’t it Democrats that filibustered a vote to end debate, denying a vote foe passage? How many times did Democrats filibuster a vote to end the ACA? You were there, and you did the exact thing when you controlled the minority. Your bare knuckles tactics, like bragging when you lied about Romney’s taxes doesn’t bode well with your new position. How many times did you filibuster when Trump would have signed a bill that would have passed?
3
Looking at all those examples of common sense legislative remedies that have failed to pass, abolishing the filibuster is only a mechanism to attempt to relieve the real problem: that more than 40% of the Senate votes are controlled by a radical, irrational, extremist off-the-rails political party, the Republicans. Partly, that's due to a hateful electorate that is misinformed by rightwing media propaganda enterprises designed to pander to fear and prejudice. The other culprit is the inequality in the constitution, that gives the votes of Senators representing small populations, the same weight as those of larger states.
Until we make changes in the constitution addressing this anti-democratic inequality, and also give Washington DC and Puerto Rico equal representation, eliminating the filibuster will be insufficient to fix our problems.
We must also be more aggressive in battling the Orwellian propaganda machines controlled by Rupert Murdoch and other hate-streaming extremist media moguls. The preponderance of climate change denialism is one of the most cartoonish examples of the absurdities of a maliciously mis-informed public. That the backward-looking anti-enlightenment party has such control over our government is the tragedy of our times.
4
@DLNYC:
seeing the propaganda machine ridicule, denigrate, discredit anyone who tries to expose its machinations
is another part of this true tragedy.
yet another is reflected in more 'n' more people saying:
"there's nothing we can do about things anyway."
bertold brecht, a german poet & playwright,
pointed out that things will be at their worst
once people begin to love their chains.
[let's start by removing all the hate from the system.]
I like Harry Reid, but he's wrong. The filibuster doesn't block the will of the people, because the Senate has nothing to do with the will of the people. It is an inherently undemocratic institution which allows a minority of the American People to have control over one half of the legislative branch of government. The Senate needs to be abolished, or it needs to be reformed to allow for representation based on population.
Some may call this radical, but how long can a republic survive in which the will of the majority is continually thwarted by branches of government that have no democratic (small "d") legitimacy?
There are plenty of stable, functioning democracies in the world; it is time the United States became one.
8
The stench of hypocrisy oozes from every pore of Senator Reid's body.
In late 2001 he proudly proclaimed that he and the handful of Democratic Senators assembled around him had "killed the PATRIOT Act". Fast-forward to the extension of PATRIOT, with Mr. Reid now in the majority, accusing Sen. Rand Paul of "helping the terrorists" for Sen. Paul's insistence that several reasonable amendments be debated and voted up or down.
The Senator was once also on record - as a member of the minority - demanding a full audit of the Federal Reserve System. As soon as he assumed the role of majority leader, he helped thwart all attempts to bring a Fed audit bill to the floor.
The Founders' original design for the Senate assigned State Legislatures with the task of selecting Senators, so that the imperative balance between federal and state powers could be preserved. Sadly the switch to House-style popular vote has made the Senate just as "hot-tempered" as the other side of the Capitol building. One cannot reasonably envision state legislatures bestowing Senatorial privilege on the likes of Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell.
3
From memory Senator Reid used another arcane congressional ploy
lying in the Senate about whether Romney had paid no income tax
and shrugging off the accusation by stating that Romney lost.
Taking political advice from this entrenched hack is not for me.
The congressional ploy is that while in the house or senate chamber
members may lie to their hearts content.
2
This summer I read Robert Caro's bio of Johnson, Master of the Senate. As Caro lays out in detail, under the filibuster, the Southern states were able to effectively block all Civil Rights legislation for decades. Johnson, as Majority Leader, used it to his advantage, until his presidential plans got in the way. It is stunning to think that once again the filibuster is being used to curtail American's Civil Rights - this time by stacking courts with right-wing judges.
13
and guess who changed that rule?
1
Here's a radical idea. Want economic prosperity? Apportion Electoral College votes to states based on state GDP per capita. Want an educated and healthy population? Apportion Electoral College votes to states based on educational and health outcomes of the states' populations. We don't live in the 18th century any more and don't have to be hamstrung by what they didn't know back then about what makes a country or its population do well. We know much better now about what matters and how to achieve it.
31
I like this idea. Even more if we mix it up every couple cycles.
2
@UA Similarly, we should count votes based on how much an individual pays in taxes. The greater you pay in tax, the more say you have in what the government does with your money. Or is that not what you're saying.
2
I like your idea since I live in Massachusetts which has the highest GDP per capital in the nation as well as the lowest rate of mortality.
1
This is a BAD idea. Eliminating the filibuster is why we have a Justice Kavanaugh, conservative judges, and most of Trump's horrible cabinet. Keeping (or I should say restoring) the filibuster would enforce some amount of bi-partisianship. With all due respect to former Sen. Reid, this is simply a bad idea...
1
Reid is rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
-We have minority rule in the oval office (twice in 16 years), because of the electoral college.
-Until 2018, we had minority rule in the House because of gerrymandering (with Democrats in the minority representing a greater number of constituents than majority Republicans).
-We have minority rule in the Senate because of the over-representation of small states.
-We have a Supreme Court that is extremely far right of the general population because of Mitch McConnell.
Add Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and the broken free press, and it is hard to argue that we live in a democracy.
40
@Kathryn Neel
Yes, exactly. America is the greatest pseudodemocracy on the planet.
7
For those who disagree with Senator Reid, for various reasons, consider this: no matter what progressive legislation is proposed in a possible Democratic Congress elected in 2020, not a single bill will make it into law if Republicans hold at least 41 seats in the Senate, as they surely will. Thus we will waste an election and waste 4 years or more of trying to undo the damage created by the Trump presidency. This reform must be the first order of business if Democrats win in 2020. The only question is whether the current minority leader, Sen. Schumer, has the guts to do it.
To recap: no reform proposed by a President Warren, no "righting of the ship" proposed by a President Biden, or any other Democrat, will make it into law. Thus all the agonized debate amongst Democrats about the best health care system, best electoral reforms, best new green goals, etc., is a waste of time and breath without doing away with the filibuster.
8
What vote does it take to abolish the filibuster? If it takes a majority vote, that's good but odd because it means it wasn't really a super-majority vote requirement anyway.
I have not agreed with Senator Reid very often but here he is right on. 51 votes and the Bill passes as the founders envisioned. The only issue I take with his argument is that it should be a non-partisan one. Both parties have shamelessly abused this rule and it is time to change it - now.
2
I agree the filibuster must change. Rather than eliminating it, it should be returned to recent rules. The filibuster should be senators actually speaking on the senate floor, blocking all other action and preventing those filibustering from going home from Thursday evening to Tuesday morning. Now only those opposing a filibuster pay a price during filibuster. With this rule change, those engaging in filibuster will pay a price.
6
Harry Reid's article also highlights how important it is that Democrats re-take the Senate. The Senate in this climate is much more important than the Presidency. With the Senate and House (especially with a super majority in the Senate), Congress could actually legislate. I expect that as DT has absolutely no principles or convictions, other than related to his ego, he would go along with whatever the Democrats proposed so that he could claim victories. With Democrats in charge, he could actually achieve the greatest accomplishments since FDR. He should be campaigning for the Dems to take the Senate. Every Democrat in the presidential race who has a chance of taking a Senate seat MUST DROP OUT of the race and run for the Senate.
8
Thank you for this long overdue opinion Senator. Good to finally hear it from the top and not just the bottom where my political world exist. This along with public financing only of campaigns and the abolition of the electoral college are the only things that are going to save democracy in this country. This should be an easy step number one. Thank you sir for your continued service in American democracy!
3
I take a middle ground. As proven the filibuster can bring gov't to a standstill but if you eliminate it, the masses rule. That is what happened in Ancient Greece and why the Senate was born in Italy before the empire.
Follow the rule of sports teams ie you are allowed two or three challenges (filibusters) a year, no more. This will help protect against either abuse.
Also the rule of the Senate leader blocking anything to come up for a vote is dictatorial. A similar challenge rule should go into effect here too.
15
Quite simply, there can be no government without the goodwill of men.
6
Reid used the same logic to lower the requirements for court appointments under Obama. Now under McConnell, We'll have an outrageously partisan and conservative judiciary for the next 30 years at least. Leave the filibuster in place. It's a defensive measure as much as an offensive one.
4
Americans feel the effects of gridlock in government in the form of anger, frustration, hopelessness, and consequential cynicism, mistrust, and “a pox on both houses” attitude toward the two major political parties.
Why can’t Congress pass infrastructure or fair and humane immigration reform legislation? Why can’t Congress fix the Voting Rights Act? Why can’t Congress pass campaign finance reform and elections security legislation?
If one pays attention to politics, doing next to nothing and being against everything is asymmetrically the result of Republican majorities and minorities. It is as if the Constitution no longer works for Republicans as they are more than willing to abuse Article I powers. If they are not throwing monkey wrenches to keep Congress from working, they are throwing lit matches at the Constitution.
Elected Republicans say they are doing what their constituents want and I question the value of this type of “leadership”. I found my own Republican Congressman not being honest with constituents nor fully informing them of facts. Multiply this by 200 and you get districts in which constituents are purposefully misinformed, encouraged to point false blame, and end up voting against their own interests.
I agree, the abused rules of the Senate need to change but so does the majority abusing them for their political gain.
4
There is also too much power in the hands of the majority leader, who can prevent a vote on a bill from coming up on the floor when it would otherwise pass the chamber on a vote.
12
Mr. Reed, you had ample opportunity to write the rules when you were the Majority Leader in the Senate, yet you did not because the filibuster worked to your advantage in the past.
It is also time to limit the duties and "power" if the president to those detailed in the US Constitution. Maybe Mr. Reed should be lobbying the DNC and RNC to support this rule change instead of candidates.
2
The US Senate itself is an undemocratic and unnecessary institution. Why do the residents of Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Wyoming get the same number of Senators as California, New York, Texas, Florida, and so forth? The US Senate is mathematically biased towards the rural population.
And while we're at it--how about introducing proportional representation by party and eliminating the gerrymander in the House of Representatives, as well as eliminating the Electoral College? We tell our children that the US is the world's greatest democracy, but our Constitution is based on compromises meant to protect the interests of slave holding states in the 18th century.
16
Yours is such a tired argument that will never go anywhere. There are reasons the government was setup as it was. The problem we have is the parties vote as a bloc and not as independent thinkers.
@Jim What are these reasons? Are they still valid?
1
The “will of the American people” lies with the elected majority of the senate, and Mitch McConnell is doing just fine. And, Thanks to you, Harry Reid, we finally have a conservative Supreme Court, as well as conservative judges throughout this country. Thank you for retiring.
1
@Pvbeachbum Basically, you like rigged outcomes. That's not exactly a good thing. Most people prefer fair play. Too bad democracy threatens your ability to force your views upon others. Maybe you need to move where dictators you like rule? Everybody is always happier living in terror aren't they? I bet you cannot even define "conservative" and make sense.
The filibuster only works when parties normally allow individual party members make their own decisions on how to vote. That is not true with the Republican party at the moment. Standing up to the party even a little bit is likely to earn you a primary contest in the next election. In effect, the filibuster is currently the "Mitch McConnell Decides" rule. He gets to decide what is coming to the floor of the senate - individual republicans have no more say in it that Democrats.
8
Same for the Democrats. Both parties vote in blocs with the exception of a few congressmen.
1
Grandstanding!
Why didn’t Harry address this when he was in control? Why would he?
I can just see this same editorial in a few years from Mitch McConnell advocating against the filibuster once he has retired and Dems have the majority.
4
The filibuster was a “tool” back when there was such a thing as a loyal opposition. In other words, both parties had different opinions as to how they wanted common goals achieved, but they still shared common goals.
That is no longer the case. Now, there is a stark contrast between how Republicans and Democrats view the world. The right wish to further the interests of the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.
And please, do not fall for the “both sides” con. This spurious argument is designed only to make voters less hopeful that there votes matter, which in turn encourages lower voter turnout, and an energized right wing base (fooled into voting against their best interest) taking advantage of gerrymandered districting tends to prevail.
8
@Eye of Merton
Nobody is taking from everyone else and handing it to the wealthy. You don't deserve the fruits of someone elses labor. You didn't earn it. Its not yours to take.
The first order of business should be to insure that no one person has the power to push the nuclear button or to start a war.
The electoral college and citizens united also need some serious attention.
8
Like a stopped clock, Harry Reid is correct that the filibuster rule needs to go, but he does not go far enough. The Senate has several more rules that allow members to obstruct legislation or block nominees. They all have to go. Majority rule rules. A nominee from a particular state should not have to be cleared by that state's senators. His attacks on Republicans are gratuitous; Democrats have exploited the arcane rules of the Senate with equal zeal.
Finally, he leaves off the best reform - abolishing the Senate altogether.
1
The filibuster is a tool that promotes bipartisanship, encouraging Senators to seek a broader consensus on legislation (and previously court appointees too). It was a bad decision when the filibuster was eliminated for court appointees, it would be a much, much worse decision to eliminate it for legislation.
7
Promotes partisanship.
and by doing so maintaining the Union. What would happen to us if both Donald Trump and Barack Obama were able to freely enact their agendas their first year in office? We need protection from these types.
5
@alvnjms
What would happen? If Obama was free you would have health care for every American. Donald Trump? Only rich people have health care
The ends do not justify the means. Unfortunately this seems lost on the leaders of the Republican Party most especially Mitch McConnell and the president. It’s this philosophy more than anything which is undermining American democracy. And even worse, the only way to fight it is for the Democrats to fight dirty too. That’s a never ending downward spiral. Why is this not an election issue?
11
it may be the senate, but why did not not name the primary obstacle, ie, mcconnell? he is the problem and acts with impunity.
15
@Gordon Alderink McConnell only does what a bunch of western and southern small state right wingers and slave holder wannabes want. He is not alone, only the figurehead of the hydra.
What if the corruption of rules in politics is only a symptom of a far greater malaise? The American Dream is terminally ill, and people feel it, more or less consciously. Postwar optimism and the circumstances of world economy at the time made possible the freewheeling expansion and consumerism of the second half of the 20th century. Everybody agreed: that was the best way of life, and it would last forever. Reality caught up with the dream, and eternal, boundless, wasteful economic growth is incompatible with the limited base on which it depends: one planet.
Unless all of the US population (all of the world, actually) manages to find a new paradigm, evil people, aware of the dying Dream, will line up their pockets as fast as possible and exploit ignorant crowds who didn't partake and believe it is still within reach; the exploited know they're being lied to, but they don't care, as long as the discourse implies what they crave. They also proudly embrace their ignorance, unaware or not caring that it was fostered by the cunning masters. Those forces -bad faith, ignorance, envy- appear quite unbeatable to me.
Maybe someone like Elizabeth Warren could tell it like it is and show and lead the way to another society, all the while dodging and crushing the crass, malevolent lies that the oligarchy is able to spread thanks to their money and the bully pulpits on which the Still Dreaming uneducated masses put them.
19
It is difficult to coalesce around what is best for Americans when Congress is so awash with special interests and conflicts of interest. The Establishment, which consists of both parties, would rather face an ideological standoff than enact well-meaning legislation to benefit the American people. But I suppose that watching a bunch of lawyers shake their moneymaker for the highest bidder is not an entirely new concept. "No new thing under the sun..." The difference is that Congress seems to have unabashedly ceded all of their power to the highest bidders with few apologies about who the represent. As an American, I see Congress representing powerful corporation and global non-profits more than they represent me. Until laws are passed to prevent pay-for-play, nepotism and future monetary and employment favors in exchange for legislation, We the People have no real representation whatsoever. So much for a bicameral legislature. I see a unibrow etched with the words "Corporate Owned" written across the face of every member of Congress.
16
The most notorious use of the filibuster was by Southern senators who protected segregation for decades. And during that time, there was no serious challenge to the filibuster. Any history of the filibuster that does not mention Richard Russell, who used it to protect segregation for decades (and for whom the Senate's Russell Office Building is named, a matter more shameful than Lee's statue in Charlottesville) misses the main point.
11
@michjas
I believe you meant Southern Democrats.
1
Keep the filibuster, but if you want to filibuster, you have to do it in full Jimmy Stewart style,under the scrutiny of the whole country. You have to talk 'til you drop - no more of this nonsense where the filibuster is mere notice of the intention to do so.
We are stuck with the Electoral College, and he Senate itself, until we can somehow convince the largest 38 states to agree to the necessary amendments- i.e., not gonna happen. But keep the filibuster, and do it in public view.
13
@S maltophilia
You might want to re-read your Constitution, specifically Article V. Abolishing the Senate or awarding changing the allocation of Senate seats to award more Senators to larger states would first require passing both chambers of Congress by 2/3 supermajorities, similar to the regular amendment process. However unlike any other amendment, changing the senate would unanimous consent of all 50 state legislatures.
The allocation of Senators is basically the only unamendable part of the Constitution.
Likewise, as the ratification process is based on the count of states irrespective of their population, repealing the electoral college is just as likely as repealing the second amendment. Never going to happen.
Cut the states back to 13 super state regions. Founders never planned for 50 states and the gridlock it would create. Simplify.
11
The solution to all of this is an amendment abolishing the Senate. The Senate was a sop to small states and slave holding states to get them to ratify the Constitution. The states today are not formerly autonomous colonies operated under different colonial charters. The states are simply arbitrary administrative units carved out of North America. The Senate today gives disproportionate governing power to states like Wyoming, the Dakotas and other sparsely populated states which is the antithesis of democracy. There is no rational reason why Wyoming should have coequal voting in the Senate with California, Texas, Florida or other populous states. Set up a unicameral legislature determined by population and you would begin to see the end of gridlock.
15
@Rufus T. Firefly Yes, if you're going to abolish the filibuster then just eliminate the problem - the Senate.
Just amend the Constitution to do so and transfer advise and consent, treaty ratification to the House. The same Amendment would apportion representatives based on population zip codes, and either abolish the Electoral College... or at least give each Rep. a vote in cases of 270 electoral votes not met.
5
@Rufus T. Firefly
The US replicated British government. The House was to appease the non-ruling class people and the Senate was to be where the real power sits - with the land owning white males.
@Apathycrat, Yeah, that easy. No way would that ever happen.
I wish the congress were like jury duty. In a land of 360 million, you’d think we’d be able to find 535 qualified people (435 representatives and 100 senators) willing to put a hold on their careers and do their civic duty as congressmen for 4 years. No elections, 100% of their time doing the work of their constituents instead of 50% of their time campaigning for reelection.
After they are done, they go home. Maybe we give them early social security and whatever salary/wage they were earning plus housing in DC during their service, plus their jobs must be guaranteed on completion.
To be eligible, a certain demonstrated competency and understanding of government must exist, not unlike that required to become a naturalized citizen.
We could and should still vote on the final set of people who will serve, but again, the candidates come from a random selection of people from a pool of citizens willing to serve instead of a set of corrupt, career-minded politicians who are in it for reasons other than doing their civic duty.
The party system which is largely being used by career politicians as a weapon against the other side to get re-elected becomes irrelevant, and can no longer stand in he way of getting stuff done.
13
@slogan
I really like this idea. The original premise was that everyone (read educated, land owning white male) would sacrifice and serve a term in government.
Politics should not be a career path. We look at the presidents who had experience in government and we see disasters, wars, and the country/world being worse off at the end of their term. Trump is a moron but he has not used US troops or the CIA to overthrow any legitimately elected governments, at least not yet.
Abolishing the filibuster is nitpicking. Instead, abolish the Senate and have a unicameral legislature with a simple majority vote required to pass legislation in that chamber.
Most other western democracies (including Nebraska!) have a unicameral legislature. It's time for the United States to follow suit.
13
@Robert Plautz
Thank you! Abolishing the Senate and the electorial college is the way to save America!!!!
The system is required with modifications. If it is used or delayed by minority leaders for partisan reasaons, a meaningful time limit may be a cap.
1
Everybody has an idea of several or many ideas how to fix our problems and I don't see a single solution being offered that isn't based on partisanship, wishful thinking, an appeal to authoritarianism, or just plain dingbattery. The fact is that we've outgrown our system of government, everything we've done to try to 'fix it' for the past 50 years has made the situation worse, while the Founders roll in their graves and the obvious answer stares us in the face. Let the States, help the States, heck FORCE the States to do their duty. Gridlock in the Senate is a good thing to the extent that it prevents catastrophic blunders.
Yeah, the federal government did good work on civil rights and a few other issues. They can keep doing that and stay within their Constitutional mandate. Healthcare and all forms of public assistance should be state issues. Same with gun control. When the federal government tries to do too much it ends up doing nothing. This isn't 1964, or 1932 any more. It's a different country, but because we've continued on the same trajectory we've run off the rails. It's time to reinvent our federal government.
3
Yes, it’s a different country but I see that as all the more reason to shift things away from the states and towards a bigger, stronger, and more effective federal government. It’s about time we abandoned this fetish with our states.
7
@Daniel Doern,
Fifty years of building this bigger, stronger, and more effective federal government having brought us to where we are, and you want more? Sir, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. The states are hardly a fetish; if you read the history you will find that it was the states who formed the l
Intentionally limited federal government. Constitutional Convention and all that?
1
@Daniel Doern, Oh yes, the government will save us. Right.
Thank you, Senator Reid, for your concern for the institution you always loved, and for your suggestions to heal it. I agree with you wholeheartedly: the abuse of the filibuster is injurious to the senate and may indeed be on its last leg, and with the next election, could be a thing of the past.
I feel however, that with the new elections, a change of leadership is vital. Mr. McConnell, who has in so many ways abused his position as majority leader, has outlasted his welcome, and if he doesn't know it, he should.
Your leadership is missed. All the best to you.
17
Yes. The real problem is McConnell. The filibuster is an enabler of his obstruction
The filibuster is a problem. But given the 18 least populated states have less population than Texas, they get 36 votes for Texas's 2. The filibuster's elimination won't change that math. And by the way, California has 50% more population than Texas.
We can address that problem, and it won't be easy. Fact is, those 18 states, and other small population ones, lack administrative capacity. What's missing in America is an intermediate level, some kind of aggregation of states that will rectify some of the electoral imbalance, while providing better government service.
The same intermediate level aggregation is needed for national elections, and the Senate.
8
@Brian
Oh how I wish civics was taught in school these days. The Senate was never intended to represent individuals, that job went to the House. The Senate was intended to be the US version of the House of Lords where wealthy people would appointed from the "states" and would look out for the best interests of the State.
There is nothing stopping large population states from forming a coalition with low population states. But in no way shape or form should people imply that low population states get more votes in the Senate than larger states. That is just a bold face lie.
Democracy still functioning for American citizens is a myth.
A recent study in the NYT indicated that elected officials pay zero attention to what their voters think and want.
Our America has been taken over by oligarchs who make all key political decisions.
Additionally wealthy political organizations like the NRA call the SHOTS for the president and members of Congress.
17
The wave of ideological judges (including some truly questionable picks) confirmed during this presidency don’t need seem to have convinced the Senator that nuking the filibuster was a colossal mistake and extremely short-sighted. The legislative filibuster is what keeps some truly retrograde legislation at bay. I notice that those who call for the abolition of the filibuster rarely have to fear that their rights will be legislated away.
2
A wise newspaper woman in Ohio, said regarding gun control (paraphrasing) after the Dayton massacre "If someone comes to the right conclusion, then I don't care how they got here." Within this context, I agree with Sen. Reid.
That Sen. Reid was part of the obstruction mechanisms that have become - and not specified in the constitution - the modus operandi of the Senate which include not just the filibuster, but also the pocket veto which lets Senators secretly put a hold on legislation or a nominee, and the power of the Leader to totally control the agenda including blocking anything he (and there have only been men in this role) doesn't like. And this is just the three I know of, I'm sure there are more. None of this is what the framers envisioned.
So I regret that Sen Reid only did tepid efforts at dismantling the corruption of the anachronisms that have been built around the Senate process. AND I whole heartedly endorse his endorsement!
To make it happen, WE THE PEOPLE, have to work to change the face of the Senate. Look through the roster of opponents of Senators up for re-election and vote with your pocketbook and your voice for those opponents who are STANDING with US, THE PEOPLE!
6
@P Dunbar Agreed that the Founders/Framers never envisioned Senate filibusters, pocket vetos and other Body rules... but they are the result of 'party rule' (which they also didn't explicitly consider), which together, barely represent a majority of voters, and soon the largest political party will be neither Democrats or Republican. So who represents independent voters in the Senate (heck even Bernie & Angus King caucus w/ the Dems)?
1
As an ordinary citizen, the most glaring & needed rule change is the power of the senate majority leader. NO ONE should be able to dictate which bills can and can't be voted one way or another. How much sense does it make to give one person control what is or isn't important for this country? That makes absolutely no sense.
44
@JJ I disagree. It’s Kentucky that has all the control. Knowing that, we can all sleep better at night.
1
The biggest mistakes Senators and House members commit, is "thinking" they are instituting changes while being partisans.
If the change is meant to benefit all, then there's no room for thinking Democrats this or Republicans that.
It's simple. Is it good for everyone? Then go ahead.
Is it good "for me"? Stop.
Is it bad for me? Stop.
Simple.
3
Tools to protect the federal government in the first century of the republic from an uneducated and easily aroused public are not in need anymore. Americans are educated and even the disinterested have available means to get up to speed. What the Republicans refuse to admit is that extremism breeds extremism and the backlash to Senator Mitch McConnell will be rather nasty. The filibuster has a purpose and if used as intended is not a problem. All these judges appointed by Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell are suspect and will probably end up being booted of the bench in due time. Change will come, be patient.
1
@David Fairbanks
I wish I could get there with you, David, but you sound like a man from a different time.
I'm no spring chicken myself, but I can state unequivocally that all Americans are not educated to a degree of understanding in civics required to hold their on the New York Times comment board.
You may recall a notion promoted in certain circles a half century or so back, that television would be our salvation, the perfect to educate the masses.
The vast majority of people who would use the Internet for the purposes you describe already do so, and in ways the usefulness of which is subject to great controversy.
Amusement. It's the new "plastics, my boy!"
The 60-vote rule historically has assumed one thing, which unfortunately represents facts not in evidence: that elected leaders, especially Senate majority leaders in recent memory, would have the political skills to negotiate consensus in good faith.
The measure of a leader, especially a leader of import such as the US Senate majority leader, is the ability to create space for compromise and pass legislation in divided government. Reid did little but show us time and again he wasn't up to that task, and now his argument is to defend that lack of aptitude by arguing that it was never really his fault all along.
There are some of us who long for a break to the gridlock not by simply conceding that future Senate majority leaders will be as untalented as Reid, but by expecting more of our leaders going forward and condemning the partisan hackery that Reid (and certainly McConnell) brought to us.
4
McConnell needs to go. He has created more power for himself than that of the president, and it is unethical, immoral and against the original intent of the founding fathers.
Blocking legislation in this manner is subverting the will of the people. If the Senate does not want to pass a bill, the Senators should go on the record and vote it down. The true reform that the Senate needs is to limit the power of the Majority leader.
31
The reason the senate gets nothing done is because the senate doesn’t want to get anything done. The donors prefer a limited agenda of modest change. Reid is a decent man laboring in a corrupt system, as are all his colleagues. Publicly finance elections, and you could increase the filibuster to 75 and still get plenty done.
10
Judicial confirmations are different from other legislation -- in fact, they are not legislation at all. Consider the fact that until recently, most confirmations were nearly unanimous. The Senate should require a 4/5 vote, or something like it, for Supreme Court nominations at least. That would depoliticize Supreme Court nominations by forcing them to be noncontroversial and therefore nonpolitical. This is hardly an impossible requirement, considering that in the past most nominations satisfied it.
12
Couldn't agree more, but let's not overlook the fact that Reid started this.
6
Let's *do* overlook that because it's not true. Abuse of the filibuster preceded Harry Reid, and the abuser was named Mitch Mcconnell.
13
@Paul
Wrong. I’m in was correct. Reid was the culprit!
“I previously assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the fever would eventually break — that Republicans would be forced by the American people to put their country above their party.”
The R’s told you who they were and what they were willing to do from day one... not one of them voted for the stimulus, not one of them voted for the ACA (but crippled it with 150+ riders) and they wouldn’t seat Al Franken for eight months.
You needed more proof than that as to the lengths they would go to in order to sabotage President Obama?
19
While I agree with the former senator there's another problem that needs to be addressed as well: the complete lack of term limits in the House and Senate. Too many of our senators and representatives center their lives in DC and return to their states and districts only when they are up for re-election. Some have started to avoid that as well because they don't like being questioned by their constituents. They don't want to face the music or answer the tough questions people have for them about health care, jobs, social programs, immigration, etc.
It's obvious that McConnell has no idea how the rest of the country lives. Equally obvious, through his actions, is his complete lack of concern. The same can be said for some of the other senators and representatives no matter which party they belong to.
There needs to be another change too. We need a way to hold our politicians responsible for their actions before they come up for re-election particularly when they do things like undermine presidential negotiations with another country, refuse to allow a hearing on presidential nominee for an important position, and when they do things to endanger us.
They are paid with our tax dollars. Therefore they work for us and to watch them working for their rich donors is nothing short of infuriating. Get rid of the filibuster but allow us to vote them out before the end of their term if they are not doing their jobs.
8/12/2019 11:22pm
16
@hen3ry
So what you are saying is, representational democracy has some major issues and the people need more of a say in legislation that either directly affects them or that they care about?
Some form of direct democracy as our leaders are ignoring the will of the people?
Why is it always the people out of power who have the good ideas? Former Senator Reid had his chance when he was majority leader.
A few years ago, I sent him and all the Democrats a letter begging them to get rid of the filibuster. Only Senator Udall had the courtesy to respond, and he said he had been trying and would continue to try to do just that. At the very least make those who want to filibuster continue talking (as they used to have to do), so they pay a penalty for invoking it.
16
Actually, SCOTUS has effectively become the House of Lords. The difference is that, while the Lords can delay progress for weeks to months, SCOTUS can do so for a whole generation.
That said, yes, it is time to get rid of the filibuster. Without it, the Senators might take a bit of time for real deliberation.
12
There is one word that defines the decline of the United States Senate: McConnell. McConnell exploited the filibuster to prevent President Obama from appointing his normal presidential share of judges. It is McConnell who has transformed the Senate into a body that ALWAYS requires a 60-vote majority on controversial issues. It is McConnell who decided that a non-Republican president only has a 3-year term as far as Supreme Court nominations go. Let the filibuster die. It has been McConnellized.
36
Compared to California, a small state like Nevada has enormous power in the Senate. The author states it is the intent of the Constitution for majority rule, but this is not so when looking at representation in the Senate--more like giving low population slave states equal footing in one body from 1789, which still endures. Since then we have had one man/woman, one vote. The filibuster is an affront--more like a direct assault--on this.
If what Mr. Gorsuch says is true--any citizen has access to the Court-- then it would seem every citizen negatively affected by the filibuster would have standing to go to court and sue to have the filibuster abolished. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but majority rule is. This is not something that should be a political convenience for Mr. Reid or Mr. McConnell.
8
@loveman0: "The filibuster is not in the Constitution, but majority rule is."
The filibuster exists because the Senate and House are allowed to make their own rules about how to conduct their day-to-day operations. Each rule is voted on by the members every session.
2
Here’s the crux:
The Senate has become an antiquated un-democratic disaster.
Turn it into an advisory “House of Lords”, eventually getting rid of it completely, and make House terms 4 years, with roughly half the House up for election every 2 years.
A very representative House then takes over all the previous duties of the “Senate”.
[And of course eliminate gerrymandering to the greatest degree possible.]
11
@srwdm
Without denying the wisdom of your suggestions, most may be a political "bridge too far". What might be possible, given that one third of the senators will be up for reelection in 2020 and more are Republicans this time around, work (i.e. support Democratic candidates) to flip the Senate. This might be as important as flipping the White House.
6
The filibuster cannot work if one party decides to act as a parliamentary party, always opposing the other party's legislation, not on the merits, but simply because the other party, including a President from the other party proposes it.
And the Senate cannot work if the Senate majority leader personally controls what can and cannot be voted on.
McConnell made it very clear during Obama's presidency that he would oppose anything that Obama wanted because it would be seen as a win for Obama if it passed. And a win for Obama was a loss for Republicans. This was without regard for the merits of the bill and without regard for how many Republicans might vote for it.
He constructed a zero sum game that he still plays. Democratic legislation will be blocked. Bi-partisan legislation that McConnell personally disagrees with will be blocked.
So democracy dies at the hands of one man elected with 800k votes in one state. That man controls the legislative branch in a country of 320 million.
The filibuster has to go. The power of the majority leader
to control what gets considered has to go along with it as does the similar power exercised by the Speaker.
23
I am gratified that a discussion of the filibuster is happening. Joe Biden and his rose-colored memory of the Senate in years gone by. And now, Harry Reid saying get rid of it. I agree with Harry. The Senate and the electoral college are both vestiges of slavery when slaves were 3/5 persons and those 3/5 persons (who could not vote) gave every white male slaveowner an extra bump in his vote. Those numbers still allow low population red states to have the same two senators as New York. We should reign in non-majority rule. Our bill of rights protects individual liberty. End the filibuster.
10
@kat: "The Senate and the electoral college are both vestiges of slavery when slaves were 3/5 persons and those 3/5 persons (who could not vote) gave every white male slaveowner an extra bump in his vote."
The Three-Fifths Clause was designed for two things - apportionment of seats in the House and how much in taxes states paid to the federal government. Both slave and non-slave states wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Slave states wanted slaves counted for purposes of House seats but not for taxes, while non slave states wanted just the opposite. The Three-Fifths Clause was simply another compromise that helped keep the newly formed nation together.
"Our bill of rights protects individual liberty. End the filibuster."
There is no causal link between your individual liberty and the filibuster. There is, however, a link between your liberty and an increasing powerful central government, something the founders knew but both political parties no longer care about.
2
Respectfully disagree Harry the problem is the “two track” procedure implemented in 1970 that did away with the requirement to actually hold the floor and speak the whole time. The minority needs the filibuster but it needs to be difficult to use, limiting it to when it’s really needed.
16
Those who have posted comments proposing broader "reform" of the Senate or the elimination of the Senate need to remember some realities. Many of these proposals would require amendment of the Constitution, but that process is deliberately difficult; proposal by two-thirds vote in each of the House and Senate and ratification in three-quarters of the States. Hard to imagine how that could be achieved for any proposal designed to shift power within the Federal government. Moreover, there is one (and only one) subject that the Constitution provides is off-limits even for the amendment process: Article V (the amendment article) provides that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
2
Well said Mr. Reid. The world believes that there is something different about America culturally, but I think the filibuster is what makes us different. Without it, Americans would have long ago learned the value of a well functioning government and progressive policies would be far more popular.
8
"The Senate was known as “the world’s greatest deliberative body..."
This is evidently taught in American Mythology 101. But it is abundantly clear that under McConnell, there is darn little deliberating going on in the Senate these days.
The "cooling of passions" from the more representative House comes with the six year terms of the Senate. But two Senators per state has meant that the Senate can be ruled by a small minority of voters from mostly rural states who are trying to drive the country backward into environmental and economic disaster.
In the early days of the nation, the Founding Fathers were often slaveholders and the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court rulings made huge accommodations to favor slaveholders.
The Senate could eventually doom the US to the second tier status of former empires like Imperial China, England, Spain, Rome and Greece, by resisting critical adaptations in a rapidly changing world, and bankrupting the country with ruinous tax breaks for the wealthy.
I support the end of the phony fillibuster, as further insult to the injury of the undemocratic Senate.
6
One needs to change more than the filibuster rule. It did not apply nor was it relevant, for instance, in McConnell's nefarious blocking of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court appointment.His name was never brought up for a floor discussion, let alone a vote. He has used this undeserved privilege on many other occasions We need a Senate rule change that would allow a substantial number of Senators to force the majority leader to allow discussion of proposal and a vote.
8
First, stop calling it "the filibuster". Most Americans, when they hear "filibuster", picture Jimmy Stewart (as Senator Smith) talking hour after hour, on a matter of high principle. The historical filibuster sometimes played a useful role in requiring extended debate on important matters; it also served, shamefully, to block progress on civil rights for years.
What we have now is best called "the 60 votes to do anything rule". The Constitution specifies when extraordinary majorities are required, such as the two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty. Nothing in the Constitution calls for a three-fifths vote for basic legislation. The Senate's role as a counterweight to the House is assured by its six-year terms (with only one-third of seats up for election every two years), and by the provision that act state gets two senators.
One could retain an honest filibuster, in which the minority party could require, say, two or three weeks of debate before voting. But the "60 votes to do anything rule" has got to go.
8
"It’s time to allow a simple majority vote instead of the 60-vote threshold now required for legislation. "
The requirement for anything should be a 60 vote threshold. The goal is to avoid " The tyranny of the majority" as clearly warned about by our founding fathers.
The solution to our polarization ( driven by extremely homogenous Congresional districts and states) is a viable third political party. Only then will a simple majority alow for best/optimal outcomes.
Congressional members as a whole hesitate to vote out of line with their party's President for instance. We see that today. And we have seen it in the past as well. Both parties.
The filibuster offers the opportunity for the voice of deliberative reason not to be swayed by partisan politics. Someone needs to be counted on to stand up for what is right, and it certainly isn't the majority in many cases. Nor does a majority represent the "will of the people." Only the will of some people.
Now is not the time.
5
A super-majority for judicial appointments would make sense, but only if it were required by the Constitution. When rules can be changed arbitrarily at the whim of the party in power, they become nothing more than a political tool. McConnell proved that with the Garland fiasco. One set of principles when he was out of power, the opposite when he got to run things.
7
States rights!
Larger populations have better representation, as they should by virtue of their numbers and diversity.
The senate was supposed to be the more stable,cerebral conscience of the houses. Terms of 6yrs rather than 2. Our founders debated this i
1
President Obama had two years of a Democratically controlled House and Senate and we only just barely got the ACA. For 8 years Mitch McDonnell Obstructed the Senate (with the Filibuster when he was in the Minority) and then outright when he was in the Majority. The Judicial landscape has been Radically changed and is becoming far more conservative and ideological than the American population because McConnell not only blocked President Obama's Federal nominees he now is rushing through hundreds of young Federalist Society Approved lifetime appointees. The Supreme Court is his crowning legacy but will be around long after the destruction wrought in the last few years. Our Democracy has been successfully hijacked for decades to come.
21
“This means a simple majority is not enough to advance even the most bipartisan legislation.”
One would think that the most bipartisan legislation wouldn’t be trying to survive by a simple majority.
4
The GOP is the bogeyman here. Obstructionism is their game. “Republicans over the past decade — knowing their policies are unpopular and that obstruction benefits them politically.” The DP must gut Republican power. When they do, the improvement in how our government responds to our needs will be absolutely incredible. We will get a functioning Congress back after an absence of 25 years.
10
@NOTATE REDMOND - you're funny! You mean the dems have never used the filibuster?
Former Senator Reid is correct. We must abolish the filibuster and restore democracy to the Senate. Majority rule will restore legitimacy and accountability to the Senate. People will vote for their Senators. Senators will vote on legislation and be accountable for their votes to the people - as they should be. No more cowardly hiding from their responsibility for the Senate or the people.
6
Bad idea to abolish filibuster. The republicans have structural advantage to win the senate most of the time because they have control of too many small states, each with two senators.
I would say make the appointments and judges to have mandatory 60 votes in the senate as well. Because that’s the only way the dems will have some control over the senate.
5
This is sadly true. The Republican Party knowing how unpopular their true policies are use the filibuster to obstruct legislation and cause gridlock. They want their base to view politics cynically and question the functionality of our institutions They believe that helps their party retain power although it prevents needed bipartisan legislation from ever passing.
Just as importantly their Majority Leader acts as an
authoritarian figure who prevents any legislation passed by the House from being voted on by the full Senate. He passed a very poorly designed tax plan without open hearings and Democratic Party and public input abusing the budget reconciliation process.
He and the Republican Party with the filibuster have destroyed the collegial and deliberative purpose of the Senate in their ideological quest to create a limited Federal Government that favors corporate interests and the Religious Right! They are cynical and sadly have no faith in the democratic process and no belief in their responsibilities of representing the interests of the public at large and creating legislative solutions for them.
15
Why not abolish the entire senate as an institution of government, and the electoral college with it? Upper houses in many civilized countries long ago moved to a ceremonial role, reserving their powers and showing forbearance to allow for the possibility of popular democracy.
5
You write, "If the Senate cannot address the most important issues of our time, then it is time for the chamber itself to change, as it has done in the past."
I agree, but it is more than the filibuster.
The word "chamber" caused be to think your examples of the gridlock and polarization will only be changed when the Democrats takes back the majority.
So the priority for Americans is to turn out in force in 2020 and close a very sad chapter in the history of the U.S..
In earlier times, the Senate membership was seemed more open to the arguments made by members and the committee chairmen. Majority Leaders were important but their direction was mainly to achieve order and fairness in the Senate. When a national issue surfaced in the press, committee staffs in the Senate and the House would engage in fact finding and if the issue seemed to merit legislative correction the subcommittee would invite experts to testify. A committee would also draft legislation and move it through the committee process.
In my view, it seems to me that the Senate has surrendered a lot of its constitutional authority in war powers and treaties. For example, the invasion of Iraq was a clear indication that the Senate had changed. Senator Levin of Michigan, Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee went to the Senate Floor and spoke against the invasion of Iraq, yet only 22 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the invasion.
Also, President Trump's tariff policy would never have happened.
6
Here's another observation regarding the "will of the people". Find some way to get proportionate representation in the Senate so we don't have smaller states dominating larger ones.
10
This should be done first before eliminating filibuster because other wise the republicans with control of too many small states in the Midwest, south and mountain west have structural advantage to have a simple majority most of the time.
@George Alas, the Constitution requires that all states shall have equal representation in the Senate -- and this is the one Constitutional provision that cannot be amended.
4
@Paul Abrahams the majority of these smaller states are really welfare states, are they not? Would Kentucky survive without the blue states? Don’t bring back earmarks, but bring back horse trading.
1
That's all fine and good Harry Reid, but why did you wait 10 years to say this? And I think having the Senate majority leader have so much power is just as damaging, or more so, as the filibuster.
20
In the Senate, where small states like Wyoming have equal representation with large states like California (with 80 times the population) the filibuster ultimately makes sure that legislation moves forward with some modicum of consensus. The current situation where Republicans with a simple majority of Senate votes, primarily from small population rural states, would be disastrous for the majority of Americans who are essentially underrepresented in this legislative body. Be careful what you wish for Democrats.
5
@Chris here is an idea, keep the filibuster if the filibustering states have a majority of the US population. It is absurd that 20 states get 40 senators while California with an equal population to the least populous 20 states combined ! Look it up it is true - gets 2. This trend is getting worser as people leave the least populous states for those with the most people.
1
Amen Harry. Now, while you're at it, let's get rid of that even more arcane rule or body, the Electoral College. Both the filibuster and the Electoral College are stifling the will of the American public. Unfortunately this is the ultimate Catch-22. How can you vote out the filibuster, if those who are the ones using it, also have to vote it out? Won't happen until the Senate majority is comprised of democrats.
8
I don’t think it’s a good idea to abolish the filibuster. If we did, it would be super easy to do things like reverse Obamacare. It would create major uncertainty because any majority coming to power can undo the laws the previous congress enacted. While this might be currently appetizing to Democrats who are salivating at the prospect of rolling back some of the bad legislation enacted by the Republicans, it would ultimately lead to greater chaos.
I think a better solution would be to dilute the power of the majority leader. As majority leader they can have the right to bring a majority of bills to the valor for a vote, but they shouldn’t have all power. The minority leader should be allowed to bring a smaller percentage of votes to the floor.
I also like the idea of making 55 votes the number needed for a supermajority. In theory this will make it less onerous to overcome a filibuster.
Ideally, we need to restructure things like the electoral college and the 2 senators for each state regardless of size, but this won’t ever happen. I find it a travesty that a tiny majority of voters in Kentucky enables McConnell to destroy our country.
16
Harry Reid is being just a tad bit disingenuous.
He picks and chooses Senate rules that provide his side of the aisle with immediate benefits, and attacks those that get in his way. But he isn't saying that.
This is the guy who got rid of the filibuster for Federal judges, but kept it in place for Supreme Court Justices, because at the time it met his needs.
Then when Republicans got rid of that same rule for Supreme Court Justices when it suited them, he cried foul.
What goes around comes around.
Mr. Reid just doesn't like it when he is on the losing end.
29
G confuses government with baseball, which is a major problem in America today.
If we could abolish all professional sports, and the kudzu metaphors they’ve spawned, Americans might come to their senses and become citizens again, instead of fans.
1
So true.
The filibuster is merely the symptom; the cause is partisan gridlock of the population whose differences have grown wider over the past two or three decades. If the filibuster had been the problem, nothing would have been accomplished since 1917. The filibuster was intended to be used sparingly, and legislation was supposed to pass the Senate with bipartisan support. But since Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, the House has been turned into a radical Republican graveyard, where no legislation emerged unless it would achieve a majority vote of Republicans. The Senate followed suit.
In 2013, the so-called ‘gang of 8’ (4 Republicans, 4 Democrats) produced a bill, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744) that passed the Senate with bipartisan support and a vote of 68-32. Speaker John Boehner refused to take it up in the House, even though it would have done many of the things that Trump wants (like establish a points-based system for immigration). Stephen Miller and his immigration restrictionist colleagues at Breitbart were behind the effort to scuttle the deal, which, if passed by the House, would have been signed by Obama. So at least as recently as 2013, a major piece of legislation cleared the Senate with a filibuster-proof margin.
To solve this problem, we need to wring out the partisan gridlock that has seized the country. Then the filibuster will take care of itself.
8
@Ockham9 how do you propose to do that?
Get rid of the veto. Not as easy a task (requires amending the Constitution) but making the president a super-legislator is very undemocratic (and was surprisingly included in the Constitution despite only one state allowing it for its executive).
4
This is how we got to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, when Reid foolishly abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees and opened the door for McConnell to end it. What goes around, comes around. I can only hope that the republicans will one day enjoy the fruits of their labor when the democrats will be in control again, and it will happen sooner or later.
3
Ya know what? The Republicans, for all intents and purposes, DID destroy the Senate filibuster. I say THE MOMENT THE DEMOCRATS regain control of the Senate, they do away with it completely and then, in order to undo some of the near-fatal devastation that has already been done to the Senate proceedings since the Republicans took over that place (as in not even giving a hearing to Judge Garland, the nadir of the Senate's reputation) that the new Democratic majority, coming in 2020 if there is a god in heaven) pull the emergency brake on everything that has been destructive these past several years and use their simple majority to enact a progressive agenda. The era of kid-glove politics is LONG LONG GONE. The GOP changed the rules so I say Democrats must make them RUE THE DAY the moment they regain control of both Houses of Congress. Maybe even impeach Kavanaugh for his perjury during his confirmation hearings, for starters.
39
@ManhattanWilliam
What about Impeaching all the SCOTUS Justices (provided we elect a new President)? How could they honorably and lawfully accept the last two. The first being Constitutionally ineligible and last having unresolved clouds of unethical conduct over his head. It seems too many of our 'sworn' Public Officials approach their duties and responsibilities as though they're common or ordinary citizens doing private work.
Three thoughts:
1 ) I tend to think of the filibuster as a minority-party protection (right?). Because the Senate structurally over-represents lower-population states that tend to be represented by the GOP, it seems that the Senate is a long way from a Democratic majority. So isn’t the filibuster effectively a Democratic-party protection?
2) You write that “even the most bipartisan legislation” with a simple majority can be tanked with the filibuster. Attempting to conceive of such a scenario, I suppose it would mean roughly 26 votes from one party and 25 from the other. I wouldn’t call this “most bipartisan” because in an almost equally divided senate, about half of each caucus would oppose the bill. Perhaps, then, could versions of the filibuster exist with either a lower threshold (55, for example), or with party taken into account (it doesn’t apply to a bill with a certain level of bipartisan support)?
3 ) It’d be hard to believe that you are pleased with the results of the elimination of the filibuster in Supreme-Court appointments. Even if the filibuster were to be eliminated for routine legislation, couldn’t (shouldn’t) it be revived for Supreme-Court nominations? While there appears to be no incentive for either party not to tank bills for any number of reasons, it seemed like the pressure to fill the Court usually sufficed to agree upon a nominee. When it clearly wasn’t (Gorsuch), the result was the lifting of the rule, a response to that very pressure.
1
@Christian Potter
Actually, the filibuster for judicial nominees should be brought back up to the original 67 supermajority, thus ensuring a true consensus nominee.
8
There was a time when the filibuster rule made sense. But that was back when it was the rare exception and not the general rule. It has been abused to the point that it must go.
8
Nothing great except the ACA has come out of Congress in some time. Mitch McConnell promised to make Obama a one term President and the Senate obstructed for 8 years right up until the time they denied Merrick Garland even a Senate hearing. Mitch McConnell claims this is his greatest accomplishment.
The 115th Congress and the 116th Congress have been able to stop the Senate from doing anything that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans do not want done. And all they want to do is stuff the courts with Conservatives.
But actions have consequences and bad policies have consequences. I hear things every day out here in the cheap seats that make me despair about the state of our nation and the damage that is done everyday we are blocked from enacting sensible legislation.
Yes end the filibuster, but everything we do has outcomes we never foresaw. As far as I am concerned the GOP is a bunch of treasonous criminals and the party should be benched or disbanded. I hope the Dems beat the stuffings out of the Republicans in 2020.
63
Harry, if you're attempting to appeal to the logical side of the Republican Party, save your breath. The only way good lasting reform this country sorely needs is ever going to come to pass is when Democrats, not only control both houses, but have supermajorities. Republicans will never expense an iota of effort on anything that doesn't provide them personal benefit in the form of a tax cut - even if they don't need it.
15
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Completely eliminating the filibuster would just end up moving the government from a so-called "tyranny of the minority" to an actual tyranny of the majority of Senators. A better solution is to reinstate the filibuster for all legislation and judicial appointments, but reduce the threshold for overcoming it to 55 votes from the current 60. That would pretty much guarantee more compromise, while still minimizing the chance of unpopular legislation and radical judges getting through the Senate.
7
It’s odd that you would criticize Reid for being “wrong, wrong, wrong,” but then propose a solution that would require only four more votes for legislation to pass (55 vs. 51). Rather than a watered-down filibuster based on an arbitrary number, let’s just restore majority rule. Elections, after all, are supposed to have consequences.
8
@Todd It's not an arbitrary number. It's an appropriate number that ensures that a party with a small majority in the Senate can't shove unpopular legislation through Congress, while allowing a true majority party to get bills and judicial appointments through without being held hostage by the minority party. The big issue at 60 is that even a party with a large Senate majority can't get bills through.
People may imagine gridlock in DC is the result of partisanship. Actually, it is easier to imagine the filibuster is the major cause of partisanship.
The filibuster operating requires a minimum of 10 Senators to “switch sides”. Getting 10 Senators to switch sides happens infrequently. Sticking with one’s own party on bills becomes the norm (partisanship) and switching sides becomes the exception (compromise).
In this way, partisanship becomes typical and compromise becomes rare. Harry Reid offers the solution: kill the filibuster. Doing so will restore majority rule to the Senate, breaking the tyranny of minority rule.
2
@dt No it doesn't. That would only happen if the Senate was split evenly. For example, the current Senate has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats/Independents who vote with the Democrats. That means only 7 would have to shift. Still a tall order, but not impossible if both parties were willing to compromise. Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't believed in compromise since Gingrich's folks took over the House in '95.
11
@JF - You clearly assume compromise is a one-way street. If “both parties were willing to compromise” in a 53R:47D Senate, your 7 who would have to shift becomes 13...were it Republicans shifting to pass Democrat-led legislation.
It’s nearly impossible to make an argument for voting Trump, and Democrats are making an impressive effort. Moderators should get a show of hands on all of these in the next primary debate:
- eliminate filibuster
- eliminate the electoral college
- ranked choice voting
- reduce the voting age
- make D.C. a 51st state
- pack the Supreme Court
- eliminate DHS
I haven’t yet heard a proposal to assign extra senate seats for Berkeley, Cambridge, Brooklyn, and Oberlin, OH - but it must be coming soon.
I could begrudgingly respect the naked partisanship if they had the intellectual honesty not to pretend that it’s all in reaction to someone else’s bad faith. In fact, they’re just sore about how it has worked out for them in the past 3 yrs, under the system that has prevailed for the last 200
And Harry Reid on his high horse is too much - as if we forget his creative hardball departures from what had previously been normal order in the senate. In a few years when Mitch McConnell is retired, will we have to put up with similar save-the-country moralizing from him? Good grief
16
@RobtLaip The system Reid suggests changing is not one that's been in operation 200 years. It's not hard to imagine that the one in place prior to 1917 worked better than this.
5
He suggests eliminating the filibuster in all its forms, not just cloture. That takes us back to first part of the 19th century
@RobtLaip - and how would you get 2/3rds of the House, Senate and state legislatures to pass the constitutional amendments that you want?
1
The original filibuster, or correctly the cloture vote, required maintaining control of the speaking on the floor. A group of senators or a party could do it indefinitely but it required effort. Now, any senator gets to filibuster. Then number has gone from just a few to a huge number. Delaying votes is one thing, stopping thanks all together is another.
6
Good points Mr Reid.
Now - how do "We the People" deal with the Senate "representation" in the 25 predominantly rural states - let's just arbitrarily choose those states averaging less than 100 people per square mile ?
Let's look at corporate land ownership as an alternative view of representation ? If a corporation owns over 1 million acres, or if it's worth 100 times more than the total wealth of the state's people who aren't part of the corp., why does that state need a Senator ? "Influential majority-interest groups" can still "lobby" throughout Congress as they do now without the 2 freebie votes that don't involve any meaningful representation.
Every empty state Representative will still have the power of, say, a Dick Cheyney, in Congress. To balance this adjusted representation, the entire Senate could deliberate jointly when addressing issues in these parts of our country that often still have their greatest acreages owned by the Federal government (until it all gets sold off) which of course means that land is owned by ALL of us.
Go ahead and keep "the saucer" to "cool the spilled and steaming tea". But let's be honest about "representation", or the ghostly pretense of true representation that our Senate is fast in danger of becoming
1
The founders did a fair job with the second constitution after the fiasco of the articles of confederation.
There were 13 states and 26 senators. My guess is the difference in the populations of the largest and smallest states was not the same as the difference between Vermont and California where each as two senators.
The expansion of the country created multiple states occupying the same geographic area which few regional differences except for Virginia and West Virginia which was a product of the Civil War. North and South Carolina, North and South Dakota and then the expansion to the west of vast spaces that became states.
The founders could not have foreseen a country going beyond the Mississippi River. Lewis and Clark explored beyond the river.
But why 50 states?
Two suggestions and these will never receive one second of consideration. First, limit the number of states to 20. States would be reformed to have at least 4 percent of the population of the United States. When that threshold is exceeded, the next provision comes into effect.
Second, a constitutional convention every 100 years with a sunshine law incorporated to force the new constitution to be formed at ratified in on year after the first day of the new century. Only the bill of rights will remain in operation.
While we applaud the fractured wisdom of the founders..ie slavery, no rights for women etc
This would allow the problems to be corrected....
Vietnam Vet
5
@Michael The population difference between the biggest and smallest states was ~ 7-fold when the Constitution was passed. Now it is close to 100x. That system in inherently unfair and untenable.
6
A constitutional convention with the current 50 states would be very dangerous to progressive causes because each state would likely have one vote, and there are more than 26 conservative states and no vote for DC since it's not a state. A constitutional convention dominated by a slight majority of the states containing a minority of the population could lead to civil unrest.
1
@Vinny
Now why would north and south dakota, vermont, maine, new hamshire and connecticut want to give up their senators?? Toss in wyoming and montana
The senate is now about power and not principle.
Oh...and the senate majority leader should have a tenure of three years and then mitch is out the door.
Of course the constitution is impossible to amend ....oh welll
A great country descends into mediocrity...
Vietnam Vet
1
To save the American future, Senate representation of each state should reflect their population. California should not be be nullified by Wyoming. Texas should not be obstructed by Vermont.
18
I just got back from Italy and, as we sped home from the airport, I devoted some thought to our broken political system.
Is it not the case that the GOP has virtually CEASED to be a political party. In the normal sense of the word.
And oh yes! In the early years of our Republic, there was indeed bitter partisan feeling. Name calling. All that.
But it had to do with ISSUES. You saw Hamilton's vision of a commercial, integrated America. You embraced that vision.
Or Jefferson's vision of virtuous farmers trooping to the polls to help manage the country.
I am unable to consider today's GOP anything other than a profoundly selfish oligarchy--devoted to;
(1) staying in power
(2) placating the rich who enable them to STAY in power.
To do this, they will lie--connive--block--obstruct till the cows come home.
Hence the cry rising from more and more erstwhile Republicans. "Turn 'em out of office! Lock stock and barrel! Be rid of them!"
Yes. Absolutely. I agree. When personally I will EVER vote for a Republican I have no idea. Never perhaps.
AND--
--my mind is still haunted by Rome's pigheaded, conservative Senate in the 60's and 50's B.C. No vision. No understanding. They clung to their privileges. Period.
Till Julius Caesar came along. And swept 'em all away.
And that was the end of Rome's five-hundred-year old Republic. It never came back.
Oh yes, Mr. Reid. By all means let's abolish the filibuster.
If we can.
7
nobody had to offer Trump the crown three times. he snatched it the moment he could. in time, plenty will come to bury Trump, and none to praise him. but the evil he's done will live after him, while nothing at all will be interred with his bones, except perhaps his massive debts.
The will of the American people differs from the day-to-day passions of same, thus the go-slow rules of the Senate. Deliberation, not hot-headed snap rulings were meant to thwart emotional reaction to alarmist headlines (which were much WORSE in the Founders’ day). The ‘burn everything’ Left, when it loses, always wants a quick feel-good jerk of the knee on some tried-and-true American institution...
5
@skyfiber - Tried and true American institution? Like when McConnell denied Obama’s right to nominate a Supreme a court Justice for over a year? Give me a break. While both sides are guilty of doing what benefits them, Republicans have been, by far, the worst when it comes to obstruction, gridlock, intransigence, and defying the will of a significant majority of the citizens of this country.
5
Is Harry living in an alternative universe where Democrats are still the majority party in the senate?
12
Worse than the filibuster is the power of the Senate Majority Leader.
One man dictates what comes to a vote.
The current Leader "leads" by shielding senators of his own party from going on record with their votes. Without a voting record, senators can duck taking visible positions on the most pressing issues of our time.
This is naked corrupt power blocking the connection between the people and their government.
71
Well thought, as Republicans have abandoned democracy in lieu of their donor class. I consider the Republican party as seditious.
2
A day late and a dollar short (to be magnanimous.)
6
So is the Electoral College.
6
We should abolish the Senate altogether. It's an arcane political body that in no way represents The People.
5
which people are you talking about? the Senate represents a small number of influential natural people and more substantial number of "people" in the legal sense, corporate vampires who can never die but can enjoy the rights of natural mortals with their money now a kind of protected "speech".
If Republicans had eliminated the filibuster when they had both the House and Senate from 2016 to 2018, Reid would be singing a different tune!
7
@Lindsey E. Reese If the GOP had eliminated the filibuster in 2016 - this conversation would not be happening. NOT sure you understand the whole line of thought here.
1
We need to abolish the US Senate. It is a profoundly antidemocratic institution. Yes, yes, that will take a political revolution. That only means that a revolution is inevitable. We can look to events in China and Russia for inspiration. Think that does not apply to the USA? Well think again. You really think that our repressive regime would not crack down hard on a US democracy movement that occupied airports and other facilities? If not, address your ignorance of US history, to this very day!
3
The issue is not the filibuster per se, but the Senate itself. It is an institution designed to represent arbitrarily decided areas of land, and not any group of people, except people who happen to live in those various segments. It is wholly undemocratic and is the primary reason why an enormous country making up over 300 million people must kowtow to the demands of less than 1/4 of the population who wield outsize power.
We need radical change to this archaic institution. Make the Senate a national election, where top vote getters nationally campaign to be among the 33 selected, regardless of where they live or who they represent. There will be no complaints about how urban areas get their fair share of representation, as rural areas with good ideas will also be represented-proportionally.
In a modern representative democracy, there is no need for recognizing sovereignty of states or of people. It's time to put the United back in United States.
7
@Steve "Make the Senate a national election, where top vote getters nationally campaign to be among the 33 selected, regardless of where they live or who they represent."
Humans are too tribal for this. They want their tribe in a particular area to be represented. And the graft and corruption involved in selecting a group of national candidates would equal or surpass that of a presidential campaign.
1
Citizens United and dark money is also killing the will of the people .
27
All politicians are corruptible equally, but some are more equal than others ....
Senator Reid , has made a cogent point, but while he’s at it somebody else should be talking about abolishing the Electoral College so that the hogs that maintain a misguided sense of power in Congress can finally be put out to pasture .
4
That is a laugh coming from you. When you were majority leader to used all kinds of procedural motions and the filibuster to prevent minority views from being heard.
Considering your past actions when you were majority leader, I would label your option as FAKE NEWS.
9
Very, very well put.
Thank's Harry!
2
I realize that this is one of the new panaceas for what ails the body politic according The Resistance, but do these people really believe that the Republicans will never gain unified control of the government again? Imagine had had there been no filibuster between 2017 and 2019. How shortsighted and foolish!
4
Has anyone told Harry Reid who’s president?
1
Some day there should be a plaque on the doors of the Senate Chamber "Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell murdered this once deliberate body"
2
I know it is election season, but the New York Times has become simply a propaganda organ for the Democratic Party.
If I want to read pieces like this, I can simply visit the DNC website and affiliated publications and blogs.
I get that the left generally, and most Democrats, and clearly the NYT consider Trump an affront to their sensibilities as well as policy preferences. Increasing the NYT is making all Republicans into targets of hate.
This is an ugly look, and I suspect that someday the NYT will come to regret it.
15
What stupidity. Between 2016 and 2018 when the Republicans had the house, how really bad laws would have been passed if there were no filibuster ?????? That said, a minority of the population controls a majority of the senate...
5
if given the chance - i would vote to END the U.S. senate.
right now, the MAJORITY of americans are represented by the MINORITY PARTY in the senate.
that's just STUPID!
1
When Wyoming with less than 850,000 people has the same power in the Senate as California with close to 40 million people, you know we are already screwed. We need serious change in our government and having representation based on people and not land mass is a good starting point.
10
The filibuster, as currently envisioned and used, has certainly created a perpetual log jam in our legislative process. Clearly something needs to be done. The problem seems to be, in essence, that the process has become to easy to invoke.
But the way I remember it, there was a time when a filibuster required that the minority party hold the Senate floor during the entire filibuster. This required the minority to invest a lot of time and effort in the process. They had to put some serious skin into the process. As a result, the filibuster was used sparingly, and usually only when the minority was not being heard. My understanding is that it was used to slow the process and force more time for deliberation, to create time for back room deliberations, or to publicize the minority's concerns.
Maybe there's some reason why this wouldn't work any longer, but on its face it would seem that this old process might serve to protect the minority from being constantly railroaded, while also ensuring that the day-to-day business of the Senate could continue.
Maybe instead of doing away with all filibusters, we need to turn the clock back on the method of invoking and maintaining the filibuster. Then we'd also then see who was really serious about their concerns about legislation on the floor, and who was just posturing.
7
@John
Excellent point. Under the current system a senator can simply place a hold on a bill, it's set aside, and the Senate proceeds with other business. When filibustering also means that other members can't pass their pet projects, it will be used more sparingly and senators will be more willing to cross party lines and end them. It will also result in a media spotlight shining on those filibustering and ensure that their constituents are more likely to hold them accountable if they abuse the process.
2
It is interesting to hear this from a man who organized his share of filibusters, and refused to get rid of the filibuster when he had the chance to do so. Better late than never I guess.
Right now, it is the Democrats who are abusing the filibuster, as the Republicans hold a majority. It can't be abolished soon enough, or the next time the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate, they likewise won't be able to get anything done.
4
This op-ed implies that immigration reform died because of the filibuster. Immigration reform died because the House GOP wouldn't bring up the legislation. The Senate passed the Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 68-32, more than enough votes to overcome a filibuster. The bill would have passed had it been voted on, but the House GOP, acting under the perverse "Hastert Rule," did not bring up the bill because it would not have gotten a majority of the majority.
4
Sorry Sen Reid, but I don't think Tailor Schumer is be trusted to lead on this.
If we win back the Senate either Sen Warren or Sen Harris must challange Tailor Schumer for the majority leader role.
Either of them will get it done. They have the nerve and the guts to do it.
PS: Tailor stand for how Schumer for 35 years in Congress mastered the art of tailoring laws to fit Goldman Sachs & CO needs.
3
Senate is poorly designed, badly broken. It needs to change to a population based structure. It’s current design does not produce anything close democracy. North Dakota should not have the same political power as California. One has 80 times the population of the other. How about 2 senators for every 10 million people, minimum 2 per state.
14
@flushingguy What you described is called The House of REpresentatives.
6
@flushingguy
You just described the House when you recommended changes for the Senate.
Welcome to the party Senator, a little later (by about 10 years) than many of us advised - McConnell and his Federalist Society Dream Team Judicial Juggernaut thank you for your timidity.
5
You could at the very least make them actually stand and speak for hours if they want to filibuster. It used to at least take some annoying effort.
14
I completely agree! What is really crippling the senate is the constant THREAT of a filibuster. It is rare to actually force the minority to act on threats and literally “filibuster”. If a group thinks one issue is so important that they would stand up on TV and speak to block it, then make them do it. There may be a time we’re thankful for the filibuster, but should be used in only extreme circumstances involving a clear threat to life or liberty.
2
How can the Republicans seem to dominate whether they are in or out of power?
Simple: It's easier to destroy than to create.
You couldn't build your house or make your car, but you can destroy them with one match and perhaps a little gasoline.
Republicans consider most of government to be the problem; they do not see it as a helpful tool to improve living conditions in America.
So Operation Destruction has been green-lit since the Reagan administration. It's pretty effective, too: The rich are richer; the poor are poorer. Victory seems at hand.
"Now let it work.
Mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou wilt!"
-- Marc Antony, "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar" (Act III, scene 2)
22
Both parties have abused the filibuster, to the point that the Senate is know as the place where good bills die. The filibuster was never part of the Constitution; politicians invented it to make it hard to get legislation passed.
Today, very little can get through the Senate, unless the party on control suspends the filibuster for their own gains. The tow major pieces of legislation the ACA, and the 2017 Tax cuts are two glaring examples.
Both parties created the gridlock, and have made the Senate a nonfunctional body. They did so for power, greed and to placate the 1% backers who put them there.
Neither house has down the will of the people for decades. It has been the will of the 1%. Mr. Reid calling for filibuster reform is like a tempest ina teapot.
And, because Congress is broken, is broken is why presidents have issued more and more executive orders and bypassing Congress in its entirety. So much for the "will of the people", when the country is ruled by decree.
6
@Nick Metrowsky You are mistaken on the ACA, it was passed outright, no filibuster was suspended for it. The 2017 tax cuts did not need the filibuster suspended either as it passed under reconciliation which only requires a simple majority but in order to use this process the House and Senate must agree on a budget plan.
4
@DG
The ACA was passed under a threat of a filibuster by Joe Lierberman, if a public option was included. It passed by a simple majority. The 2017 Tax Cuts rule were changed to have a simple majority, and to prevent the Democrats from doing a filibuster.
1
The problem is not the filibuster. The problem is Americans can’t get behind a single idea. Whether it’s gun control or abortion; climate change or tariffs, it seems Americans are split 50/50 on nearly everything. That is because there is a serious lack of leadership. There is no single leader whom we as a nation trust and respect to take us on the right path.
What America needs is real leadership. The filibuster would be wholly irrelevant if we had that.
3
@SG1 - Balderdash! This is false equivalence in spades.
A large majority of Americans support reasonable gun control such as background checks for ALL gun sales.
A large majority support abortions with some restrictions.
A large najority oppes politcal gerrymandering.
A large majority oppose the excess on money in election due to Citizens United.
And so on.
What you support in MINORITY rule.
Well the truth is its more often and on every issue mentioned in the article that we as a voting public have a preference the Republicans and big money don't want. The people want the legislation so the filibuster avoids having the vote to protect the republicans that don't want to have to explain a vote that favors campaign donors over average citizens.
5
Reid's elimination of the filibuster for most Presidential appointments led in a straight line to the Conservative domination of the Supreme Court and, increasingly, the entire Federal judiciary.
How's that been working out?
What is more Reid's leadership of the Senate led directly to the Republican takeover.
Shall we now further credit his notions?
Truly bipartisan legislation can and will avoid the filibuster. Trump's Criminal Justice Reform, something Obama could never do, is a good example.
15
Filibusters. Electoral College. Gerrymandering. Big-donor campaign financing. Citizens United (corporations are people, my friends), Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore). Undemocratic behavior (Merrick Garland). Self-pardoning presidents.
I'm starting to get the feeling we don't really live in a democracy, or even a representative republic, any more after all.
217
@gary89436
The whole thing is rotten. And with the public so perfectly split there's no way out until the rich want the rottenness to end. The public has the votes but they can't see that preserving the machinery of democracy is the foundation on which the country is built.
10
@gary89436
You're just starting to get this feeling? This is way past feeling. Add to this list the fact that the majority of the population is not represented by either one of the two major parties. The entire system is beyond broken. It is a farce.
11
@gary89436
"I'm starting to get the feeling we don't really live in a democracy, or even a representative republic, any more after all."
We don't.
That was then.
This is now.
1
The point of the Senate is to be undemocratic. The filibuster is merely a rule that follows from this premise. Senators were never even meant to be subject to suffrage. My grandparents were adults before they were even directly elected. The Electoral College, too, gives power to the states over raw majorities. That's always been our Federal system.
5
A Constitutional convention as proposed in the excellent book, "A More Perfect Constitution," is well worth reading.
But a constitutional convention will not happen in our lifetime, so Mr Reid's proposal makes a lot of sense.
We have a national government today that is just as dysfunctional as any failing large American city. Drama and dark comedy doesn't begin to describe the leadership void our country has today. Shakespeare would have had material for another volume at least of dramas.
So change the rules to force these political hacks to actually compromise in order to get things done. A simple majority is far easier to achieve than a 2/3 majority. It will prove much more effective, not just efficient, in providing the electorate with evidence that their elected officials can or cannot govern our affairs.
The fly in the ointment from the perspective of the democrats is that they must first win the senate in order to change the rules. But if the party doesn't shoot itself in the feet or other sensitive body parts in their circular firing squad for purity of thought, we might have an opportunity to once again put Congress to work for the American people instead of lobbyists.
Then, can we talk about a ban on congressmen, their families, and their staffs from working as lobbyists et al. Yeah, "et al" is pretty broad, but in the eyes of a deceased Supreme Court Justice commenting on pornography, "I know it when I see it."
So do the American people.
2
Republicans now know the Democrats will get rid of it. But they won't get the chance. Republicans will end it the next time they win the house. Or whenever it is politically usefull. Democrats should have kept there mouths shut. They have given McConnell a valuable weapon to employ when needed. With a built in excuse!
1
Why not! Dems assume the GOP is a rational player in this game of give and take. GOP is only in for the taking. Time to wake up and fight fire with fire.
3
Not a bright idea. The filibuster prevents the party in power from running roughshod over the minority party.
10
@Mike F. If used in good faith, perhaps. If it's used to stop any legislation from passing then that is not how it was intended. If the party that is not in power doesn't like legislation that was passed they can win an election and change it in the next session.
@Edward Liberals always want to stack the deck to get whatever they want but it's got to work both ways.
Of course, Harry didn’t obstruct the will of the people at all when he was Senate majority leader.
17
@Once From Rome
Take a look at the chart. The GOP increased filibusters exponentially under Obama. You have to be either blind or willfully blind to avoid seeing it.
3
@Howard Kessler Of nominees perhaps. But Harry was a master at bottling up legislation in committee that he never wanted on the Senate floor, especially any legislation sent over from a GOP-controlled House, bipartisan or not. Harry was a kingmaker of obstruction.
5
Trump, too, is suffocating the will of the American people.
The more paralyzed Congress is, the more Trump dictates!
Sen. Reid, you know the "Democracy" song, of Leonard Cohen?
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA (1992).
I hope Democrats will use the "Democracy" song against Trump.
I hope the Times will write about the "Democracy song, soon:
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
2
The underlying problem is that the Senate was designed to be a check on the ignorant and unaware. This is not the case. Senators were chosen originally by state legislators, which was a poor idea.
The only true way to gain a check on the ignorant and unaware is by at least a knowledge test. ( One cannot run or vote for Senators without passing a knowledge test. ) Of course this will not fly well as the education system is not fair in terms of equal opportunity and fair competition. And many people will dislike the fact that power is taken away from them. However, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to not allow Senators to be elected by popular vote due to the fact of ignorance and unawareness.
There are many pragmatic realistic solutions to check the unaware and ignorant, as well as unethical politicians that choose to use the emotions of the voters, or unethical rhetoric to manipulate their constituents. However, they requite many changes occuring at the same time. Campaign finance reform would be one, so that non-human individual entities are not allowed to participate. ( Unethical politicians ) Using a ranked choice voting system would be another. ( Remove the power of the status quo two party system. ) Education reform ( A educated electorate is better. ) Mental health help. ( Emotions need to be removed from rational analysis of policy. Most people are mentally ill and unaware even if many psychologist do not define mental health in this way. )
1
@baetoven Just want to add that it was a few of the founding fathers that were worried about the ignorance and unawareness of the general populace along with the ability of demogogues to manipulate the ignorant and unaware.
And although there were many arguments as to the creation of the Senate, the above problem is the one that needs to be solved as far as one of the original intents of some of the founding fathers.
It should be stressed that there was much fear about the general populace's ability to choose rationally. Almost all Americans, which is the general populace seem to miss this argument.
The underlying problem is not the filibuster per se, it is the method that Senators are elected. It is a structural problem of the government.
And once again, proper changes will not occur due to the fact that the general populace will not give up their power to elect Senators.
One only needs to look at modern society to see quacks and cult leaders bamboozle the public. ( History is not needed to study unethical behavior or the mental illness of many. )
Structural government arguments must be made.
The number of Senators per state is not the problem. ( This was a required compromise during the founding of America. ) Furthermore, state rights have evolved towards people thinking in terms of federal laws as one can easily measure by asking people in states who their state representatives are.
The underlying problem of Senators is ethics and selfish behavior to win.
2
@baetoven Just want to add that it was a few of the founding fathers that were worried about the ignorance and unawareness of the general populace along with the ability of demogogues to manipulate the ignorant and unaware.
And although there were many arguments as to the creation of the Senate, the above problem is the one that needs to be solved as far as one of the original intents of some of the founding fathers.
It should be stressed that there was much fear about the general populace's ability to choose rationally. Almost all Americans, which is the general populace seem to miss this argument.
Harry must think the Democrats are a sure thing to win back the Senate in 2020, otherwise, no way he’s advocating this.
9
Senate rules are only a small part of the problems in effective governance. They are used by disloyal senators to hide behind. The real problems are the people elected to the Congress and the inherent flaw in America's founding.
Only wealthy, powerful people with extensive business connections stand a chance at being elected a senator or representative. Raising campaign funds becomes their top priority. They become too beholding to donors and forget who they should be working for.
America was founded as country form of 13 autonomous colonies. To ratify the Constitution too much autonomy and power was left in the hands of the states. Virginia feared Massachusetts. Rode Island feared all larger states. Southern slave states feared northern states. The Constitution united states which resented each other, made rivals of each other.
The rivalries and resentments have persisted. Senators and representatives put state and district interests above the nation. Americans living in Mississippi may as well live in a different country as compared to Americans living in California.
The tension between the federal government and state governments and between states, exacerbates differences in our people and serves to divide us.
No wonder the Senate has become the graveyard of government.
2
Thank you for these words recognizing political reality and the anti-democratic nature of the Senate under current procedure.
1
Harry's lament can be stated as, ''Yeah, we always stopped anything the GOP wanted to do, and especially nominations for the Courts, just ask Miguel Estrada.
But now they do the SAME things, and that's just not fair at all. We should be the only ones insisting on things!''
6
@L osservatore the GOP currently has the majority in the Senate, so it's the Democrats who are filibustering. It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all -- when a party gains the majority, they get to make the laws.
Republicans can only retain power by reducing equal representation of Americans, so that's what they perennially do.
1
And while we're at it, can we please get rid of bicameralism and the presidency and move to a parliamentary democracy? We should have one elected body make and execute the law. The judiciary should remain independent, of course. It may be helpful to have an upper house to oversee the government, but its powers should be limited only to oversight and maybe a veto against bad legislation and/or policy, but all real power to make and execute laws should reside with the parliament.
And the parliament should be elected in and out en masse—all at once, so it's actually responsive to the people. The American system, with divided government and multiple election cycles, actually shelters each body from accountability and makes the government unresponsive to the will of the people.
1
Well, in the fantasy land whereby the Senate reflects the will of the American People in the first place: we'll get right on that.
1
Reid is right. And Biden is dead wrong! Biden is dangerous to our democratic progress and to our democracy. Obama said "we need new blood" when Biden announced he planned to run. We need to do away with Filibusters that benefits minority rule. And we need to elect a true progressive democratic POTUS like Warren and win the senate back for Democracy.
5
Thank you Senator Reid for your clear eyed analysis of where we‘re at. No fever breaking indeed, no going back to business as usual. To believe otherwise is political malpractice at best, a total capitulation to the obstructionists at worst. Speaking of Chuck Schumer, time to step on some toes.
1
You have no one to blame but yourself and your party for this state of affairs. McConnel is the absolute master of uncompromising stalling and delay and the GOP has shown for years that they would rather “win” than actually govern or try to represent anyone other than their base “base”. The GOP is so unwilling to even advance legislation for discussion, much less any kind of sane compromise, that they have left Democrats with no other choice. Go clean your own house Mr Reid.
2
@Alexandra Hamilton Harry Reid is a Democrat. The GOP and Mitch McConnell currently hold a majority over the Senate. Back when the Democrats were the majority, Mr. Reid was the majority leader in the Senate.
You think the filibuster is the problem? How about McConnell?
1
A pox on both your houses! Filibusters arent the problem. Elected politicians working exclusively for the benefit of campaign contributors is the root problem!
Institute public financing for all viable candidates. Mandatory imprisonment for all public servants and contributors who give or receive funds. Start doing the peoples business today.
4
Six years later and Sen. Reid is still the voice of nuclear warfare.
4
Add to that suffocation the Electoral College, redistricting, and voter suppression.
5
When Senator Reid was the majority leader, he used many of the same levers Mitch McConnell is using. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
4
Anyone considering getting rid of filibusters needs to watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington first.
1
i think the main obstacle to getting things passed now and under obama has been mitch Oconnell, the fact he had caused blockages to Obama's choices and is now stopping bills being passed presented to the senate is simply outrageous ... these are from people who had been voted in to do these things.. that he has the ability to block the democractic process is madness .
2
I’LL MAKE YOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT EASY FOR YOU!!! Eliminating the legislative filibuster is the single most important thing that is flying under the political radar. Without it nothing meaningful will ever be accomplished in Washington; nothing!!! So you can either pick a safe candidate who the media has convinced you is needed to win over conflicted Trump voters or you can vote for someone who has ideas for the future of this nation. That’s your first decision. So if you choose safe then pick whoever it won’t matter because Trump will get re-elected.
But if you want real progress you need 4 things to happen in 2020: 1-The House must stay Democratic 2-The Democrat’s must get majority control in the Senate 3-Obviously we need to get Trump out of The White House and 4-We need a President to really push the Senate to abolish the filibuster. Now only four of the Democrat candidates favor that: Jay Inslee, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren & Beto O’Rourke. While I like all four of these candidates I think O’Rourke has been light on policy and Inslee has been too narrowly focused on climate change which is vital but not all encompassing. Elizabeth Warren is probably the best equipped for the job experientially but if she wins the election we lose a Senate seat to the Republicans because Massachusetts Governor (a Republican) will pick a replacement from his party. Winning the Senate back will be hard enough without losing another seat. So who’s left? Mayor Pete.
1
Senator Reid, that's a very weak defense of you position on the filibuster when you voted to keep it. In fact, it's downright nonsense. Fess us that you made a bad mistake and then we'd be more inclined to listen to what you have to say now. Truth is the filibuster has always been an abusive subterfuge and should be gotten rid of. But obviously, that won't happen with the Reps in charge. You didn't do the right thing back then, and now it's too late.
2
Harry, it's time for the House to get going again, too.
Anyone remember the "filiblustering" during the Supreme Court hearings. It wasn't the Senate.
1
Is there not a middle ground, such as returning to the old requirement of the “talking filibuster”?
4
Senator Reid, you had your chance to eliminate the filibuster and chose not to. Your regrets find little sympathy with me.
4
At this point the fillibuster is a miniscule thread in the new vernacular which directs everything into the courts.
If you look back fondly at some point in history (LBJ) when the senate worked, dry your eye. Direct your tears and loss of sleep to the Supreme Court, home of Roe V. Wade and Citizens United. We might as well abolish the senate for our days are numbered.
Wilbur Ross, William Barr and Mitch McConnell in the center ring.
She's leaving home, bye bye...
1
Any member should be able to bring a bill to the floor for debate and a vote. Having one man from Kentucky control which bills get a hearing and vote and which don't is crazy.
4
As someone who actually worked on Capital Hill there are literally thousands of bills written. The one’s that have a prayer or are popular are then sent to the appropriate Committee and that’s where most die. Just saying.
How about we also ask for a little discipline from our esteemed legislators. Maybe they could work
( and I do mean appear at “work”) from 8-5 with an hour for lunch. I propose 4 weeks of vacation. In this day of modern communication, they do not need to incessantly travel home. Maybe, there could be 3 hours a day where they all were required to be in chamber so they could actually listen to some of their colleagues debate rather than pose before a microphone in an empty senate/house. Isn’t it about time that these folks adopt a basic work ethic. If they did, perhaps they would not have to be so concerned with their asinine floor rules, pomp and circumstance.
1
The will of the American People has been suffocated by the Electoral College for years. Why don't we start there?
1
You had the opportunity to lead the charge when you were Senate majority leader but didn't. Quite telling...
3
How dare Harry Reid come out of his dark closet and be a spokesperson on this issue. He is the one that changed the rules that had successfully managed the workings of the Senate for decades and threw us into the current mess.
4
@William Harry Reid did not invent the filibuster, or even particularly increase its use. It's been a continuous escalation since the 90s until where we are today.
1
Maybe the Senate would function better if there was only one Senator per state and it met in a much smaller room.
The filibuster, as the electoral college and gerrymandering, is a partisan political tool which has no legitimate place in the business of congress. Expletives deleted!
1
Because of this change, we were able to confirm more of President Obama’s judicial nominees than we would have been able to otherwise, leaving President Trump fewer vacancies to fill.
That is a joke? The President has already filled 143 Judicial Seats with another 112 that will get done during his first term.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies
That will be a total of 255 out of the 890 total seats (28.7%)
1
The prime directive of the GOP is to destroy government. They've been stating plainly for years. They do enjoy the perks of being in office, where pay to play makes them rich, but they want the government to fail because it is the only thing that stands between the sheep and the wolves, and they must feed their hunger, right?
Silly people expecting government to work while voting GOP. No wonder they think all politicians are crooks: so many of theirs are!!
2
Why be dependent on the Senate? Let the States determine their own fate. California has paid maternity leave [for husband and wife] paid sick time, amnesty and free health insurance for the undocumented, a state run healthcare system, green laws, a new program that allows impoverished people to drive electric cars, service dogs are allowed everywhere [including hospitals], marijuana is legal, "farm to table" soup kitchens for the homeless and LGBTQ owned car dealerships! You name it we got it!
1
THANK YOU!
Finally someone with actual U.S. Congressional experience speaks out as a former Constitutionally authorized Public Official and not a Political Hack.
The U.S. Constitution (USC) explicitly prohibits any party or groups whether they be of a political, business, labor, religious, racial, sovereign state or whatever; be it public or private to casts a single vote in external Federal Elections or within Government itself. From public street level to within halls The One Person-One Vote Rule has been Constitutionally Sacrosanct since the USA was founded in 1776. The U.S. President, each Congress Member & each SCOTUS Justice gets one vote only just like U.S Citizens do. Certainly any individual or group can petition or lobby (politic) government officials but unless they'll Constitutionally 'sworn' Public Officials they are forbidden to conduct and represent any governmental business on The Peoples behalf--period.
Although The USC grants Congress a right to make "Rules of its Proceedings" those Rules can in no way can supersede The USC itself! And for any Public Official to publicly express or act otherwise is to commit Perjury. The USC does not even grant minority party leadership! It says Congress itself shall elect a leader of each Chamber and its Officials. Each member is a co-equal in Public governing powers--period. My Congress Member is of my State not some other! And further SCOTUS acceptance of its last two was a FRAUD ON THE COURT. Redress Now!
2
Thank you Doctor Death for lecturing us about how to lead a healthy and productive life.
Seriously...this man and this man alone did more to thwart the rules of the Senate...all for political power and personal gain.
I'm still trying to figure out how 1 man in the Senate can take $18,000,000,000 of our federal $ for jobs and construction of Yucca Mountain in his state...yet never allow it to be opened to accept nuclear waste scattered all around the country.
You want to clean up the environment and deal with something 1000x more toxic than Global Warming?
There are about 40 casks of spent nuclear fuel sitting less than 1/4 mile from the top of the MIssissippi River in Red Wing, MN. If those casks should open and or be blown into the river...you can kiss your love of shrimp scampi goodbye for the next 1000 years....that radiation will coat the entire MIssissippi River all the way through the Gulf of Mexico.
Now tell me again what are our nations priorities..and why should one man be able to do so much to do so little for anyone other than himself?
4
Harry Reid, “ take my advice, I am not using it”.
1
What we need is a constitutional convention to address our outdated and dysfunctional Democracy. And since that is not going to happen, the coastal states should succeed from the United States and form their own government.
2
@Jack Edwards
and perhaps secede at the same time
It's not the filibuster - it's the senate itself. By giving Wyoming the same number of seats as California we virtually guarantee that the senate will represent the will of rural America rather than the people at large.
12
@Sam
So you want to re-write the consitution now?
So basically he wants to change the rules so Dems can pass what their political agenda when they take over. But wait a second harry doesn't bipartisan mean it would pass even with the filibuster?
4
@David Sacco
That's why Sen Reid is a hypocrite. He was more than happy with the fillabuster when it served his purpose.
1
Eliminating the filibuster is a double edge sword. One of those, be careful what you ask for, solutions. The elephant in the room is the power of monied interests pushing agendas that are favorable to certain ideological, economic or other desired outcomes. It is not likely that the legislators, who are dependent on these revenue sources, will do much to alter that dynamic. The days of a collegial cooperation and hands across the isle to resolve problems for the common good (if they ever existed) have disappeared in the rear view mirror. Government of the money, by the money and for the money. I doesn't have to be that way
1
I would go a step further. In addition to ending the filibuster, I would require both chambers to bring to the floor for vote any legislation passed by the other body without the approval of the House or Senate majority leader. If the vote fails the members could offer amendments, and if that bill passes it would go back to the originating chamber and where they would be required to vote.
5
I agree with Mr. Reid, and wholeheartedly, the filibuster must either be abolished or modified.
But to what end?
The opposing party will simply reverse any outcome. And back and forth we go, over successive opposing administrations, undoing what the prior administration accomplished. In fact, what Trump is doing against Obama.
Is this what governing is all about now? Endless stalemate?
1
There is no need to end the filibuster. The need is to enforce it as intended. If Senators were required to hold the floor and speak, then filibusters would naturally end because no one can speak forever. As it is now, the filibuster rule has morphed into a 60-vote, cloture motion requirement to get any business done.
6
It would seem to me that Reid started in the wrong place when he ended the filibuster. If anywhere, requiring a supermajority for judges makes sense if frustrating because judges are appointed for life, have great power, and are supposed to be non-partisan (having a judicial philosophy more attractive to one party vs. being political hacks or outside the mainstream). As far as everyday business, I'm not sure a supermajority doesn't cause more harm than good.
2
I think the filibuster retains value. There are things that need to be slowed down, reconsidered, adjusted before they are passed into law. The filibuster can help with that. But we need to return to the traditional filibuster of the past--the speaking filibuster.
If a group of Senators care enough to hold the floor for hours on end in opposition to legislation or appointment, and if the remainder of the chamber can't muster up 60 votes to stop them, then maybe it is a good time to step back and reconsider the issue. But that only applies when there is sufficient concern and passion in the opposition that someone or -ones is/are willing to take on the Herculean task of speaking for hours and days on end. We don't need an across-the-board 60-vote requirement for all Congressional business.
4
One must have a long dialogue before eliminating the electoral college, as states' rights are still relevant today.
However, I support the route being taken by a number of states, whereby they are talking about passing state laws that will force their electoral votes to go the way of the nation's majority vote, regardless of how their individual state votes. In this case, the states themselves are mandating how their votes go (states' rights maintained) and yet the popular vote rules.
Most if not all of these states require a number of other states to follow suit before their law becomes active. That number of states must represent at least 270 electoral votes, enough, today, to elect the president.
3
@Sabre This is a great idea but won't make a difference as the states (and party) who are beneficiaries of the Electoral College will not sign on to the program.
1
hmm.... When the shoe was on the other foot Senator Reid didn't complain about the fit. No problem diving in head first into divisive politics.
Of course the Republicans are just as bad.
What we need is a new set of rules. Rules that hold all of them accountable. The problem we, the electorate, have is it's a case of the foxes watching the hen house.
4
I hope some energetic reporter actually finds out and then spells out what is on that list of actions that McConnell is holding up in the Senate. I think if people knew that they might be more inclined to do something about it. Unfortunately the news coverage of the House and the Senate is long on generalities and short on details.
7
The Senate is a relic of the attempt by the writers of the US Constitution to reconcile slave states and free states.
Not only should the filibuster be abolished, but the Senate should be restructured if not eliminated. One Senate seat for states that only 1 or 2 house seats (Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire) and 1 additional Senate seat for 7 largest states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio) recalculated every 10 years after the Census.
And lets get rid of the Electoral College.
6
@Brad We would have to write a new constitution. The two senators per state is the only provision that can never be amended.
1
No thanks. Not particularly interested in two or three states picking the President.
1
ELECTION REFORM MUST CAPTURE THE BENEFIT OF ENDING THE FILIBUSTER
The filibuster is a tool of obstruction, but polarization of the occupants of the Senate Chamber is another link in the chain of legislative paralysis.
As long as Senatorial candidates are afraid of being "primaried" (e.g., by the NRA or Koch Brothers), and this goes for both parties, obstruction of nationally popular policies will continue.
Campaign finance reform and non-partisan gerrymandering reform are important. But a popular and perhaps more easily followed path to reducing partisanship is the state-by-state adoption of open or, as in California, top 2 primaries to select candidates (which brings in more centrist independents and raises turnout to make "primarying" by vested interests much more expensive). And use of "Ranked Choice Voting" (where second and third choices are made on ballots) in general elections, also a choice controlled by the states, eliminates the spoiler effect, whereby Ross Perot threw the 1992 election from Bush 41 to Clinton, and Ralph Nader threw the 2000 election from Gore to Bush 43.
Leading members of both parties who are interested in making government work again, making it represent the people again, should support both filibuster elimination AND election reform.
1
Attendance should be mandatory while the Senate is in session, and some of the speaking time should be allocated by random drawing. I do not mean this as a mechanism to give everybody time, but rather as a means to ensure each member knows something about the matters being discussed. Since they are going to vote, they should be prepared to share an informed opinion.
1
The GOP showed with the Kavanaugh nomination that it would abolish the filibuster whenever it suited its partisan purpose.
If the Democrats had abolished the filibuster in 2009, when they had, for a brief, shining moment (between Al Franken being seated and Ted Kennedy dying) 60 votes they could have gotten a much better version of the ACA, and put forward programs to fight the Great Recession.
In short, Harry, you are 10 years too late.
5
Let's focus on eliminating the electoral college. So many people don't vote because "my vote doesn't matter." Well it doesn't.
8
@Ellen F. Dobson the movement to choose the president by the national vote is almost halfway on its way to success (states totaling half of the electoral college votes needed, have already passed the legislation on the state level). If a few more big states sign on, the electoral college will not matter anymore. No constitutional amendment or change of law at the federal level required, as the constitution says it is up to the states how they hold their elections and choose their electors.
Just as important is to end the power of the Majority Leader to block action on bills and nominations.
20
@Tim Connor
YES !
I have already written extensively about this. There is no power vested by the Constitution in the Senate Majority Leader.
The Senate must change their rules to permit legislation to be taken up by other means than the agenda set by the Majority Leader.
Two possible alternatives are:
The Majority and Minority Leaders can both bring legislation and nominations to the floor in proportion to the representation of their parties.
Legislation and nominations can be called for by either 1/3 (34) or 2/5 (40) of the Senators so calling.
In either of these two solutions, the Majority Leader can retain prominence and primacy without having the ability to block Senate business.
1
Many of these comments seem to be claiming that the filibuster is a sideshow, and that the real problem is that the Senate itself is unrepresentative, because each state gets the same number of Senators regardless of population. Well, of course it is. Our country is called the United STATES. The Framers insisted on important roles for the states, because that is what was required for our country to become something more than a confederation of independent states. Frankly, these days, I think that the country would be better served as 50 independent states. If Massachusetts wants to confederate with California and Illlinois, more power to it. But I don't think that they ought to rule over North Dakota and South Carolina simply by virtue of population.
6
@Vanessa
3 million votes didn't matter in the last election. That's more people than some states have. The electoral college needs to go, although it will likely never happen since low-population states won't abdicate their overblown power.
@Vanessa
Your idea failed miserably in the period between American victory in the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the Constitution (1781-1789). I don't think it would fare any better today.
1
@Vanessa
And the reverse? Should Massachusetts and California be held hostage to, say, Kentucky, or North Dakota?
If you want change, it's best not to place blame on one side. BOTH sides of the aisle have used the filibuster for decades. "They used it better than us, so they are to blame," come on, you can do better.
I remember Senator Reid, then Minority Leader said that he would "Never, ever", not just never, abolish the filibuster if he were Senate Majority Leader. And the Democrats were using it at the time.
It's actually great that Senator Reid wants to end the filibuster, and it should have ended years ago. But to blame one group and then ask them to help change things isn't the way to do it. Don't insult me and then ask for my help.
7
@Steven the “both sides used it “ line is a false equivalency. There were more filibusters during Obama’s tenure then the entire history of the filibuster before he was elected. As usual Republicans abuse the system for power and the Dems must do similarly to keep up. I suppose McConnell’s refusal to give Garland a hearing means a president will now be unable to get a SCOTUS nominee unless his or her party controls the senate whether Dem or GOP. Sad but recognize who set the policy.
4
Mr. Reid's suggestion is horrendous. Abolition of the filibuster for most judicial appointments led to its abolition for Supreme Court nominees and cabinet appointments. Events since January 2016 demonstrate the terrible consequences of this development. The filibuster has served the country well for over 200 years, by forcing compromise and by preventing adoption of popular provisions (which the House's majority rule approach permits) that cannot muster a strong enough majority to demonstrate buy-in even among members of the minority party. No amount of dissatisfaction with current events justifies the filibuster's elimination. A better solution is for dissatisfied voters to elect enough senators who support their positions that they will vote for bills facing a filibuster by a dissatisfied minority.
3
@Joseph U. Schorer
I have to believe former Senator Reid knows what he's talking about when he says the filibuster was created in 1917. So it's inaccurate for you to say it has served the country well for over 200 years because it's only been in place for 100 years.
@Joseph U. Schorer
You didn't read the article, the filibuster wasn't created until 1917. So it couldn't have been used for 200 years.
@Joseph U. Schorer It is the job of the President to nominate judges, of the Senate to vote yes or no. Sometimes, a bad President might nominate bad judges, that get approved by a simple majority of bad Senators. c'est la vie - just vote for better people next time.
Only a simple majority is needed according to the constitution. The filibuster was never intended to be used in this way and is a historical accident. The minority in the Senate has no right to stop a nomination. Similarly, when Mitch in 2016 prevented confirmation hearings for Garland, that was unacceptable and likely unconstitutional. The process is intended to always work the same: President nominates, Senate votes yes or no.
Had the filibuster not been watered down by the Democrats our courts would not be now filled with Trump appointees.
Governing is not supposed to be fast. 60% support is not unreasonable. 6 out of 10 is not a lot of support.
5
@willt26
That would be fine if control of the Senate agenda were removed from the Majority Leader and made a proportional process engaged in by both the Majority and Minority Leader.
Such a change would prevent a single individual from blocking legislation and nominations, forcing them to come up for consideration.
In that case, the 60% threshold could perhaps be maintained.
This is a critical reform that is needed to restore sanity to American politics. The Senate was created as part of a compromise to ensure small states (in terms of population) felt they had a voice. Those states today are predominantly Republican, and on a state by state basis, outnumber the bigger states, meaning the Senate skews Republican. After all, states like California, population 40 Million, only get the same number of Senators as Wyoming, population 400,000. The filibuster gives those same small states yet even more power. While small states should indeed have a voice, they should not get an automatic veto on legislation the overwhelming majority of Americans want.
I agree wholeheartedly: abolish the filibuster.
4
The filibuster was used to extend the life of Jim Crow, by blocking civil rights legislation. For that reason alone it deserves to die.
I am glad that Reid is making this argument now, when the other party controls the Senate. He recognizes that abolishing the filibuster will sometimes work against his own party's interests. But it needs to be done.
6
The Constitution permits Congress to establishes its own parliamentary rules, but not rules that contradict the Constitution. Federal courts have ruled many times that the Constitution provides that all measure that come before the Senate except treaties, constitutional amendments and impeachments are to be settled by a simple majority vote.
The Senate’s 60-Vote Rule and the House’s Hastert Rule—also known as the “majority of the majority” rule—are unconstitutional. If Congress refuses to abolishes them, the federal courts should rule them unconstitutional along with other parliamentary devices designed to prevent measures from being brought to a vote.
3
God, I miss him.
Seriously.
5
Let's abolish the Senate.
24
A unicameral government is actually used in at least one State (Nebraska), and it works quite well.
The irony here is sweet. Harry Reid, what a clown. BTW he's the one that changed the rules so Supreme Court nominations only needed a simple majority vote. How did that work out for the left?
12
Wrong. Check your facts. Harry Reid changed the filibuster rule for federal judge appointees only, not supreme court appointees.
3
@Bill
You would be mistaken, in fact Reid says, "I kept the filibuster in place for Supreme Court Nominees, believing the filibuster was necessary, for other Senate business".
Republicans abolished the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees in 2017. So let's review, who controlled the Senate in 2017, wait for it, The Republicans, so who's the clown now.....
Then why didn't you do it under YOUR watch, Harry?
#RepealSenateRule22
5
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appears to have a miniscule, near=-zero, statistically non-significant impact on public policy," from ""Testing Theories of American Politics, Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens," by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (1914)
It's the members of Congress and the thousands of lobbyists and the money spent by the latter for the votres of the former that crushes the will of the American people, not filibusters Everybody in Washington and many outside know that. Even, or especially, the former Majority Leader.
2
@escobar
On quote: 2014, not 1914. Old guy old habit,
You mean the mechanism that just prevented Trump, Ryan & McConnell from being able to pass nearly any law that they wished to (assuming it was to the Freedom Caucus's liking)? You mean the institution where the Democrats are fundamentally at a disadvantage due to being piled into a small number of high population states? If the Dems can cobble together 51 Senators you'll get some more laws passed, but make it that much easier for them to be undone when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way.
6
The question is whether the attempt to overturn the filibuster could be filibustered. There might have to be a 2-thirds vote in the senate of all present, according to Wikipedia.
1
@Mark Browning
They can do like Senator Reid did to get the change for the judges, simply say that 51 equals 60. That's basically what they had to do to get the change.
2
@Steven
Isn't that the so-called nuclear option? That might set a blueprint for railroading legislation, if it hasn't already.
Ha ha, the Senate considered as a democratic body. Even without the filibuster, a small minority of the population of the country can control the senate. If the filibuster were eliminated, it is still the case that about 17.5% of the population can vote anything down in the Senate. So something supported by more than 80% of the country can fail in the Senate. All the filibuster does is make this more extreme. The US constitution is anything but democratic.
5
HARRY REID Warns us that the very existence of our Democracy is threatened by the abuse of the Senate filibuster. The GOPpers have used it as a weapon of mass destruction lo these many years, to devastating effect. McConnell's office has become a graveyard for many bills that are supported by a majority of voters and even of Senators. But McConnell is beholden to the GOPper extremists who place ideology ahead of official duty and power ahead of patriotism. It is high time that the filibuster be ended!
3
I think what would be better is a return to the system of checks an balances and the spirit of compromise between the three branches of government rather than the political gamesmanship between the two political parties, particularly when the president is completely devoid of policy or thought.
1
Sad to me so many people fundamentally do not understand the way our government is set up. The Senate exists to represent the interests of states as sovereign entities. The state of Oregon's government is the first body the people of Oregon turn to in order to solve problems in Oregon. When our state needs federal assistance or cooperation from other states, we rely on our state representatives to put the interests of our state, our people, forward to the national body in Congress.
The senate was never intended to be the "will of the people", it was intended to be a check on it. To give the states as political entities a measure of power in government. The total population of a state might be small compared to the rest of the nation, but as a member of the Union, as one of 50 recognized States in these United States, they have considerable influence. The difference between a few million people protesting something and a State representing several million people protesting something is the difference between mob rule and real political will. A mob protesting achieves only violence and disrule, a State resisting something represents the political will of a sovereign government that will actively resist a measure put in place.
Just look at how states resist the Trump regime. You want to take that away?
15
@Joel Lovely idea. But the 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of Senators, bypassing statehouses entirely. For us to go back to how the Framers intended it to work, we'd have to repeal the 17th Amendment by passing another amendment.
I believe that the 17th Amendment was a mistake and we are living with the consequences every day. I can't prove this, but it's probably no coincidence that the filibuster was created 4 years after this amendment passed. Whatever happened, we now effectively have 2 Houses of Representatives, but one of them is anything but representative of the makeup of the country.
The filibuster is only one of several undemocratic procedural rules of the senate. How about the rule which allows the senate leader, in this case Mitch McConnell, to refuse to bring any bill to the floor of the senate for a vote because he doesn't like it or because he thinks it will hurt his reelection chances. Or consider the rule which allows any senator to hold up the vote on a bill because he/she objects to the bill. The senate is without doubt the most undemocratic body in our government and badly in need of reform.
125
@RF
Add to that list (undemocratic entities/processes) the electoral college.
8
There are NO RULES in the Senate, only precedent. Look it up.
It’s the “Housification” of the Senate by back-water Republicans that lower the IQ of the Senate. In 2015, I attended a GAI training in DC and one of their analysts simply stated that the House was full of the lowest IQ and most poorly educated members in over 100 years. I witnessed House hearings run by Republicans and easily verified that statement. Logic and thinking was side casted for inept ideology based on biblical thought and 10th century science. Burn her, she’s a witch!
To those of us who are not nor have never been U.S. Senators, the problem from our point of view does not appear to be procedural. The problem with the U.S. Senate seems plainly structural.
As it stands today, the U.S. Senate makes a mockery of "representative" government, when voters from Wyoming and North Dakota effectively disenfranchise those from e.g. California and New York.
Undoubtedly, at least some of the framers wished for wealthy landowners from less populous states to have some sort of "check" on true representative democracy by the masses. Today this built-in bias has completely overwhelmed the chamber and allowed one individual deeply in the pockets of corporate interests to grind the governance of the nation to a halt.
Unless and until this structural defect is remedied, "procedural" deficiencies pale in comparison.
32
I would refine Senator Reid's observation just slightly: the Senate is suffocating the will of the American people.
By the very fact of over representation of small states and under representation of large ones, voting in the Senate is now routinely contrary to what the majority of citizens want. Taxes, for example, are taken from large states to benefit the small.
The Senate has outlived its usefulness and now exists only as a toll-collector for whatever legislation wealthy patrons might wish to buy.
52
@Justin
"Taxes, for example, are taken from large states to benefit the small"
Not dissimilar to Federal Income taxes being extracted from the 53% of Americans to pay for the 47% who pay none at all
3
@SteveRR
And that 47% are the rich, because if you work, and don't pay taxes, it's because you make too little.
Maybe the 1% and corporations pay their share. If your rich, and you make money from money, you'll pay a higher tax rate than those with the pass though loophole and others. So working Americans pay more in taxes because they draw a paycheck. How is the equitable.
5
I disagree with Senator Reid. Keep the filibuster. Bring back earmarks. Give members an actual incentive to work together and reach across the aisle again. Right now, there is no reason for any member to do this and thus no collegiality among opposing sides.
10
Given today’s political climate, I reluctantly agree with Senator Reid.
The current over-use of the filibuster thwarts majority opinion and weakens coalition building.
But it is occasionally worthwhile to protect minority views on controversial issues. In light of that, might a solution be to restrict the use of the filibuster to 2-3 times each year for each party?
5
The best way to fix the problem is to stop clowns like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell running the show. The framers may not have wanted the Senate to become a partisan graveyard, but at one time Senators were chose by State legislators & that was changed to direct election. The filibuster isn't the problem, its the gratuitous change's to Senate rules made by men in power for far too long. The best way to fix that is to fire them on election day. The filibuster is a good way to keep the minority in the discussions as well. our framers were also concerned about pure democracy, mob rules. The solution is to male sure anyone filibustering needs to stay on the Senate floor making their case.
12
@Ron. Term limits on these jobs are also effective.
If Senator Reid is of a mind to make suggestions as an elder statesman, then I suggest he also address the problem that a handful of extremely rural states with far, far, less combined population than NY and CA have the power to completely control everything that happens there. This was not the intent of the framers of our Constitution. It was a temporary, accidental expedient at the time, and one which has become totally absurd over time, with changing demographics. If the Senators in this small states do not help us all and approve measures to correct the situation, then they are not patriotic Americans. Mr. Reid, please drive home this simple point.
37
@Tom This fix could actually come in the House of Representatives in upcoming budget negotiations by refusing to include the Universal Service Fund charges on cable and phone bills that fundtelecommunications, hospitals, and libraries in rural communities.
If the Senators from small states (e.g. Mitch McConnell, KY) want to hold our country hostage, then let them support themselves!
5
@Tom
Respectfully, you are off base unless referring to The Electoral College. States don't vote but instead citizens of States vote. NY & CA cannot control anything in The House because there are 435 House members total or which requires a simple majority of 218 to pass or defeat a Bill. It's our whole national population not state populations that the U.S.A. governs first & foremost. That's why The Senate has ultimate power over The House. And U.S. Citizenship trumps State Citizenship the latter have their own Constitutions.
As to the Framer's intent(s) that is completely irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution is actual written law. Like driving 80 mph but the 'posted' speed limit is 55 mph. If stopped by Cop, what is the driver going to say it should have been posted at 80 mph.
1
@Samuel Owen
I mentioned the framers original intent to help those readers who are unaware of exactly how we have found ourselves in this totally undemocratic, idiotic situation which is a threat to the foundations of our nation. Surely you don't believe that idiotic laws should not ever be updated and re-written? And that abject stupidity should be kept in place forever because it is "the law."
4
The real question here is how are Democrats supposed to achieve this as long as Mitch McConnell and Republicans control the Senate?
Changing that be the first order of business because it has already ground to a halt.
20
@N. Smith
By the Press, publicly campaigning that impeding or prohibiting co-equal Congress Members from fully participating in their U.S. Constitutionally mandated responsibilities and duties is a Civil Rights CRIME against all Americans who voted for their own choice of U.S Government Representation. Its a Slam Dunk! And since filibusters and other such gidgets are by Congressional Rule Making they can be ended immediately.
@Samuel Owen
As long as there's unequal representation in Congress granting one party more control than the other, it's a crime.
And prior to the midterm elections that exactly what we had when Republicans effectively controlling all three branches of government.
THAT, Sir. Is not a Democracy.
@N. Smith
Political parties are not authorized or allowed under the U.S. Constitution to perform governance. Obviously independent members can vote the same. But when we as citizens and the Press continue to accept the false premise that a majority party can rule instead of 'independent' representatives we have no argument based on Constitutional Law. Full participation in U.S. governance by a Senator or House Rep.can't be blocked by Congressional rule making This is not Britain. The words democracy, politics and party appear nowhere in The USC. Instead phrases like member votes, advise & consent, investigations, & committees etc. are used. What about libertarians, independents, progressive parties and so forth under Congressional and or Party rule making such members and public citizens who may embrace them are effectively excluded governance. 'Political' gerrymandering like filibusters are unlawful. Aren't individual states further divided into counties with set boundaries? Then the population of those counties can be U.S. House Districts. But my argument is that all our Government Officials are freestyling instead of following The USC of 1992. U.S. House members that could have filed "I" before Mueller's report but had 'political and legal' reservations? One does not need a Law Degree to be elected President or to Congress. That should inform every citizen that they are being snowed by politicians posing as Public Officials. Good Judgement and The USC suffices.
1
The House got rid of the filibuster. So should the Senate. The federal government is supposed to be functional not dysfunctional. Why should the minority in the Senate be able to block almost everything the majority wants. If the country doesn't like what the majority is doing in the Senate they can vote for the other party. However, along with getting rid of the filibuster it is critical to stop voter suppression tactics like voter ID laws. Fair elections are needed. And it also important to keep foreign governments from tampering with our elections. It is essential that Americans trust the electoral process for the democratic system to work.
4
For the same reason a minority of voters in rural states play a disproportionate role in the electoral college and the get same number of senators as states with much larger populations. In our country the majority does not get to automatically dictate to everyone else. It is one of the things that helps make America a decent place to live.
5
Rather than end the filibuster, why not return it to it's original form in which a Senator had to hold the floor continuously, the particular filibuster ending when the Senator was unable to hold the floor any longer. Currently it seems that merely mentioning that a filibuster is planned requires cloture and 60 votes. Besides adding a personal cost in time and energy from an individual Senator, it also removes cover for those who use the cloture rule to "secretly" oppose a bill - not voting against a bill but simply by not voting for cloture.
97
Indeed! The reforms to make the filibuster less than a total blockade of all Senate business actually made the filibuster more easy to employ as a tactic. When the Senate was unable to undertake any other business, the use of the filibuster was significantly less than it has been post-reform.
2
@Bill
The filibuster does retain it's original form. What they have been doing for some years now isn't a filibuster. It's the threat of a filibuster. It's become so common the distinction has been lost. I agree it would be a good thing to find it again.
2
Sen. Reid did not mention the important fact that today's filibuster is a caricature of the true filibuster. For most of the time filibustering took place, the filibusterer had to actually speak on the Senate floor the whole time. Then the Senate changed the rule to the painless filibuster, under which a Senator could simply declare a filibuster with no other action, and that would raise the threshold for approval of a measure from 50% to 60%. At the time it seemed like an improvement (it reduced the threshold from 66 2/3% to 60%) but by making filibusters painless it encouraged rampant filibustering on everything under the sun.
Sen. Reid is right. It's time to get rid of the painless filibuster.
14
If the filibuster had been abolished in 2017 & 2018, the Republicans would have abolished Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, HUD,,,,basically every social safety net that we have. Don't ever assume Republicans won't get full control of Congress again.
108
@Ann
ObamaCare repeal effort failed when Senator McCain voter NAY and made it 49-51 so the filiblister did not come into play.
It is unfortunate to see Senator Reid essentially double down on the same terrible and damaging string of idea he unleashed in the first place. Yes. It's tough to get stuff through the Senate. It's supposed to be. That, I learned in civics and political science is EXACTLY what the framers intended. Also, "the Will of the American People?" I think Reid needs to reexamine how the Senate is configured. The Senate is not apportioned by population. His proposal would effectively exacerbate the issue we have with gerrymandering -- that it is NOT reflective of the population. Irrespective of conservative or liberal, how does giving Montana the same weight at California (or New York or Texas) enhancing the will of the people?
10
This only makes sense if it is coupled with repeal of the Electoral College. So long as the State of Wyoming (population 577,737) has the same representations in this august body as the State of California (population 39,865,590) it makes little sense.
6
@R. Parker
Totally different action.
@R. Parker Nothing is stopping you from moving to Wyoming and helping to "spread out" the population...
In the last administration Democrats succeeded in changing the rules for appointment of Federal Judges to their advantage. After the last election they wanted to abolish the Electoral College. More recently many of them wanted to increase the number of judges on the Supreme Court. Now they want to abolish the filibuster. Whenever things aren't working for them they want to move the goalposts or rewrite the rules. As soon as they get into power again they'll forget all about this stuff, they won't want to change a thing--that's democracy for you.
6
That politics has devolved from being a reasonably collegial exercise to a scorched earth, take no prisoners exercise reminiscent of the 19th century, which should not be unexpected, or a surprise, as one of the major political parties has also returned to 19th century for its principles and policies.
But, then again, the Founding Fathers never did intend for the hoi polloi to have the political influence it has now...
3
Coming from the guy whose elimination of the judicial filibuster led straight the the elimination of the filibuster on supreme court justices and the current Supreme Court...nice going Harry.
6
@Roy
You are very naive if you think the Republicans needed Reid to show the way.
1
@Roy Finally, a commenter who hasn't forgotten history!
Harry launched the nuclear option never thinking Democrats would one day be in the minority...
No one ever ran for the senate promising not to vote or discuss any legislation so there is no record of how they stand. The rules need to change
The senate must vote on all legislation the house passes and live on that record.
8
If the US Senate hadn't gotten rid of the judicial filibuster, McConnell wouldn't have been able to stuff the federal courts with over 100 right wing judges during the past 2 years.
13
Majority is fine, but I think a Senate vote should have 10 percent of the minority's votes in favor of a bill for it to pass, or for a nominee to be confirmed. (In the current Senate that would be four votes Democratic Senators, meaning if four Democrats joined 47 Republicans, the bill or nomination would move forward.) We don't need a tyranny of the minority, but we also don't need the McConnell railroad we've got now.
5
This might help short term but would also cause some unintended consequences by making it much easier to change the law forever, which could result in major rapid changes with a simple majority. The real issue I think is that basically everyone thinks congress is doing a horrible job (10-15% approval) but the same bums (like Harry Reid for a long time) keep getting re-elected. What we need is more focus on congressional races and especially primaries by the media. Like asking why most of them never propose anything significant. Also more significant changes like non-partisan primaries would be a big improvement. And even major changes like making congress non-partisan and forcing them to run on actual policies instead of the letter beside their name.
5
Before changing the filibuster, let's start by eliminating the arcane rule that allows ONE PERSON - the Senate Majority Leader - to block legislation from coming to a vote in the Senate.
That is far more damaging to our democracy.
956
@Robert Schechtman I think that may be a more sensible first step, because rule by 51 senators can be easily reversed in the next election, creating a Yo-Yo effect.
4
@Robert Schechtman
No ONE PERSON should wield so much power!!
2
@Robert Schechtman YES! Anything brought forward by a committee should be put to a vote.
9
The filibuster has become an anchor around the nation’s neck. It has no basis in the Founder’s Constitution. The rule, which was created in the early 1800s has been greatly abused over the past couple of decades. A new rule correcting this needed if this country wishes to move forward and lead in the 21st century. Sen. Reid is correct.
3
The minority deserves a voice, but Mr. Reid is right to point out that allowing unlimited time to delay is as good as blocking legislation entirely. I applaud Mr. Reid's courage in pointing this out, despite the fact that his party does not currently control the Senate.
Perhaps if Congress were able to more easily pass bills, voters would feel more engaged and supportive of their government. Certainly the current gridlock is making nobody happy. Even if some bad bills get pushed through by a majority, voters will see that their votes have consequences and respond accordingly in the next election. As it is, I feel that many people don't care anymore since all their reps do is sit around waiting for something non-controversial to be proposed. If we knew there was something to lose by electing the wrong people, maybe the electorate would pay more attention.
2
A simple majority should suffice for passing legislation. If it does not work out as planned, then Congress can always change or repeal it.
However, judicial appointments with lifetime terms should require 60 votes to confirm.
12
@MBR
All this will work just dandy until it's your side who's affected.
@MBR It doesn't take 60 votes to confirm any judge -- or any legislation. Clarence Thomas got only 52 yes votes, and Kavanaugh only 50. (Still way more than either deserved.) It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster, which prevents a vote from taking place. Democrats could have prevented the Thomas nomination from coming to a vote, but they didn't. Only McConnell has ever done that in Senate history. His claims that the Democrats did it first are lies.
1
What about the notion that any and all legislation will sit in the back pocket of the majority leader so it never sees the light of day?
There are obviously pitfalls to fixing it, but it has to be better than a single pol preventing anything from coming up for a vote.
10
The filibuster has often been used by Democrats.
It is one of the protections built into the system to ensure against the "tyranny of the majority." If a large minority feels strongly enough about something, they can prevent action.
Is it abused? Yes.
Is our politics today dysfunctional? Yes.
Empowering a majority to run over a minority is not the solution to the problem we've got.
Our problem is the corruption of big money in politics, that buys bad faith behavior serving what FDR called "moneyed interests" instead of any concept of national interests.
143
@Mark Thomason Better the majority "run over" the minority than the other way around; like it is today.
11
@Mark Thomason
It goes both ways. For better or worse, controversial laws SHOULD have a high barrier.
3
@J Anderson -- Yes. A good example of that is Brexit. A dramatic departure for a whole nation should not turn on 50% + 1. That is insufficient respect for the 50% - 1.
Routine things can be different just to keep the system moving, but some things are just far more than routine.
At the moment we have one self-serving partisan hack elected by a handful of people in a regressive district in a republican state holding the entire country hostage while his cronies steal and pillage everything they can get their hands on.
The system is broken beyond repair. We need to rewire our government and reestablish the will of the people.
280
@mj
The country was founded on the idea of State's rights and not an overweening Federal government.
I am always amazed at how many folks forget their Gov 101 - the Federal system is designed to make it tough for the imposition of Federal laws on individual states and the idea that 'doing nothing' is better than rule by the elites in Washington.
3
@SteveRR. Many laws within states will not protect citizens in other states against, for example, certain kinds of assault weapons, or cigarettes ( remember them?), or clean air and water etc.
What we have now is an intentionally broken government. Remember “shrinking the federal government until it can be drowned in a bath tub?”
Business oriented Republicans who don’t know or don’t remember the history of 19th century capitalism are anxious to return us to that time and its miseries. One way to do that is to create dysfunctional federal agencies, business without regulatory guardrails, politicians who choose their voters and their justices. When states’ rights take preeminence over federal law you end up with battles that we fought a civil war over. Some issues require a federal response.
End result of too much states’ rights and a paralyzed federal government? Authoritarian federal government headed by not one, but two, fascist oriented men: Trump and McConnell.
7
@SteveRR Our federalist system went through a major revision in the wake of the Civil War. Prior to that citizens identified with their state. When Lee was asked by Lincoln to lead the union army he declined, saying that his first loyalty was to his country, i.e. Virginia. After the Civil War loyalty was not to any particular state but to the country as a whole. There is no such thing as state patriotism.
4
Oh, Harry! You ended the filibuster for federal court nominees and had no idea GOP would extend that to cover SCOTUS nominees. Right.
22
I agree Senator Reid, the Senate has become "the world's most debilitative body" and one of the things that protects these cowards is the filibuster. No votes means no responsibility and no consequences. Just getting them on record would be nice. I also don't approve of the idea of just declaring a filibuster as opposed to doing the hard work that performing a filibuster entails, speaking until you or your voice gave out. As with the gun laws, I'm sure the people who created the filibuster in 1917 would be appalled at it's abuses and how easy it has become to accelerate them.
3
Glad to see Sen. Reid supporting this.
1
Some of us voted for gridlock. Now, let's repeal some laws.
1
You cannot get laws repealed with gridlock. That’s the point, it isn’t just new legislation, it is all legislation. I would love to see federal laws repealed on marijuana and minimum sentencing, but gridlock isn’t going to get those laws repealed.
The senate itself is already undemocratic because large states are massively disenfranchised. The filibuster protects disenfranchised urban America from powerful rural America.
5
@David Johnson
https://youtu.be/JFGhX0hLy6E
Why the Electoral College exists and still works.
Guess they can then just chalk up any serious and positive actions “because filibuster”. A perfect scapegoat.
Mr. Reid,
You can forget representative government as long as the Republican hijacking of democracy remains in place and the Grand Old Propagandists are able to successfully hoodwink the Whites R Us masses with a delicious vanilla milkshake of fear, loathing and 'socialism'.
Besides, Monarch Mitch McConnell has apparently settled on a monarchy as the proper form of American government...with a Twittering figurehead entertaining the duped masses with his daily performance art.
No Democratic House legislation shall be considered unless Monarch Mitch approves.
Monarch Mitch refused to consider the HR1 bill to expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, and limit private donor money in politics that might help make America an actual democracy.
Monarch McConnell said that the bill was "not going to go anywhere in the Senate" and he would not put the bill to a vote on the Senate floor "because I [McConnell] get to decide what we vote on".
Monarch McConnell called the idea of making Election Day a national holiday 'a power grab'.
So forget about the filibuster, Harry.
The other side has thoroughly rejected democracy, representative government and the people's will and adopted grand political larceny and monarchy as our new form of government.
Until all of us rise up, register and vote in historic numbers in 2020, the Republican coup d'etat and their wrecking ball policy will dominate the American politiscape.
November 3 2020.
VOTE
549
Thank you Socrates, for doing God‘s work.
18
@Socrates
Well said! Clear and punchy.
12
@Socrates
Trump, too, is suffocating the will of the American people.
The more paralyzed Congress is, the more Trump dictates!
Sen. Reid, you know the "Democracy" song, of Leonard Cohen? Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA (1992).
I hope Democrats will use the "Democracy" song against Trump. I hope the Times will write about the "Democracy song, soon:
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
-------------------------------------------
15
Harry Reid essentially gave us Brett Cavanaugh by deploying the nuclear option on judicial appointments. Do we really need or want to do the same thing to the rest of the legislature? You never know when you’ll be the next minority on the right side of history in a world on the wrong side of history. Those moments were made for the filibuster, every political party deserves the right to their Mr. Smith goes to Washington moment!
2
@Courtney
Wrong, wrong ... how many times must we explain that the Republicans would have done the same in every scenario, because they have no respect for the opposition?
2
A true democracy -- not the Oligarchy of the USA -- would have thrown Mitch McConnell out of his position as majority leader, when he announced that he would make every possible effort to obstruct EVERYTHING proposed by Obama in order to make him a one-term president.
98
The filibuster does enable a minority to stifle the majority from deciding policies and laws for all.
However, the power to do is not the authority to do if it defies the consensus which provides that authority.
The fact is that the minority is close to half of the people, and they are not okay with what the majority wants. That is a problem.
I am convinced that most of the opposition is the responsibility of the least able to contribute the governance of this country, Tea Party and right wing Republicans. However, liberal democracies must offer all the guarantee that their rights and interests are not deprived by majorities which operate like tyrannies. Whatever their complaints, they need to be seriously discussed, considered, and worked through.
It's one thing to disagree about a few issues but about all is a failure of our form of government.
2
@Casual Observer Correct, the failure of the two party system.
2
You have 50 votes (or 50 votes + the Vice President's tie-breaking vote)? You win. Simple as that. Take away what issues you want to see pass or not, having a lower bar to clear means more legislation will actually see the light of day. More legislation seeing the light of day equals more citizens actually feeling the effects of their voting actions, which may lead to more citizens appreciating the cause/effect relationship of who they elect to Congress matters.
7
The filibuster is a higher hurdle but not an impossible one. It naively assumes that Democrats and Republicans really aren’t all that far apart, and that at times will come together for national priorities or the good of the country.
Maybe someday.
6
Harry is absolutely right. A gerrymandered empowered minority is strong-arming the majority of the country. Progressive policies can never be enacted while this "arcane Senate rule" is in place.
32
@Bradley -- Gerrymander has not effect in the Senate, which is elected state wide.
Filibuster only applies in the Senate.
Democrats have a majority in the House, the only place subject to Gerrymander.
19
@Bradley. You can’t gerrymander a State’s vote for senator.
3
@Bradley. Gerrymandering is only an issue in the House, unless, of course, Texas has come up with a way to count Oklahoma, or Louisiana or New Mexico votes in Senatorial races. (Given where we are today, I’m only partly joking.)
2
So says Harry Reid, who ended up allowing Republicans to ram through judicial nominations through the elimination of the filibuster on judicial appointments.
96
@David Please remember that Sen. McConnell, on the night of Pres Obama's election, vowed to make the then President a one termer. Part of his strategy included stymieing the President and his agenda at every turn, including blocking his judicial appointments. When Senator McConnell was able to, among other things, block hearings on Judge Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing, he then had the temerity to blame Sen Reid for his being able to do so.
I ask you this sincerely, what could President Obama have done in the face of Republican intransigence? He tried to work with the Republicans, sometimes facing fierce criticism for doing so from Democrats, and they refused to budge.
Again, what other options did Senator Reid have back then?
57
@Eye of Merton two wrongs don't make a right, just a really right wing Court.
6
@Eye of Merton
Good points. It's just that we are stuck now (whoever's fault) with an unending line of appointments going through McConnell that are padding the judiciary.
3
And while we're at it, let's use the Electoral College as a tie-breaker, not to hand elections to candidates who lose by millions of popular votes.
634
@JimBob for someone who lives in an area of the country that is not on a coast I would prefer to keep the Electoral College. Without it our voices are not heard nor truly represented. I am by no means a fan of the current administration but with the polarization in our country at fever pitch I prefer to see everyone truly represented as the Electoral College has time and time agin provided.
19
@Nature Voter
The Senate already gives smaller states hugely disproportionate representation. The president should be elected by the people, not the states.
447
@Nature Voter Your point about the electoral college affording your vote the same weight as people on the "coast" simply isn't true. Your vote weighs more than mine simply because you don't live on the coast. And that's what's not fair. It doesn't justify casting aside 3 million more votes registered for the loser of a race. It's absurd on its face.
217