Threat Of Senate Standstill A Myth? Well, No

The One True bIX

In the battle over the threatened GOP "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster in the United States Senate, a curious development hit the liberal blogosphere today.

In the battle over the threatened GOP "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster in the United States Senate, a curious development hit the liberal blogosphere today.

Both MyDD and TalkLeft are reporting in the wake of a blogger conference call with Senator Harry Reid that the standstill/shutdown/slowdown threat is merely a myth.

Here's what Chris Bowers of MyDD says:

First, and most importantly, the frequent reports that Reid and Democrats would "shut the Senate down," if Frist and the Republicans went ahead with the nuclear option are wrong. The actual plan of attack would be to "stop giving deference" to the Republican agenda in terms of what is debated on the Senate floor. What "deference" means in the context of the Senate, if I understood this part of the call correctly, is that traditionally the majority party has set the agenda for what proposed legislation is taken up on floor debates, while the minority party pursues its agenda in the form of amendments on the proposed legislation that is being debated.
However, if Frist goes ahead with the Nuclear Option, Senate Democrats would stop showing that deference, and use a Senate rule known as a "motion to proceed" that would require our agenda--health care, education, increased veterans benefits--to be debated on the floor of the Senate without the approval of the majority party. This would force Republicans to vote down health care, education, and other issues that are very popular with the public. In short, the end of judicial filibusters would also mean the end of deference to the agenda of the majority party.

The problem is, this idea that the shutdown threat is a myth is actually the real myth.

In a March 15 letter to Senator Bill Frist, Reid outlined what the Democrats would do if Frist pursued the "nuclear option":

The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business.
Of course Democrats would never block legislation vital to our troops or other national security interests, and we will help ensure that critical government services continue to function for the American people. Beyond that very limited scope, however, we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters. Just this year we passed the class action and bankruptcy bills under procedures negotiated in good faith between the majority and the minority. We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future if you implement the nuclear option.

That threat from March is not what Reid is threatening now. That threat from March very much would result in a standstill/shutdown/slowdown of Senate activity. For the sake of comparison, imagine if one member of the Portland City Council were to insist that every item on this week's Consent Agenda were to be removed from the consent agenda and discussed and voted upon individually, one by one.

It would dramatically extend and draw out the Council session far beyond the time it normally takes. Reid's threat from March is much the same thing.

Now, however, Reid says they are going to do something else entirely if the "nuclear option" is pursued, using Senate rules to force votes on Democratic issues and proposals.

And that's fine as far as it goes (and I suspect the Dems might have been doing some polling, which could have revealed that a Senate standstill was about as popular with the American people as the "nuclear option" itself, which is to say not very popular at all).

Whether the myth that the threat was a myth is an invention of the bloggers on the conference call, or if Reid really tried to convince them that it was all just a myth, I have no idea. But it's important for the liberal blogosphere both to not let itself get spun, and to not somehow manage to spin itself. The standstill/shutdown/slowdown threat was no myth. It was Reid's own professed and intended strategy.

  • Sid (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Although I've never been a big fan of Reid, I definitely wouldn't want to play a game of chess with him where money was involved. Yesterday when he offered to compromise with Frist by letting two of Bush's nominees onto the floor for a vote, I was kinda mad. But then I thought, "hey this is the day after Justice Sunday where Frist aligned himself with all the frenzied envangelicals who think he's there to save them. They're called Fristians." Reid effectively took Frist's queen leaving him only with a few pawns guarding his king.

    So Reid looks like the one who wants to be bi-partisan and Frist looks even more like the nutbag doctor he is by not accepting.

    Had Frist accepted Reid's offer, his '08 dreams would be shot. He loses either way.

  • (Show?)

    Regardless of what you think of Reid's move yesterday- his hand, and the hand of Senate Dems- is vastly strengthened with each phone call made to Smith's office.

    He's still considered a swing vote on this, and his public comments have been ambivalent at best. Smith's Portland number is 503.465.6750.

    Urge him to preserve the filibuster and our system of checks and balances which have worked well for 200 years.

  • (Show?)

    The nuclear option will not do away with the filibuster. It will end filibusters of judicial nominations; possibly only judicial nominations at the appelate and circuit levels.

    No matter how often Charlie Burr promotes inaccurate rhetoric from Phil A Buster, the filibuster is not 200 years old, and there are clear precedents for limiting the use of the filibuster.

    The first organized filibuster occurred in 1837. Calls for limits on the filibuster occurred as early as 1841,and the filibuster has been limited in the past.

    In 1917, the cloture rule was passed. Cloture was made easier in 1949, 1959, and 1975.

    Currently, budget resolutions are not subject to filibuster.

  • (Show?)

    Here's a statement on the "Nuclear Option" from former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Betty Roberts from earlier today:

    Federal Judicial appointments are lifetime appointments. The United States Senate should use its highest standard when approving judicial nominees, not the lowest bar. Any President- regardless of party- should seek to nominate fair, highly qualified judges who can attract bipartisan support. Under our current system, the filibuster is the last line of defense against unqualified ideologically rigid nominees.

    The so-called “nuclear option” currently being debated would destroy the checks and balances which have worked so well for over 200 years. I strongly urge Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to oppose any effort to weaken the rights of the minority party during the judicial confirmation process.

  • Sid (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If the GOP decides to end the filibuster of judicial nominations, it will open the flood gates for them to end other types of filibusters in the near future. If they can do it with this, what will stop them?

    And if these seven judges are SO GREAT, why can't they get 60 votes like the other 204 conservative judges Bush has nominated?

  • (Show?)

    Charlie,

    Thanks for passing along Judge Roberts' comments. Just one more bit of evidence that she's one of the best leaders we have in Oregon politics.

  • (Show?)

    b!x, I think the phrase "shutdown" is what fosters the myth, because it suggests that it would look like the 94 shutdown. That one was truly a shutdown of government, because the Republicans refused to act on spending bills. Thus, actual agencies shut down their operations, and the public was able to see that things like parks were no longer open.

    This is not a shutdown of government, it's a slowdown of Senate business. The denial of unanimous consent rules will certainly prevent bills from being acted on quickly, but as long as the war funding and agency spending bills get worked on, the public won't notice the change when they access government services. But they WILL notice it when they watch deliberations.

    <h2>So IMO shutdown is indeed a myth, but slowdown via obstructionism is definitely what they intend.</h2>

connect with blueoregon