The “save the filibuster” hand-wringers

We don’t care how McConnell gets it done as long as Trump’s conservative SCOTUS nominees get approved and as long as he does not allow the Democrats to drag it out more than a few days.  But the deference to the filibuster by people who should know better the ways of politicians has produced some really lame arguments and recommendations of a possibly very dilatory processes.  Consider this article at The Federalist where Sean Davis writes:  Here’s How Republicans Can Confirm Supreme Court Nominees Without The Nuclear Option 

“Opponents of the nuclear option say it will not only fundamentally alter the nature of the Senate, it will also greatly empower Democrats when they retake the Senate and the White House.”

Well, duh! Surely you don’t think those wily Democrats, when they gain control, would actually use the “Nuclear Option” against Republicans to confirm their nominations at every level whether or not the GOP used it in gaining confirmation for Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court!?!???!!!

Oh no! The humanity! The Democrats are far too high minded and principled to do that. They are sticklers for “regular order” and their commitment far exceeds any political interest.

Just ask Harry Reid.

And if you have to ask why Mr. Reid’s name comes up then read no more…it would take way too long to ‘splain it to you.

Is there really anybody on the planet who has followed politics at all who believes the current Democratic party would observe ANY customary procedures, long-standing principles, or anything else that would stand in the way of their ideological agenda?

If so, I have a tract of land in the Hindu Cush that would be ideal for an upscale gambling resort…cheap!

The “Rule 19” gambit is to limit Senators to two speeches, but still allow a simple majority (51 vote) vote process (see article). How long the process would take is not clear.  Perhaps longer than using the old filibuster rules requiring senators to actually hold the floor, and sleep there, rather than phone in that they won’t be attending that day. Incredibly some worry about the filibuster being gone as if the “Rule 19” gambit would save it, and would not also be available to Democrats to use against minority Republicans.  With the Rule 19 process the filibuster is just as dead.

As to the filibuster being protective of deliberation, balderdash. Much of the Senate will not be in attendance listening to filibusters anyway which is key to any substance to the supposed virtue of it ensuring deliberation. The truth is that for years, if not since the inception of the filibuster, most real debate occurs apart from the speechifying at the podium. It occurs in the cloak room and the position papers back and forth and from the lobbying, and partisan caucuses and more, where actual rebuttal and timely clarification can go on.

Debate is not enhanced by the filibuster, as there are means otherwise available that are not obstructive or dilatorious and which are exercised. The filibuster is from a time when exchange of information outside of the chambers was not as easily done.

What is disconcerting is that Rule 19 has been around since 1902 .   We wonder what legislation or nominees have been denied (good or bad) but for not invoking it rather than relying on (or hiding behind) the filibuster?

DLH and R Mall

0

0