by Lifted from comments on the post Our thoughts and opinions are with you, reader Mark Jamison writes: Comment: The filibuster is fundamentally undemocratic in a body that is already constructed undemocratically. The filibuster is an accident of history that has weaponized in the last twenty years. Yes, in particular circumstances it seems like a firewall but ultimately it does far more damage than good. What would the ACA have looked like if the Democrats hadn’t had to operate and negotiate under filibuster rules (yes, I know they ultimately used reconciliation for final passage but the bill was constructed under the assumption of needing 60 votes)? Would Republicans have been more inclined to participate in the negotiations if they knew 51 votes were
Topics:
Dan Crawford considers the following as important: law, politics, Taxes/regulation
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes Real GDP for Q3 nicely positive, but long leading components mediocre to negative for the second quarter in a row
Joel Eissenberg writes Healthcare and the 2024 presidential election
Angry Bear writes Title 8 Apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 Inadmissible, and Title 42 Expulsions
Angry Bear writes And It Makes No Difference Whether the Needed Fifth Vote is Missing Because . . .
Lifted from comments on the post Our thoughts and opinions are with you, reader Mark Jamison writes:
Comment:
The filibuster is fundamentally undemocratic in a body that is already constructed undemocratically. The filibuster is an accident of history that has weaponized in the last twenty years.
Yes, in particular circumstances it seems like a firewall but ultimately it does far more damage than good.What would the ACA have looked like if the Democrats hadn’t had to operate and negotiate under filibuster rules (yes, I know they ultimately used reconciliation for final passage but the bill was constructed under the assumption of needing 60 votes)?
Would Republicans have been more inclined to participate in the negotiations if they knew 51 votes were sufficient?
Would Joe Lieberman have been able to wield veto power over a public option if his vote wasn’t essential?
Would the subsequent opposition to ACA played out the same way – a bill that only required 51 votes would have likely been much less of a Rube Goldberg construction, much easier to administer and much easier to defend.The presence of the filibuster allows for more rigid ideological partisanship because ultimately the majority is protected from doing something stupid by being able to blame the other side for being obstructionist. The majority becomes like the drunk in the bar who insists his friends hold him back from the fight.
In the present circumstance the absence of the filibuster would likely result in some pretty bad outcomes but I wonder if making the Republicans pay the ultimate political cost should they simply charge ahead wouldn’t have some tempering influence. Absent the filibuster would some of the Republicans like Graham, Flake, and Rubio who are more moderate in immigration have second thoughts about charging ahead?
I don’t dismiss the human outcomes if the Republicans get their way here but the fact remains that those bad outcomes remain in play filibuster or not. Make the Republicans govern which also implies they pay the consequences for how and what they do. Let them take full ownership for their racist and destructive policies.
As it stands Congress is a wholly dysfunctional body. Whatever benefits the filibuster may have had, and it should be noted they were never as clear as the fictional Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scenario implies, it now acts less as a protection against bad policy than an excuse to be rigid and radical.