Filibuster

By now you've probably heard that Senate Republicans filibustered efforts to fund a phased redeployment of American military forces from Iraq. I was at a breakfast this morning with Nancy Pelosi where she addressed the problem of majoritarian legislation passing the House, then going to the Senate, then attracting majority support in the Senate, and then dying anyway in terms that hinted around at the idea that maybe the Senate's cherished traditions aren't such a hot idea. Certainly I think so, and certainly I wish the Democrats had seized the opportunity of the "nuclear option" debate to finally rid the country of this horrible prop of status quo bias.

It's worth considering that in January 2009, Americans will probably have a president elected on a platform of universal health care and robust action to curb carbon emissions, a House Speaker who backs both of those things, and a Senate Majority Leader who backs both of those things, and nevertheless the odds for either of those things happening aren't especially good and the reason is the filibuster.

Comments

I've been saying for years (though not, alas, in any public forum) that the filibuster needed to go...preferably with a new senate rule added in parallel requiring a positive majority of 60% to confirm Presidential appointmentees. (Note that the Constitution just says "advice and consent"--the bare majority requirement is a senate rule only.)

On a related note, I find it interesting that the senate has never managed to make it clear that the constitution only allows recess appointments when the vacancies occur during the recess. When you get down to the actual text, the senate shouldn't have to stay in session except to prevent sudden resignation/appointment cycles.

Posted by j.e.b. | November 17, 2007 9:42 AM

Americans will probably have a president elected on a platform of universal health care and robust action to curb carbon emissions, a House Speaker who backs both of those things, and a Senate Majority Leader who backs both of those things

What odds would you give there being over 60 Senate Dems? Has that happened before - any one party having the House, the White House and 60 in the Senate?

Posted by Billp | November 17, 2007 9:50 AM

Bzzzt! Wrong!

Our entire system of government is designed to make it difficult to get things done, and that's a good thing. Although not specifically defined in the Constitution, the Senate rules in question are simply another arrow in the checks-and-balances quiver.

The real problem is that the Democrats allow a minority to block popular legislation without making them pay a political price for doing so. The fact that most of the public believes that the Democrats haven't accomplished anything with their Congressional majority without realizing that it is due almost entirely to an unprecedented level of obstructionism on behalf of the minority is completely the fault of the Democrats. (Especially since the Republicans are on record as saying that it is specifically their plan to allow the Democrats to accomplish as little as possible, then run on a do-nothing Congress...)

Posted by Mr. E. Meat | November 17, 2007 10:00 AM

Certainly I think so, and certainly I wish the Democrats had seized the opportunity of the "nuclear option" debate to finally rid the country of this horrible prop of status quo bias.

The republicans, if I remember correctly, were only proposing to do away with filibusters of judicial nominations. So you probably would have wound up with ~100 Janice Rogers Brown clones and still no national healthcare, whether or not you think that's a bad thing.

Posted by southpaw | November 17, 2007 10:00 AM

Um. Matt, you do remember that idiot in the White House, right? Even if the Republicans didn't fillibuster anything, the Dems wouldn't be able to enact much of this legislation over a Presidential veto.

Posted by Ron | November 17, 2007 10:11 AM

I'm fine with the filibuster, but they should have to do it the old fashined way -- stay up all night giving endless speeches and reading from the phone book, etc. That would make it (a) very public and (b) a pain in the ass for otherwise pampered Senators to do, both of which would discourage the practice except in extreme cases. Sounds like a good system to me.

Posted by Led | November 17, 2007 10:36 AM

Let them filibuster. Let them get up before the nation all night and talk about why the American people shouldn't have decent health care, why they should do nothing on carbon emissions, why they don't support bringing the troops home. Make them follow through on their threats.

Posted by Erik | November 17, 2007 10:39 AM

Like many other things about our government, the filibuster made sense back when the federal government did jack shit (i.e. the pre-New Deal era). When the only things debated were silver vs. gold standards and Indian removal, having the filibuster made sense. Now that the government has more power, wanting it to be more responsive to current circumstances is appropriate.

This all ignores the fact that the filibuster is an extra-constitutional device anyway. Senate Rule 22 allows an anti-democratic check on the majority of the Senate. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the filibuster on everything except judicial appointments. Considering how much power judges have come to posess in this society, getting 60 Senators to okay them seems reasonable.

Posted by Lev | November 17, 2007 10:43 AM

"I wish the Democrats had seized the opportunity of the "nuclear option" debate to finally rid the country of this horrible prop of status quo bias."

Yup. It was pretty obvious then, and it's pretty obvious now.

Mark Schmitt is an enemy of the people.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 10:47 AM

"...that maybe the Senate's cherished traditions aren't such a hot idea."

All depends on whose ox is getting gored. Did MY feel that way when the filibuster was used to block Bush judicial nominees?

"Americans will probably have a president elected on a platform of universal health care and robust action to curb carbon emissions, ...and nevertheless the odds for either of those things happening aren't especially good and the reason is the filibuster."

Our political system is now so corrupted by special interest money that any major initiatives like those are likely to be little more than disguises for massive private rent seeking.

Posted by kafka | November 17, 2007 10:51 AM

"If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the filibuster on everything except judicial appointments. Considering how much power judges have come to posess in this society, getting 60 Senators to okay them seems reasonable."

If you want a super-majority required to confirm judges, pass a Constitutional amendment.

Treaties require a 2/3rds majority, for example.

Using extra-constitutional requirements to stifle Senate action wasn't imagined by the framers, and should be rejected in all cases.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 10:51 AM

Art. I, Sec. 5
. . .

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

"Extra-constitutional" is a bit much. You just don't like the rule.

Posted by southpaw | November 17, 2007 11:01 AM

"Extra-constitutional" is a bit much. You just don't like the rule."

What I don't like is that the Senate has said that any a majority of this or any future Senate can't change the rules they make.

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"

The Senate rules are explicitly designed to prevent that House, or any future configuration of that House, from determining the rules of its procedures.

-----

If the current House of Representatives passes a badly conceived rule, the voters could throw the bums out, and a majority of the next House of Representatives would be able to rescind that rule.

If the current Senate passes a badly conceived rule and says it requires unanimity to rescind it, the voters could throw the bums out, and yet a majority of the next Senate would be completely powerless to rescind that rule.

See the problem yet?

I think "extra-constitutional" is the precisely correct way of describing it.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 11:26 AM

Or put another way:

When article 1 section 5 says:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings

It is clearly implied that a majority of Each House can determine its rules.

Whenever the Constitution requires anything but a majority, it is quite explicit about it.

In 2005 when the GOP was gearing up for the "nuclear option", most of the serious opposition wasn't saying that what they were doing was in any way wrong, just that it was impolitic.

If 50% + 1 of the Senate wishes to change the Senate rules, the Constitution says they can.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 11:37 AM

Matt's post just makes me remember to thank God for the fact that our Founders were smart enough to include the filibuster rule. And his scenario for a return to single-party rule is the most frightening thing I've read lately.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 17, 2007 11:45 AM

"the fact that our Founders were smart enough to include the filibuster rule."

You have an "interesting" read of history.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 11:48 AM

The Senate rules are explicitly designed to prevent that House, or any future configuration of that House, from determining the rules of its procedures.

Poppycock. As I understand the procedural tactics necessary to bring the nuclear option about, the end of the filibuster is achievable by majority vote.

An "appeal from the Chair", decided by majority vote of the Senate, can overturn any ruling on a point of order--establishing a new precedent--and therefore altering any Senate rule.

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. (The constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.) A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer's ruling is upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate. The filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Posted by southpaw | November 17, 2007 11:49 AM

"As I understand the procedural tactics necessary to bring the nuclear option about, the end of the filibuster is achievable by majority vote."

We are in complete agreement on this point, southpaw.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 11:54 AM

Note that extra-constitutional ≠ unconstitutional.

The filibuster is extra-constitutional, not unconstitutional.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 11:57 AM

The honorable Robert Byrd:

The Constitution in article I, section 5, says that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. . . . . The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time . . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote.

[I]t is my belief—which has been supported by rulings of Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate—in essence upholding the power and right of a majority of the Senate to
change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress.

So I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you, Petey. I just don't think Senate Rule V (which requires a 2/3 majority for rule changes) is enforceable in any way. And the filibuster is different from Senate Rule V in any case.

Posted by southpaw | November 17, 2007 11:58 AM

"I just don't think Senate Rule V (which requires a 2/3 majority for rule changes) is enforceable in any way."

Byrd and you are correct.

However, there have been some disingenuous voices over the years arguing the opposite position, which is precisely why Byrd had to deliver that speech.

If I were President John Edwards in 2009 trying to pass his universal healthcare bill, I would state that if a minority of the Senate tries to prevent cloture, Democrats should campaign in 2010 saying that they will change the rules by majority vote in the organizing resolution for the new Senate in 2011.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 12:04 PM

Certainly I think so, and certainly I wish the Democrats had seized the opportunity of the "nuclear option" debate to finally rid the country of this horrible prop of status quo bias.

There's nothing wrong with the filibuster, it allows the minority a voice on legislation. You want to see some crazy legislation, look at what's come out of the House in the past few decades. Votes that require simple majorities tend to be the most partisan of all. (And I kind of liked the idea of a filibuster when Bill Frist was in charge).

The problem is that the Democrats don't use the power they have as a majority party to counter Republican filibusters. The majority is much more powerful than the minority. Not only do the Democrats have the right to decide what legislation gets passed, what legislation makes it out of the committees and what gets considered on the floor of the Senate, they can tie any bills the president and his party want passed to the taxes to pay for them.

And of course, they also have the right to filibuster. They just haven't done it yet.

I here too many complaints that the Democrats need 60 or even 67 votes before they can accomplish anything. So why does Mitch McConnell need only 40?

Because he's willing to take the hit. Democrats have to stop complaining and act like they're a leading party again.

Posted by Jinchi | November 17, 2007 12:25 PM

"I here too many complaints that the Democrats need 60 or even 67 votes before they can accomplish anything. So why does Mitch McConnell need only 40?"

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you, Jinchi?

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 12:27 PM

Are you the typo police, Petey?

Give me a break. The Democratic leadership hasn't been willing to fight on major issues. We had Mitch McConnell threatening a filibuster so the Dem's caved on FISA. George Bush threatens a veto, and the Democrats give him a blank check on Iraq. And of course they'd never make him raise taxes to pay for his war, would they?

Democrats may not get the legislation they like. But they don't have to pass George Bush's instead.

Posted by Jinchi | November 17, 2007 12:36 PM

"Are you the typo police, Petey?"

I was objecting to your bizarre logic, not any typo...

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 12:38 PM

I thought the "nuclear option" discussed in the last Congress only eliminated filibusters for judicial nominees, a stupidly one-sided proposal that Democrats had no reason to support. Am I wrong?

I agree that a deal to eliminate all filibusters would be worth it.

Posted by Matt Stevens | November 17, 2007 12:41 PM

"I thought the "nuclear option" discussed in the last Congress only eliminated filibusters for judicial nominees, a stupidly one-sided proposal that Democrats had no reason to support. Am I wrong?"

No. You are correct.

But Matthew and I supported taking advantage of the GOP's strategic blunder because it would've made any future attempt to eliminate filibusters on all legislation substantially easier.

And over time, the filibuster has proven to be a far worse deal for progressives than conservatives. A progressive agenda requires a responsive Federal government. And the extra-constitutional supermajority requirement for cloture creates a much less responsive Federal government.

Democrats who had a strategic timeline longer than a year had lots of reasons to help the GOP pull off the nuclear option.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 12:56 PM

Mr. Meat - Bzzzt! Wrong!
Our entire system of government is designed to make it difficult to get things done, and that's a good thing. Although not specifically defined in the Constitution, the Senate rules in question are simply another arrow in the checks-and-balances quiver.

Endless delay and gridlock and subversion of collectively favored actions by special interests is NOT A GOOD THING.

It puts the USA on track to be like either Israel in decline, when an aristocracy of unelected judges - the Sanhedrin checkmated society from adapting to and meeting new challenges. Or, the sick Byzantine or endstage Ottoman Empire where subversion of the basic functions of government was dictated by those vying for power and wealth and a single Satrap or Pasha or Vizier could derail the work of the masses.

The paralysis of American government is a great thing only if you are a single issue fanatic that wants the will of the people blocked so nothing ever changes on abortion on demand, on tax codes favoring the rich, on agricultural subsidies, etc...... Or you have a core underlying philosophy that all matters of the People should be removed from a weak, paralyzed Central Gov't and left to a new Sanhedrin of lawyers dressed in robes to decide Energy policy, terrorist rights, all matters of education policy, etc..Or you believe that the American Gov't should be weak and ineffectual except exist to distribute Pork to powerful constituencies, and otherwise let the "genius" of the Free Market determine how big our SUVs are, where we fight wars, and drive State-based solutions to all problems which only exist at an individual State level.

For 30 years the fucking baby boomers have done nothing but argue on major issues as crises accumulated and intensified.
If we really tank as a nation, become a global laughing stock for our foreign policy, energy policy, education rank, barbarism in inner cities, collapsing infrastructure, a wastrel debtor nation - the next generation will have to work to fix a number of messes that likely will require fundamental rethinking of the Constitutional structure of the nation, let alone get rid of judiciary and filbuster and special interest derailing of the country.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 17, 2007 1:10 PM

The bizarre logic isn't mine, Petey. Its the Democrats. They don't have the votes to overcome a filibuster(60), they don't have the votes to overcome a veto (67), so they complain that they can't pass their bills. (Reid and Pelosi have complained about this repeatedly.)

But George Bush has had no trouble getting his favorite legislation passed this term. All he needs is 40 Republicans to obstruct bills until Democrats sign exactly what he wants. This shouldn't work. But is has so far.

The key to overcoming a filibuster or a veto is to target bills the other guy wants passed. For George Bush that's military spending, tax legislation, funding for his war and nominations.

So far the Democrats have decided all that is off limits.

Posted by Jinchi | November 17, 2007 1:21 PM

We don't have filibusters. Why don't people understand this. A filibuster taken to its conclusion is one or more holding the floor and preventing a bill from going to a vote, until they can't go on or quit. A day, a week, a month, whatever.

What we have is a some polite period of holding the floor and then a vote to close debate on the bill, cloture, and no vote on the bill. This is insane.

Pick a bill, any bill and make the GOP hold the floor for a few weeks. Now that's filibuster. What we have is abject surrender. Mamby pamby, brain dead, chicken shit go along get along politics of the most pathetic sort.

If I were Reed I would pick a bill that the GOP says they will 'fillibuster' on Wedneday this week and let them go for it. Damn, he's holding some phoney session anyway to prevent recess appointments, so why not go to the mat for once.

Or better yet, go nuclear. Kill the damn rule once and for all. Especially since it isn't really used anyway except in the silly abbreviated Kubiki kind of way.

Posted by rapier | November 17, 2007 1:21 PM

"But George Bush has had no trouble getting his favorite legislation passed this term."

Actually, Bush hasn't been able to get basically any of his legislation passed this term, with the exception of Iraq funding.

This is because 40 votes allows you to stop legislation, not pass legislation.

And the reason he is able to get Iraq funding passed is because he has 60 votes for that, not 40.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 1:30 PM

"What odds would you give there being over 60 Senate Dems? Has that happened before - any one party having the House, the White House and 60 in the Senate?"

Yes, several times in the 20th century. In 1937 for example, the democrats had a 73-20 majority in the senate, and the house had a 334-88 majority, with a couple members in both houses from other parties. In 1965, they had a 68-32 majority in the senate, with a 295-140 majority in the house.

Posted by mad6798j | November 17, 2007 1:35 PM

Doesn't seem to make much difference-- the Republicans get their agenda through anyhow, even in the minority. Party discipline and control of the White House seem to trump nominal control of Congress.

I'd also note your chart indicating the unprecedented (ab)use to which the filibuster has been put this term.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | November 17, 2007 1:37 PM

"What odds would you give there being over 60 Senate Dems?"

If John Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I'd say the odds of 60 Senate Dems in '09 are around 33%.

If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'd say the odds are around 5%.

Posted by Petey | November 17, 2007 1:40 PM

I have to say I agree with the sentiment that it really doesn't matter what the rules are, so long as congressional Democrats are unwilling to stand up for anything. Until they do, things never come to a question of the rules. The rules don't matter if you're afraid to use them.

Congressional Democrats are ruled by fear.

That is the problem with the current Congress. It's why they can't get anything done. It's why Congress's popularity is in the shitter.

Until the current crop of Democratic leaders overcome their cowardice -- or are replaced -- nothing else matters. Rules included.

Posted by urbino | November 17, 2007 1:54 PM

The Democrats are not willing to use the power of the budget to get control. If the Democrats want not willing to de-fund a single program or lay off a single civil servant, it puts them in a very weak position.

However, as the Republican Party collapse due to changing demographics coupled with the incompetence of the Bush Administration along with former speaker Hastert and former majority leader Frist,

However, the U.S. is obviously headed to a period of being a one party state. The future question is how will the U.S. function in a time when the general election is a moot exercise and the only meaningful elections are the Democratic Primary. Will the Democrats be moderate when all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic Primary? How will redistricting be effected when the Republican party is irrelevant to politics? Which groups are the winners and losers.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Chris Ford,

True democracy includes protection for the minority. Institutions like the filibuster are part of that. Without those sort of institutions, you end up with tyranny, even if you did vote the tyrant in before you recognized him as being one -- the corruption of absolute power and all. It's institutions like the filibuster that keep America from turning into Venezuela politically.

I imagine that as a paleo populist, if you were a Venezuelan, you might have agreed with a lot of Chavez's positions and voted for him because of that: universal health care, sticking it to multinational companies, etc. But with no institutional protections for the minority points of view, he went ahead and did stuff you probably wouldn't agree with: knocking your favorite TV stations off the air since they wouldn't play hours of his speeches, having masked gunmen shoot protesting college students, messing with the economy so that staples like meat are scarce in stores, etc. So maybe now you'd want to be able to put the breaks on some of his power. But you can't, because you are still in the minority -- the dirt poor folks in the countryside still think Chavez is great -- and because Venezuela doesn't have effective institutions like the filibuster to protect minority points of view.

It might seem like a stretch to use Venezuela as an analogy, but think about some of the positions of the non-Rubinomics wing of the Democratic party and see where that trajectory leads eventually, absent resistance.

Posted by Fred | November 17, 2007 3:17 PM

The Founders had the wisdom to allow the Senate latitude to block damned near anything, and not only by means of filibuster which of course came later, but with the tools provided to create it and other techniques. I think this is an unqualified Good Thing. When one party controls the White House and Congress, and given a little time the Supreme Court, governance suffers. When power is divided, the majority is less likely to over reach, the minority less likely to dig in its heels, and things of real utility can get accomplished. Perhaps more importantly, Federal self-aggrandizement is made more difficult.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 17, 2007 3:33 PM

And the reason he is able to get Iraq funding passed is because he has 60 votes for that, not 40.

He has 60 votes because there are too many Democrats who run scared the moment they're threatened.

George Bush isn't trying to get much legislation passed. He's got 2 key priorities, unchallenged authority over the Iraq war and unchallenged executive authority with regards to the law. The FISA law passed last August was virtually written by the administration - despite initial objections by a majority of the Senate. Most of the Democrats voting for that bill told us they had to pass it because the Republicans threatened to filibuster anything stronger.

Same goes for the Iraq Supplemental, Reid and Pelosi said they had to submit to the president's demand because he vetoed their original bill.

Same with Mukasey. Schumer and Feinstein argued that they had to approve him despite his refusal to speak to the illegality of waterboarding because the president might nominate someone worse.

Bush only needs 40 Senators to support legislation in order to actual get his priorities passed. The rest cave out of fear.

Posted by Jinchi | November 17, 2007 3:50 PM

I would note, that once again the Post has refused to use the word "filibuster" to describe what the Republicans do. They continue to use "60 votes needed", unless Democrats do it.

Posted by Njorl | November 17, 2007 6:59 PM

There's an interesting debate about whether judicial filibusters are worth not having national health care, but that's not really relevant to strategy during the "nuclear option" debate. If you think filibusters are a good idea, then your strategy was to make Republicans pay as big a political capital price as you can make them pay for pushing their nominees through. If you think filibusters are a bad idea, your strategy was...to make Republicans pay as big a political capital price as you can make them pay for pushing their nominees through--to make it clear that judicial filibusters are just like any other filibusters, and eliminating them means eliminating them all. Liberal friends and opponents of the filibuster had the same optimal strategy here.

So whatever you think about the worth of filibusters, Democrats completely lost that battle--Republicans got the nominees they wanted pushed through for the rest of that term AND kept the filibuster available to themselves in future terms. Neither side of the intra-liberal filibuster debate gets to say "I told you so" here. Moderate Senators who agreed to the Gang of 14 "Republicans get to do whatever they want" compromise screwed over the party, and that doesn't appear to be something liberals could have stopped.

One part from the description of the Nuclear Option above is worth highlighting:

(The constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.)

Here's where the Nuclear Option deployer has to simply lie about what the Constitution says, which is wrong and not merely impolitic. It's wrong and deceitful to ignore judicial filibusters while still insisting that future majorities respect other filibusters. The real debate wasn't whether Republicans could force their nominees through--ultimately, they could--but whether they should be able to do so for free, without implications for future precedent.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 17, 2007 7:54 PM

A question, so that I might understand this debate coming into it late:

Do both houses start with a 'blank slate' at the beginning of each session (or a the beginning of the Congress, like 107th, 108th etc)? I thought they did, because I thought I always saw a rules package passed as one of the first things of each congress did, right after the call to order, swearing in, benediction, etc

Or do the rules carry over from session to session and congress to congress, and they just pass the most recent changes to rules when the session opens?

Posted by Kolohe | November 17, 2007 8:17 PM

Kolohe,

Senate Rule V purports to bind all future Senates to the prevailing rules. But Petey and Robert Byrd and I think that's unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. It's worth noting, again, that the non-expiration of the previous rules and the filibuster are separate issues. The filibuster is just one of the Senate's mundane rules governing how it proceeds from day to day . . . the really controversial rule is V, which states that rules of a previous session also bind the new session and require a 2/3rds vote to change.

Posted by southpaw | November 17, 2007 9:25 PM

It's worth emphasizing the the Nuclear Option was not premised on the unconstitutionality of Rule V.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 17, 2007 10:43 PM

the odds for either of those things happening aren't especially good and the reason is the filibuster.

no. The excuse is the filibuster. There's all sorts or legislation, eg. civil rights, that has managed to overcome filibusters.

And if the filibuster were effective, why are Robert and Alito now on the Supreme Court?

Healthcare will pass not when we ask for it but when we demand it.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | November 18, 2007 5:47 PM

Led - I'm fine with the filibuster, but they should have to do it the old fashined way -- stay up all night giving endless speeches and reading from the phone book, etc.

I call this the "Bioweapon option."

Posted by Glaivester | November 18, 2007 9:32 PM

Oy, that danged filibuster!
The last time I looked, the 51st Democratic senator is Joe "Kill 'em dead" Lieberman. The Democrats don't have an anti-war majority in the Senate, and everyone knows it. And, of course, President Bush would just veto the damn thing anyway. I think Nancy is playing to the anti-war crowd, hoping that they won't notice that she didn't intend this to go anywhere.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | November 18, 2007 9:51 PM