Walter Mondale has weighed in on the pages of the Times (for future reference, and in response to a commenter, any reference herein to the Times, is implicitly a reference to the grey lady) in support of filibuster reform. My wife tells me that the twittersphere (or the portion thereof that she inhabits) is alive with reports of other print media weighing in on the need for reform. Good, for Mondale, except, as with all Democrats lately, he signals a willingness to accept eventual defeat:
Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency — like eliminating the secret “holds” that allow senators to block debate anonymously.
If memory serves, we now have 54 votes in the Senate, and that includes Ben Nelson and Joe Liberman, so the reform he is suggesting would, in the main, leave us precisely where we are now, as you can bet your bottom dollar they will never vote to make these guys actually miss dinner.
How about majority rule, as they practice in every other functioning legislative body in the world? If you want to preserve the right to extend debate, provide for a series of cloture votes, each one of which requires fewer votes, until only a majority is needed. If the right to debate were really at stake, a provision like that should suffice.
Speaking of the filibuster, I would submit that Joe Biden has the power to end it at any time, with the support of the core Democrats. The Vice President has two constitutional functions. He presides over the Senate, and he casts tie-breaking votes. While the Senate has the power to make its own rules, it does not have the power to either remove him as the presiding officer or take away his tie-breaking vote. But if, as Harry Reid has said, “everyone knows it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate”, then the Senate has effectively and unconstitutionally transgressed on his constitutional powers, since a meaningful tie vote becomes impossible. The framers, who we all worship, actually intended that the Vice President preside over the Senate. Just ask John Adams, or consult his diary in any event. That means he makes rulings. All he needs is one Senator to make a point of order challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster and, as presiding officer, he can rule it unconstitutional. The framers, by the way, also expected that the majority would rule, else there would have been no reason to provide for a tie-breaker.
Post a Comment