Doris Kearns Goodwin: “Let Them Filibuster.”

Can I get a rousing “About d*mn time” from anyone else?

Wow, she completely stole your idea, KT!
.
Is it because Doris Kearns Goodwin is a notorious plagiarist?
.
Why do they let her on Meet The Press, anyway?

About d@mn time!!1!

My guess is that they’ll look as foolish trying to filibuster as the house republicans did today trying to question POTUS.

Why do they let her on Meet The Press, anyway?

The same reason they let that notorious empty-headed senator McCain on the show.

At the beginning of the next congress, the senate should vote to end the filibuster by requiring only 51 votes for cloture. According to the constitution, each new congress can set its rules by majority vote. Why should a procedural vote take 60 votes to pass but the actual legislation needs only 51 votes? The senate is broken and needs to be fixed. The founding fathers never meant for a supermajority to be needed to pass legislation and there is no mention of the filibuster in the constitution.

Didn’t the Senate adopt a rule that said that the new Congress couldn’t change the filibuster rule unless it had 70 votes to do so?

Cause she sucked Kennedy **** and NBC has a hard on for all things Kennedy.

Can they end it quickly / permanently during a real filibuster by raising a pt. of order, appeal, then squash it with maj. vote? Or are there other steps?

KT, kudos on keeping this idea out there, but Doris didn’t give YOU props. We need to keep your media starlet status high. Speaking of, are you doing any tv face time this weekend (any wash. week?) or next week? Is HCR the most likely place for a real filibuster? Or finance reform or other topic? thanks

I see.

KT: I have called both my Senators. Boxer was open to filibuster her rep said. Feingold’s rep said she wasn’t sure about her feellings. This is always Feingolds answer until she finally has to make a decision. She is California’s (I’ll try to word this correctly Stuartt) New Democrat Centerist. I am hoping she retires. David Broder and Chris Matthews love her. Enough said.

Karen,

Explain to me where Senators get to stand up and talk, when these bills are getting killed and/or yanked during cloture votes?

Explain to me how Ryan Grim’s article is inaccurate. Simply saying it is, is at best disingenous. If you have a point, make it.

It’s possible I missed a dramatic transformation, but I think you mean Feinstein, not Feingold. Unless, of course, Russ has shifted states and gender since yesterday. Dianne Feinstein – Senator (female) California. Russ Feingold – Senator (male) Wisconsin.

At some point the Dems have to just move forward and leave the Reps where they are at. It does no good to just stand there with them.

Hey, Monica’s more of a genius than we ever knew!

What almost always happens in the face of a Fake Filibuster is that the Majority (in this case, Democratic) leadership concedes defeat and takes its own bill down. What they would have to do (as Byrd did on campaign finance in 1988) is refuse to take the bill off the floor, and then put a quorum (51 senators) on the floor, so that the filibuster-er can’t “suggest the absence of a quorum.”
.
This is how you get around this problem suggested in the Huffpost piece:
.
As both Reid’s memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, “I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

Duh. Junius you are so right. If only we had Feingold instead of Feinstein.

Again, you may ultimately lose (as Byrd did), but you do get a chance to expose obstructionism for what it is. For the record, I felt this way when the Republicans were in charge, too. My first beat in Washington was Capitol Hill, and I have a lot of admiration for the legislative process. Unfortunately, as years have gone by, I have noticed that fewer and fewer legislators do.

By the way, this was my first post on the subject, in July, 2007, which was about six months after we began Swampland:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2007/07/17/oh_for_heavens_sake/

I am sure you’d be happy to rethink your denunciation of Kearns Goodwin when you cool down, Stuart. Yes, she was involved in an embarrassing case of plagiarism, but she also has a reputation as a fine and prolific historian. I would hate to see you become the spob of matters intellectual.

Karen,

What you wrote is clearer, but I still need one more thing clarified:

So, the Senate puts up HCR. It fails on a Cloture vote, lets say 51-49. It’s not yanked by Reid, we do what Byrd did, and we being a process where we keep 51 Senators on the floor, waiting for what? A moment where there isn’t quorum? That’s what I wasn’t clear on.

“July, 2007, which was about six months after we began Swampland”

For many of us there are two lives: BS & AS. I actually didn’t know I started frequenting this joint around the time it began. I thought you people had already been here for ages.

If you really think that the public is behind you, and really wants the legislation that is being blocked, you go out and make the case for it. And then you trust the voters (here’s the Mr. Smith model, though he was the filibuster-er, but you get what I mean…) to put pressure on the people who are blocking it. The point here is to make your case, and trust that if you are right, the other guys are going to feel the heat.

@K-Tum: Props today for your voice on the Diane Rehm Show. Lotsa topics. Good insights. Thx.

It’s puzzling: there are many complaints about filibusters and why doesn’t the Senate eliminate it. Yet when asking how to end it, there’s silence. I’ve asked often about might be one way, but am not 100% sure if its the only way, are other steps needed, etc. So is there real interest in ending this process or not?

The Democrats don’t have the balls to take on people in their own party, and people think they are going to do this? Dream on.

@K-Tum: To be clear, what you are describing is a “Mr Smith” in reverse, correct?
.
In the movie, Mr Smith, the lone Senator, outlasts the quorum to get his point across.
.
In Reid’s Senate (should he ever wear big-girl panties), a quorum of 51 Dems would outlast the body/brains/bladder/bowels of a lone Republican trying to block legislation.
.
Is this accurate?

Because the majority knows that there will probably come a day when they will be in the minority again, and they are going to want to have it if they are.
.
Here’s a story I did when Frist tried to change the rules on judicial nominations. Back then, it was Republicans who accused Democrats of abusing the filibuster:
.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1064469,00.html
.

At stake is the essence of the Senate: Should the institution maintain the unique culture that the framers of the Constitution envisioned for it, a place where a minority can have its say and even have a shot at winning a battle here and there? “The whole idea of the Senate is that it’s different from the House. The passions of the moment can cool here,” says North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, one of the Senators who was trying to come up with a deal to avert the vote on the nuclear option. If Republicans can manage to end the filibuster of judicial nominees, Democrats warn, it is only a matter of time before they end the filibuster on other issues as well.

Moreover, many of the newer Senators have never known what it is like to be in the minority. They have little patience for arcane traditions that can allow the objections of even a single Senator to bring the place to a halt. “The institution is important, but the future of the country is what we’re here for,” said South Carolina freshman Jim DeMint at a Capitol Hill news conference to express support for Bush’s judicial nominees. Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson recalled that when he was elected to the Senate last year, his House colleagues joked that he would have to get a lobotomy to fit in. “Every Senator has immense power, but it’s all negative power,” said Isakson. “You can stop anything, but you can’t do anything.”

@decon: I believe that the answer to your question is the point that Karen has been trying to make for going on 3 years now: breaking a filibuster is “inconvenient”.
.
51 senators have to be ready/willing/able to wear down one (1) senator.
.
Inconvenient, but not impossible.
.
But, when the stakes are that every single f@cking piece of legislation is going to be blocked…maybe it’s time to man-up!?

Exactly. But either way, you’ve got to know that you are right, and trust that the public is smart enough to figure that out.

Also, kbang, I hope you don’t mind if I steal your big-girl underpants line the next time I post on this subject.

I see you’ve become an official GOP spokesman. Nothing constructive or fact-based to contribute, eh?

Karen – what about the fact that life is different now than it was in 1988, and that “let them filibuster” means “let the Republicans keep the floor for as long as they want, being fed position papers etc, instead of telephone books.” Wouldn’t this give the Republicans a lot of uninterrupted time on C-Span? Is this part of the reason the Democrats resist it?

KT, thanks for the article + your reply. I appreciate these. The mention of Harkin is fascinating. He’s now pondering a bill to weaken filibuster – yet you pointed out his changes of mind (1995 end fil. vs. 2005 defend it) – and he’s doing it again.
.
kbang, I’ll need to start viewing this as you’ve said: 51 vs. 1 (don’t let that one be Lieberman, please).

HAHAHA I am laughing at the notion of that (GOP spokesman). If you had paid attention to my posts over the last 6 months you’d see that I’m an independent (I say just as many bad things about the GOP). I don’t think too many people would disagree with what I said on that either (with the blue dogs/fiscally conservative dems). And I think it is constructive to note that the Dems ARE NOT going to do this if they can’t even take on their own party. Nice try.

I see little Apollyon is pretending to be an independent again. Funny how a so-called “independent” just coincidentally spends all his time giving the GOP verbal blowjobs.

Grol, take your trolling elsewhere. Apol and N-R are libertarian-leaning conservatives who’ve earned the respect of many liberals here, even if we disagree on many issues. Equating them with Spob or the dog is absurd. You seem to come here exclusively to piss on others. if you took the time to engage you’d be able to tell the difference. I’ll take a respectful conservative over a trollish liberal anyday.

Yep. they would have lots of uninterrupted time on c-span. and the country could judge whether they believe the republicans are obstructing good policy, or making a good point. the media would be all over it; each side would have a chance to make their case to the country. maybe they would both get tired of it and actually start negotiating. as it is, the democrats (or whoever is in the majority) just folds.

The Dems are exaggerating the damage done by a filibuster and the GOP is exaggerating the good that can come from a filibuster.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Thanks so much for all of this great, fun fact-filled engagement with commentary, KT, it’s awesome.

When the Republican leadership was asked whether they would wear adult diapers to circumvent the bathroom problem, they answered in unison, “Depends!”

grollican:
.
If you have something to say about apollyon07, why don’t you make a coherent argument refuting him?
.
Can you?

Pissing on you, jcapan, would be too easy. You’ve never stood for anything in your life. As for Zechman, all he does is fill the threads with long-winded rants for which he offers no evidence. And you wonder why the GOP laughs at you!

@K-Tum: I would be honored if you lifted my “big-girl underpants” line the next time you posted about #makethemfilibuster…

I guess you can’t.

Pissing on you, jcapan, would be too easy. You’ve never stood for anything in your life. As for Zechman, all he does is fill the threads with long-winded rants for which he offers no evidence.
.
Really?
.
If you’re serious, then this is ilikechips- or textee-level pathological self-delusion we’re dealing with here.

LOL grollican, I will give you a cookie if you can cite multiple things I’ve said in the last month that will qualify as “GOP blowjobs.” People like you are so predictable. You are so blatantly wrong that I don’t even think it’s worth this much time.
.
jcapan, you hit it right on the money- libertarian-leaning conservative. Grollican, if you had paid attention to anything I’d said since I joined here, you would know that.
SZ made a great point too…come up with some refutation and we’ll talk. FAIL FAIL FAIL.

“The country could judge..” Glad to know you’re still an optimist at heart :0). In the meantime, I’d just settle for the Democrats not folding all the time. Bring on the filibuster!

There are no moderates!
.
Not a single Rep. willing to buck his/her own party!
.
Dem with heads spinning around, and around trying to find which way the wind is blowing.
.
The Senate is hopless.
.
There needs to be term limits.

“In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.”

.
From the Congressional website for historical review.
.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
.
You see ladies and gentlemen, the founders of the constitution allowed for filibuster to protect the miniority. As it has been said earlier, many times restricting filibuster has been attempted, but in the end rational minds look into the future when they will become the miniority, and think twice.
.
If they vote for changes of “Rule 22″, to decrease the number of votes required from 60 to let’s say 51, then in future years when they are the miniority, this will shut off their voice of potential opposition.
.
People confuse our Constitution as purely a Democracy so far as the founding fathers are concerned. It was not based solely on Democracy, “pure majority rule over others”.
.
Our constitution and government is a “Republic”. You should read more history to see what the intentions of the founding fathers were, and I believe they were absolutely correct in how they set it all up initially.
.
Google “Republic versus Democracy”, and you will get your answers.

Does anyone want to tell Rusty that Clay and Benton weren’t “founders of the constitution”? Or that Rule 22 isn’t part of the Constitution?
.
No? OK.

Karen – Why isn’t anyone considering the “constitutional option”? I read the entire legal journal article that the former Counsel to the Republicans on the Senate Rules committee wrote. He and his co-author make a very strong case for the possible success of this strategy. You’d be able to explain it better, but essentially they say the Constitution doesn’t say the Senate rules can only be changed by a supermajority. Rather, it says the “each session” makes its own rules by a simple majority. And they offer other strategies that would eliminate cloture for specific instances, without eliminating it forever. And this legal opinion was written by republicans. So why not try it?

Just for you kevin:
.

“The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.”

.

“[edit] U.S. filibuster history
[edit] Early use
In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate “to move the previous question,” ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[19] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[19] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay “may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter”. Other Senators backed King, and Clay backed down.[19]

Contemporary scholars point out that in practice, narrow Senate majorities were able to enact legislation.[20] Majorities were able to prevail because of an implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority.[20]

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
.
The constitution has not changed on this matter, just the “rules” over the years.

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
.
This is what I believe Karen calls “Harry put on your big girl panties and make it a requirement to be on the floor to filibuster. But, the fear is that for most Senators, they do not want to be tied down to their offices or the floor of the Senate.
.
Right now you see them file into the chamber, holding their hand/finger up waiting to be recongized for their vote. Most then leave. If Harry puts on his “big girl panties”, he would be in essence requiring them all to sit through all debate, all discussions about any specific bill, and then vote. This is the nuclear option. Once he pulls the trigger, it will require ALL proposed legislation to be conducted in this manner from that time forward.
.
I stand to be corrected, but he can’t just flip the trigger on the nuclear option for just one bill, like health care reform, and then go back to what they now do in the Senate. Once he takes that step or makes that choice, they must keep doing it until that specific session of Congress is over. This is why in my opinion they are very hesitant to create a filibuster environment as Karen Tumulty proposes. No more golf outings, no more political fund raisers, no more long lunches, etc.

Rustyreturens – You cite the correct portions of the law and some of the precedents and I agree with your conclusions, as far as they go. However, I’d like you to read the entire Harvard Law Review article by Gold and Gupta. I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me they are offering ways to trigger the option without making it permanent. I’d appreciate your reading of the article.

On the other hand, why not trigger it for the rest of the Session? If the maneuver is successful, The Democrats will maintain at least a simple majority in the next Session and can rewrite the rules.

Thanks for your response.

Just for me? Gosh, thanks, Rusty.
.
The filibuster is not part of the Constitution. Period. It is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Period.
.
But keep doing Wikipedia searches to try and prove otherwise. It’s ADORABLE!

Oh I know there are other “options”, the main option is recission. Recission deals with funding, which is a simple majority vote. The requirement is however that all votes under recission must be funding bills, such as the budget.
.
Now the question is does health care reform fall under the “budget” umbrella of reconciliation? The second question is once they pass it under reconciliation, and for sake of argument the Republicans take back the Senate in 2010, then they can pass another reconciliation vote which would repeal this bill. So people would have health care reform for a few months, then have it taken away or changed dramatically.
.
I am not for or against either filibuster or reconciliation. However I see consequences in using either so far as health care reform is concerned, especially for Democrats. The other concern for the moderate democrats in the Senate in particular, is a majority of their constituents are against health care reform as it is currently written in the bill. They are at a high risk of being voted out of office. This is a good thing in my mind, but which democrat in that situation would be willing to go along with it? Nelson is already screaming for help from the Republicans to put pressure on Harry Reid not to allow this to go through, because he knows he will be voted out of office if it does.
.
You are also opening up “Pandora’s box” as well. Who is to say new legislation cannot be proposed if the Republicans take back Congress both House and Senate one day and pass legislation that severely restricts abortions? Restricts all kinds of liberal legislation?
.
My theory, Harry knowing he may be voted out of office himself, will allow for reconciliation or use the nuclear option towards the end of 2010 in order to get health care reform passed. It won’t happen until late into 2010.

“The requirement is however that all votes under recission must be funding bills, such as the budget.”

.
Should read, “The requirement is however that all votes under reconciliation must be funding bills, such as the budget.”

But kevin, you are “adorable” when you act so stupid. Keep up the usual great work you do to show that liberals are not all elists intellectuals!!!

Right, I’m stupid because the facts are on my side. Whatever makes you feel better, Rusty.

Filibuster for dummies!
.
1. “The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings”, so it is written in the
……………………..C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N………………………
.
2. Filibuster is a rule for each “house” as they choose to define.
.
3. Filibuster is a rule which the Constitution grants power to each “house” of Government.
.
4. Liberals for the most part are easily debated and proven wrong because they have no rational undertanding of the constitution or for that matter common sense.
.
5. Kevin drinks at the liberal trough filled with liberal kool-aid and is unable to understand even the basics of facts. Kevin is wrong with his statements and this is a FACT

The filibuster is legal, Rusty. I never said otherwise. But it is not specifically in the Constitution as you implied. It is a creation of the Senate, and can be changed as they desire. They’ve tinkered with it before, and they can do so anytime they’d like.
.
For a group of people who constantly insist on “original intent,” you sure don’t understand the Constitution. At all.
.
But keep at it. I just showed this exchange to my father-in-law, a lifelong Republican, and all he had to say about Rusty’s insanity and what it means for the state of his party: “Jesus wept.”

“…the country could judge whether they believe the republicans are obstructing good policy, or making a good point. the media would be all over it…”
.
Maybe if I start drinking now…

jcapan: I got here just after the big thread meltdown. I thought it had been here quite awhile too. I posted my 1st comment one year ago this month. (terrorist fist bump)

KT: Any chance of a “1000 Words” for the weekend?

sure. i’ll go hunt around for one.

You’re a blogger, KT.

KT: Thank you. I have to run a couple of errands but I’ll give it hell when I return. Have a good weekend.
.
You’re the best btw.

done. and thanks.

SZ: A blogger DELUXE. She’s also kind enough to throw the rabble a bone that we can chew on and then hijack for the weekend.

As soon as I heard from Ana Marie Cox that she was blowing Wonkette, and heading up the writers at a new political blog at –of all of the crazy, decrepit places to try new media– Time, I started to check out what she was writing, and whether she would change (the way that Ezra Klein has, for example).
.
When I commented, I would ask her questions, criticize her writing and see how she was doing, and she did what normal bloggers do, which is sometimes respond, sometimes after having a cocktail or two (I presume).
.
That started this whole thing, I think. That was in 2007, I believe.
.
KT started responding soon after. Jay Carney wouldn’t have anything to do with us, and it took two years for Joe Klein to finally get down. Scherer and JNS respond and tweet.
.
There’s no other mainstream publication blog like this one, I believe. The commentary here is relatively superb, the interaction is relatively common, the community is ideologically diverse and erudite (and funny and interesting and real-life).
.
There’s nothing like this; a horrible, MSM pile of garbage, milquetoast, dinosaur, dead-tree publication going down the crapper that has a real, honest-to-god blog and blog following, that starts and continues real, important conversations in the blogosphere.
.
It’s an amazing place.

I agree SZ. One of the reasons I enjoy Swampland so much is that it does have have such a good cross section and variety of views. I got tired of trolling the conservative sites and the liberal sites aren’t any fun when everyone agrees with you. The interaction from TIME’s writers is a huge plus. I do miss pourmecoffee, pirate wench, sgwhite and some of the others though.

About d*mn time

KT: you have just articulated my feelings, with one exception: That would rely on the Ds having enough of a backbone to actually run an ideas campaign. Unless Reid +snort+ or a semi-competent spokesperson emerges, it will just be endless hours of Rs screaming “socialism socialism”. Now, if the Ds could get someone to stand up and say “Well, we’re trying to make policy, but these paranoid nutters keep ranting….” then that would actually work.

“Now, if the Ds could get someone to stand up and say ‘Well, we’re trying to make policy, but these paranoid nutters keep ranting….’ then that would actually work.”
.
I’m trying to remember who that “someone” should be. You know, some presumably neutral third-party who’s paid to tell the public the truth about their elected officials. It’s right on the tip of my tongue…

Medics? The Medicis? I know it’s medi-something.

Actually, by “someone” I meant ‘someone with an ounce of competence within their own party”. it’s not the media’s job to point out what obstructionist fools the Rs are being. That’s the Ds. job. But I would expect the media to cover it if a full filibuster was mounted, and I would also expect the D’s to take advantage of all that free media time. But that’s asking waaay to much of Reid.

[...] that wasn’t enough, you have well known author and confirmed plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin arguing on the Daily Show that Democrats should force Republicans to filibuster in the old-fashioned Mr. Smith Goes to [...]

[...] on C-SPAN tying up the senate with their BS. See what the citizens think of that.” Recently a spate of writers and politicos have offered Democrats the same advice—make Republicans stage a real, live [...]

[...] Re: Politics of Process… Posted by Karen Tumulty Monday, February 8, 2010 at 8:02 pm 22 Comments • Related Topics: congress senate , filibuster, make them filibuster Michael, per this post, I'd again like to make this argument: The filibuster is not the problem. The filibuster is the solution. If only they made Senators like they used to. [...]

[...] Submit a Comment • Related Topics: make them filibuster By golly, this is turning into a groundswell! Harry K. Scwartz delivers the latest endorsement in the Philadelphia Enquirer: Well, yes. The [...]