{"id":1494,"date":"2013-11-22T11:16:15","date_gmt":"2013-11-22T16:16:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/?p=1494"},"modified":"2013-11-22T11:16:15","modified_gmt":"2013-11-22T16:16:15","slug":"filibuster-reform-at-long-last","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/napervilledemocrats.org\/ntdo\/filibuster-reform-at-long-last\/","title":{"rendered":"Filibuster Reform At Long Last"},"content":{"rendered":"

Republicans have now transcended the usual political debate over\u00a0who\u00a0<\/strong>should occupy the seats on [the D.C Circuit Court] and moved into the realm of blocking\u00a0anyone\u00a0<\/strong>nominated by a Democratic president, regardless of their merit or qualifications, from sitting on the court. It’s a scorched earth policy. If we can’t have it, you can’t have it either. – David Kurtz, TPM<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Harry_Reid\"<\/a>The Senate voted yesterday to make the GOP’s above-mentioned scorched-earth strategy a little less destructive. \u00a0Here’s James Fallows on the move (and some valuable context on the final GOP provocation here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here <\/a>and here<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Harry Reid, Constitutionalist<\/a><\/h2>\n

Having\u00a0inveighed nonstop<\/a>\u00a0these past six years about increasing abuse of the filibuster, am I glad that Senator Harry Reid\u00a0has finally begun<\/a>\u00a0to say “Enough”?<\/p>\n

Yes.<\/p>\n

Rather,\u00a0Yes!<\/em><\/p>\n

More nuanced reaction after I get back to the U.S. on Friday evening. But the main point is this:<\/p>\n

Whichever party controls the government has to be able to govern. Our checks-and-balances system, crafted in the demographic and political realities of 18th-century, 13-state, slave\/free, Eastern Seaboard America, and in many ways showing\u00a0its age<\/a>, did not ever contemplate a permanent blocking minority in the Senate as one of the regular “checks.” You can\u00a0look it up<\/a>. Minority protection is an important part of our overall constitutional balance, but not in proceedings of the Senate. Outside a named class of special circumstances\u2014impeachment, treaties, veto overrides, etc.\u2014the Senate, whose all-states-equal formula already over-represents regional minorities, was intended to run as a majority-rule operation.<\/p>\n

It’s nearing time to board a long flight, so let me turn the stage over to someone with more practical experience in the realities of governing than most other Americans. This is Jerry Brown, whom\u00a0I profiled<\/a>\u00a0earlier this year and who, in a riff that was not part of my article, said this about the distortion of the Senate. He\u00a0told me this<\/a>\u00a0when I interviewed him in Oakland this spring:<\/p>\n

We can’t have a country based on the 60-vote standard. This is serious.<\/p>\n

We’ve never had to have 60 votes for appointments or day-to day-decisions. Really, you can’t govern that way. That’s a radical change.<\/p>\n

How\u00a0can\u00a0you govern? Does England have 60? [JF note: Obviously a rhetorical question. His point is that the U.S. has the drawbacks of parliamentary democracy, including political polarization — without the benefits, namely the ability to get things done.]\u00a0I think that 60 votes could end America’s ability to govern itself<\/em>. We have to get rid of it.<\/p>\n

That 60 votes is bad.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And a step against it is good.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n