Yes if a Senator wants to delay a vote indefinitely they should be willing to risk exhaustion and dehydration. If the cause is that important this should be a risk they are willing to take.
So do we. Yes, a bit corny at times, but the acting is terrific, most of the scripts, particularly during the first 4 seasons, before Sorkin left, are excellent, and it has you wishing that those who hold the office possessed the integrity Josiah Barlet had. An imperfect man, to be sure, but head and shoulders above the real presidents I've witnessed.
an essay on West Wing today at The Week: https://theweek.com/articles/976281/what-learned-rewatching-west-wing-biden-era
"Democrats face filibuster stress test on key voting bill. It's not just Manchin and Sinema": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ter-stress-test-key-voting-bill-it-s-n1271306 excerpt: WASHINGTON — Democrats are about to face another stress test over the filibuster, triggered this time by a high-priority bill to remake U.S. election laws, headed Tuesday for a dead end due to the 60-vote rule. And it isn't just Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who oppose rewriting the rules of the Senate. The two moderates have been the most vocal, but it's the worst-kept secret in Washington that they are not alone. Several other Democrats have indicated in interviews that they are reluctant to kill the filibuster or that they prefer to make "reforms" — Washington-speak for maintaining a supermajority to pass bills, even if changed a bit from the current filibuster rules. It's a harsh reality for progressives — both inside the Senate and outside — who had hoped their party might be provoked into nuking the filibuster and approving legislation with a simple majority. *** This round will test those senators who say they support overhauling voting laws, but not the drastic step of killing the filibuster for it. Among them is Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., who is noncommittal on changing the rules. "What I'm open to is considering and looking at any proposed changes in the rules. And I will ultimately make a decision based on: Do I feel — is this in the best interest of the state of Arizona and the country?" he said. "And I'm not looking for something that is in the best interest of just Democrats." Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., wants reform, not an elimination. "I have talked about the importance of reforming it," she said. "I think it's critically important that it not be abused and I think that we are having these discussions right now." more at the link
The filibuster reflected a time when bipartisanship still existed in this country - that is dead. We are in a zero sum political environment where by one side has demonstrated it will scorch the earth to get what it wants. Abandoning the filibuster is just the completion of that process at this stage.
Opinion: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-for-the-people-act/ Opinion by Kyrsten Sinema June 21, 2021 at 8:31 p.m. EDT Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Everyday Arizonans are focused on questions that matter most in their daily lives. Is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? What about health care? When can I retire? Is my community safe? Meanwhile, much of Washington’s focus is on a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation. Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results. Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on. The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation. I understand bipartisanship seems outdated to many pundits. But the difficult work of collaboration is what we expect in Arizona. And I still believe it is the best way to identify realistic solutions — instead of escalating all-or-nothing political battles that result in no action, or in whipsawing federal policy reversals. Since I was elected to Congress, a bipartisan approach has produced laws curbing suicide among our troops and veterans, boosting American manufacturing, delivering for Native American communities, combating hate crimes, and protecting public lands. It’s no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House, and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018. If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same whether in the minority or majority. Once in a majority, it is tempting to believe you will stay in the majority. But a Democratic Senate minority used the 60-vote threshold just last year to filibuster a police reform proposal and a covid-relief bill that many Democrats viewed as inadequate. Those filibusters were mounted not as attempts to block progress, but to force continued negotiations toward better solutions. And, sometimes, the filibuster, as it’s been used in previous Congresses, is needed to protect against attacks on women’s health, clean air and water, or aid to children and families in need. My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles. To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority? To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access or retirement benefits: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing Medicaid into block grants, slashing earned Social Security and Medicare benefits, or defunding women’s reproductive health services? To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to empower federal agencies to better protect the environment or strengthen education: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see federal agencies and programs shrunk, starved of resources, or abolished a few years from now? This question is less about the immediate results from any of these Democratic or Republican goals — it is the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government. And to those who fear that Senate rules will change anyway as soon as the Senate majority changes: I will not support an action that damages our democracy because someone else did so previously or might do so in the future. I do not accept a new standard by which important legislation can only pass on party-line votes — and when my party is again in the Senate minority, I will work just as hard to preserve the right to shape legislation. Good-faith arguments have been made both criticizing and defending the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017 by 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster — a belief shared by President Biden. While I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on the matter. It is time for the Senate to debate the legislative filibuster, so senators and our constituents can hear and fully consider the concerns and consequences. Hopefully, senators can then focus on crafting policies through open legislative processes and amendments, finding compromises that earn broad support. A group of 10 Democrats and 11 Republicans that I am helping lead has reached an agreement on an infrastructure investment framework. We are now negotiating with the administration. Bipartisan working groups to which I belong are negotiating how to address our broken immigration system and raise the federal minimum wage. I strongly support bipartisan discussions underway on police reform. The Senate recently passed a critical water infrastructure bill, as well as crucial research, development and manufacturing legislation. It’s possible that not all of these efforts will succeed — and those that do may not go as far as some of us wish. But bipartisan policies that stand the test of time could help heal our country’s divisions and strengthen Americans’ confidence that our government is working for all of us and is worthy of all of us. Instability, partisanship and tribalism continue to infect our politics. The solution, however, is not to continue weakening our democracy’s guardrails. If we eliminate the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, we will lose much more than we gain.
I agree with many of Sinema's points and have said frequently that for Democrats to do away with the filibuster they are likely to see that used to overturn the laws they want to pass now and likely not that far in the future. That said I don't agree with an automatic 60 vote threshold and here I think making the filibuster standard practice is a problem. This is why I've been saying we should go back to tradition of the talking filibuster. That is more in line with the views of the Founders and with the history of the Senate.
To me, we need the government to move faster in a world that is moving at a much faster pace than ever and that will continue to accelerate. I don't see fast legislative changes, even 180-degree type changes as a huge issue, not at the cost of doing nothing. Instead, I see it as a function of a fast responsive democracy that will eventually settle and collapse down to some agreeable level. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that a "good" side effect of jerky legislation is eventually the parties realize they do need bipartisan legislation and have to work together. In a state where it is too easy to say no, bipartisan legislation is already dead as it is today. In a state where it is much easier to pass legislation, parties of different opposing opinions need to actually work to get their ideas into legislation that will pass. Eventually, practicality means the people in Congress will start to work together again instead of just relying on a simple NO to almost everything.
Sinema stated that she doesn't support changes that "damages our democracy" ignored the fact that functional democracy at the state level and in other countries do not have the filibuster. The reason is there are other check and balance already in place. The fear is overblown IMO. And I would say that a legislative branch that cannot do what the people want most of the time is more damaging to democracy, or to a government "ruled by the people". People tend to eventually lose hope and get frustrated with the system of a-do-nothing government, remove themselves from civic duty, and don't participate in future elections. Now, if there are more changes, even those they don't support, they will see their vote do impact policy and are more likely to participate, increasing the chances of a government "ruled by the people". Most US states don't have a filibuster – nor do many democratic countries (theconversation.com) As a comparative politics scholar, I have come to the conclusion that because many democratic constitutions already include so many other checks and balances, giving the minority party veto power over widely supported legislation is unnecessary, which is why most U.S. states and most democratic countries do not allow their legislators to filibuster. ... The U.S. system has been designed with more checks and balances than many other successful democracies. Eliminating the filibuster would bring the federal government in line with the majority of U.S. states and democratic countries around the world.
We can already see what faster legislation will look like in the House. When the majority flips we see all sorts of legislation passed through that body with a lot of it being extremely partisan. Given how much Executive Orders are used now we can also get a sense of with the change of Presidency that a lot gets passed only with the next President reversing all of it. Based on those two examples I don't think it's likely that speeding up how the Senate works will lead to more bipartisanship or better thought out legislation. What I think it will lead too is each party passing their wish list and then when things flip the next party repealing that and then passing their wish list, rinse and repeat. Given how large and complex many of these laws that might not lead to stability. For example on infrastructure you could see projects started with narrow political basis only to be stopped as politics change. We already see that. While the Senate shouldn't be a graveyard for legislation it certainly was never meant to work like the House. While I agree there shouldn't be a 60 vote threshold as standard practice there does need to be way for the minority to protect their interests. Just consider if there weren't those protections from 2017-2019 what the GOP House, Senate and Presidency might've gotten passed. Many of those Trump EOC's might actually be law now. Also we need to remember while it might seem like there is no longer such thing as bipartisanship Biden has been able to pass two very important bills with strong bipartisan support, Anti-Asian Hate Crimes and increasing US Hi-Tech competiveness. Trump was able to get Criminal Justice Reform passed with support of Democrats.
House legislation that died and doesn't get enact doesn't impact anyone at all. More extensive use of presidential EO is a necessity of a government that doesn't work and it's not legislation - it is also done by a single person, not a group of people. Both of those aren't good examples IMO of a legislative branch that passes more laws as more laws are not passed in both cases. They are, however, examples of exactly the inactions of legislation for many years. I think the check and balance we already have in place and the Constitution does provide good protection for minority rights. Those Trump's EOs as laws might get thrown out by the Court. Today Senate can change them as well. The voters react more aggressively to more extreme changes and we witness some of that for the horrible behaviors and some bad EOs. Legislation that implements horrible policies and bad laws that do survive the Court would likewise, IMO, get a larger reaction by the voters to overturn them. Yes, there is still some non-controversial legislation that passes easily. Since members know that they will pass, they participate in debates and propose amendments to them. If we extend that to more legislation, we are likely to end up with more bipartisan legislation. I doubt members want to not voice and include their ideas once they realize an easy NO is not on the table.
I don't agree that gov needs to move faster, I see a lot of money being wasted on pet or ill-conceived projects and legislation. and I certainly don't agree that wild swings of the pendulum would mean that parties will realize bipartisanship is needed. There is to much traction in running for office on combating what the other side is doing for it to change anytime.
Except many of these House laws aren't passed because of the filibuster and also why those EO's aren't laws. Understand that there are other checks and balances besides the filibuster but relying on the courts is a time consuming process and also leads to complaints about judicial activism if the courts. Further as we've seen with the Robert's court there are plenty of times that the USSC defers to the Legislative Branch. Without the filibuster there is less reason for debate and amendment if the majority knows that they can push through legislation with a narrow majority. If that members are willing to get on board because there isn't an easy no we wouldn't see the House as divided as it is.
Right, it stops at the House. Many proposals also stop at the Senate. Many of these are passed for political reasons or statements with the reality that there is no chance they will become law. There is very little reason for the minority party to participate when it won't become law. When there is a good chance, they are more willing. It's but one example, but let's consider ACA. Dem has a supermajority in the Senate and can pass without a single Republican member, before Ted Kennedy's death. There was significant Republican participation early on in the Senate side, but that all died down once the Dem lost the supermajority. The bill was dead or would have to pass as-is, and that's exactly what happens. The House passed the Senate version that passed before Kennedy's death without changes. Debate was dead, amendment was dead, changes were dead after the supermajority was lost. All of that was happening when there was a filibuster-proof Senate. Yes, it's possible that some proposed laws completely ignore the minority party or worse, so extreme that the minority party wouldn't even care to participate even knowing that it would pass. They may instead depend on the Court and/or the next election. I believe this would be rare though, even with today's partisanship. There are moderate Senators on both sides and you will likely need them to pass anything without a filibuster in place. These Senators will have a natural check on extremism and some protection for the minority voice. McCain and 2 other Republicans stopped the "skinny" ACA repeal. The $15 min wage can't get through because of 2 Dem Senators. These aren't even extremists, but they do have a difficult time getting through even a simple majority through the reconciliation process. In a simple majority operational Senate, both parties will want to work with these moderates and I think they will gain more power and we will see a stronger center instead of what we have today where the extreme sides seem to have the most power. From time to time, bad law can and do get passed but as I stated before, I think it will eventually even out. Bad law will get a strong public reaction and hopefully, translate to stronger voter turnout to overturn. And I don't think the Court system would be a slow recourse. If it's indeed extremist and possibly against the Constitution, the Court can strike it down pretty quickly or at least put a hold on it until it gets to the Supreme Court. We have seen Court doing this against Trump's EO quite quickly and I think it can happen against a law passed that is so extreme that it's pretty clearly possibly unconstitutional to have a strong and fast reaction from a federal Judge. The Court is a check on the legislative branch, so yes, people can call it whatever, but the Court needs to be doing its function. I think the critic that it defers to Congress is exactly because some people want the Court to be making law when its job is only to interpret it. And I think the reason this happens is that Congress hasn't been doing its function and lawmaker has tried to push it onto the Court to make policy because it's so impossible to do anything in Congress. As Congress starts to be operational again, the Court naturally will fall back to its function to be a check on Congress and to interpret the laws.
At the very minimum, Dems should get rid of the filibuster to *open* debate. There's no reason legislation shouldn't get the opportunity to even be discussed and amended. You can, for now, leave the filibuster to end debate, thus still preserving the power of the minority. But separately from this, Dems should stop these omnibus bills that encompass a gazillion different things. Take the voting rights legislation, and turn it into 20 smaller bills. And make the GOP oppose each one of those things individually - basic things like guaranteeing voting hours or whatnot. The omnibus legislation will never pass anyway, so see if any individual pieces of it will slide through and move things forward. Put the GOP's "we'd vote for good voting rights legislation" to the test.
With the filibuster, we are guaranteed ONLY bipartisan legislation, barring the few times they can use reconciliation. Removal of the filibuster would lead to a lot more party line legislation. Why compromise when you can pass whatever you want and the opposition can do nothing to stop you?
It causes gridlock much more than bipartisan legislation. The main goal of getting rid of the filibuster is for Congress to be operational again instead of constant gridlock on nearly everything. Without the filibuster, I think you direct compromise to a new area. Today, compromise with the other side is a dirty word as you can lose the next election for it. The minority party without the power to easily block is no longer held responsible for blocking legislation from the other side. On the other hand, the majority party is held responsible for getting things done. They no longer have an excuse of I can't do crap because the other side blocks everything. They must work with their members to get laws passed. That is not a given and there needs to be compromise among party members. Each wing of the party needs to compromise with each other to get things done and that should itself help to moderate from either extreme. Compromise then is mostly shifted from a dirty word to a required skill to get things done.
Quite the opposite. With the filibuster, the only guarantees are no legislation. Democrats operate in good faith and would still accept Republican input. Ending the filibuster would increase bipartisan legislation. This is a step in the right direction to end the radicalism that is overtaking the right.
This is just demonstrably not true though. There is legislation being passed with bipartisan support, so clearly there is not total gridlock. The minority party is blocking the partisan agenda of the majority. They can and do pass things that draw support from both sides of the aisle. They passed the high tech competitiveness bill, it looks like there is a bipartisan infrastructure bill coming, etc. The Republicans aren't blocking things because they fear losing elections, they are blocking them because they don't support them. When there is an evenly divided Senate, it is going to be what the most centrist 60 Senators can agree on that gets passed. Trying to pass a progressive agenda is what makes it look like there is gridlock. Personally, I would prefer gridlock, because the federal government is almost universally bad, but that is not what is happening. How did the high tech bill pass? How are they getting a new trillion dollar infrastructure bill? When they control 50 seats in the Senate, Republicans don't want to make marginal improvements to Democrat's wish list items, they would rather pass nothing. You have to write legislation from the ground up that both sides agree on. We are getting bipartisan legislation, because that is all that can pass.
