A month ago, I wrote an article about what I thought Democrats should do about the filibuster. You can the whole thing here if you missed it or want a refresher, or loved it so much you want to read it again and again, but if none of those fit your preferences, the core point was this --
"For the longest time, as I've heard Democrats complain about the filibuster and wanted to get rid of the rule, I've argued against that. I understood what was being complained about and why, but my feeling was that the problem wasn't with the filibuster, but how the rule had changed and been abused over the years. "Once upon a time, if you wanted to filibuster, you had to literally stand up, not ever take your seat and talk. Or pass along the right to talk to someone else -- but they would have to stand and talk, not sit down, no bathroom breaks. It not only was a physical challenge, but it showed to the entire country who specifically was filibustering and blocking the Senate from moving forward, keeping legislation from passing. There was both a physical challenge and political risk to filibustering. You had to stand and talk." And what had prompted me writing the article was an op-ed in the New York Times written by two eminent lawyers -- Burt Neuborne, a professor at New York University Law School, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (and my Northwestern University roommate Jim Backstrom's debate partner). The foundation of their argument, "Make the Filibuster Difficult Again," was the very point I've been making for years -- you don't have to get rid of the filibuster, just make it hard to do. Like it initially was written and intended. After writing my piece here, I spent a lot of time on social defending my position against those who simply thought the only solution was the end the filibuster. And it was "a lot of time" because pretty much most of the people on social media who responded thought I was wrong. Actually, I don't think anyone rose up to say, "Hey, that's a great idea! Way to go!" So, "pretty much most of the people" shall herein be defined as "all." While ending the filibuster is something that I think does make sense. and I'd be fine with it, I don't think it's the "only" solution. And further, I thought and still think a whole month later, that for several reasons, one of which has nothing to do with the rule itself, dealing with the filibuster that way makes the most sense. (That "other reason which has nothing to do with the rule itself" is that I think changing the rule this way could possible help convince Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema -- who are both against ending the filibuster, which kills the idea in the Senate -- that this is something they could actually support.) I bring all this up because I was thrilled to see Chris Murphy say basically the same thing on Rachel Maddow’s show last night -- and then Norm Ornstein said something similar on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show that followed. And that afternoon, Chris Van Hollen said it, too, on one of the MSNBC daytime shows. Ornstein's two suggestions were much more detailed than what anyone said, including me, and both were fascinating, but as involved and intricate as his ideas were, the principle beneath them was the same as everyone's – keep the filibuster, but make it much more difficult and with a consequence. And everyone also made the same point that dealing with the filibuster this way had the added benefit of that they might possibly satisfy both Senators Manchin and Sinema. Whether it will happen, who knows. I don’t hold my breath. But it was still nice to see.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|