The other day, I suggested that it’s time for the Democratic leadership to give up on the status quo regarding filibusters and start forcing Republicans who want to block legislation to literally filibuster. I based this in part on several conversations with Hill staffers, who told me this is an option for Reid & Co.
And since then, I’ve heard from many more who’ve said the opposite. Senate procedural rules are exceedingly arcane, but this might be one of the trickiest unresolved questions: can the majority force the filibustering minority to do things the old-fashioned, talk-’til-you-drop way?
To help try to resolve the matter, Time’s Karen Tumulty, to her enormous credit, tackled the question this week.
I called two of my favorite Smart Guys. Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution calls this idea impractical. Given the fact that Republicans could muster 41 people on most things to hold the floor, a real filibuster could go on interminably: “The bottom line is, the modern Senate can’t run without unanimous consent agreements. …It isn’t as if a different strategy would have produced a different outcome.” With so much must-pass legislation before him, Mann says, Reid’s only real option is to “take your lumps and get it done.”
But Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute thinks Reid should call the Republicans’ bluff, starting with holding the Senate in session five long days a week. “You have a different Senate now. Frankly, they’re soft,” says Ornstein. “If they had the backbone and the discipline to do it, it would work.”
That’s … really not helpful. Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein have forgotten more about Congress than most of us know, and on this point, they don’t agree. And if they’re confused, I feel a little better about my own puzzlement.
Kevin Drum weighed in with an interesting take.
As near as I can tell, Reid does have the authority to demand a real honest-to-Capra filibuster. But then what? It all depends on who you listen to. Expert A says it would work. Expert B says no, the Republicans would just take turns speaking in between naps and the real pressure would be on Democrats, who have to keep meeting bleary-eyed quorum calls. Expert C says the problem is that it would bring all other Senate business to a halt, while Expert D says no, other business could proceed. And Expert E says it might work, but if Reid declares war on the Republicans they can start withholding unanimous consent on everything in sight, turning the whole place into a gigantic Sargasso Sea of legislative molasses.
And even if it did work, George Bush would just veto the resulting bills anyway and no one would care. Hell, Bush has now vetoed the SCHIP bill twice, and unless you’re a major political junkie you didn’t even know about the second go-around.
On that last point, I agree in part and disagree in part. Kevin’s certainly right about the inevitable vetoes — the president would have no qualms about rejecting everything in sight, reflexively and without hesitation.
But I’m not sure about the “no one would care” part. The typical voter doesn’t know what a filibuster or a cloture vote is, and only casually understands events in Washington. As far as he or she is concerned, there’s a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and they’re not delivering on their agenda. I know it’s because of Republican obstructionism, and you know it’s because of Republican obstructionism, but the typical person wonders why Dems are “failing” to pass legislation like they promised. “We gave them the majority in both chambers; what’s the hold up?”
Vetoes are a whole different ballgame. We’d get on-the-record votes from Republican senators (which could be used in the campaign) and we’d have an easy-to-understand explanation for inaction in Washington.
Ultimately, I still think if Reid & Co. can force real filibusters, they should.