[ad_1]
Commentators have poured a lot of ink this week, announcing the end of the Senate obstruction.
They do not have to do it. The filibuster days have been numbered for years.
THE SENATE MAY ACCELERATE THE CONFIRMATION OF NOMINEES
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Has deployed this week a cunning parliamentary strategy on a bound front. McConnell's goal was to eliminate the time the Senate can spend after terminating a filibuster – before confirming the appointment of lower-level candidates. Congress observers have suggested that McConnell's maneuver meant the filibuster itself.
The Senate has tinkered with the buccaneer – for the candidates – three times in five and a half years. Reducing the available debate time has been the case this week. The chamber lowered the bar to crush the filibusters for the candidates via what is presented as "Nuclear option # 1" in 2013 (under democratic control) and nuclear option # 2 in 2017 (under Republican control). But these two systems only dealt with applications. There is still nothing in the mix about the abolition of filibusters for legislation.
McConnell said the Senate does not have the necessary votes to eliminate the legislative buccaneer. He is right. But only for the moment. It can change. Previously, the Senate did not have the necessary suffrage to lower the standard for removing filibusters for candidates from the executive branch, with the exception of the Supreme Court. That was the case until the Senate majority leader of the time, Harry Reid, D-Nev., Ait deployed the No. 1 nuclear option in 2013. Mr McConnell then dropped the requirement of 60 votes to cancel a filibuster on the Supreme Court candidates with the No. 2 nuclear option in 2017. The Senate had not l? support needed to speed up the confirmation of nominees of lower-ranking candidates – until McConnell interferes with Senate proceedings this week.
DEMS TAKE AIM TO FILIBUSTER
Like everything on Capitol Hill, it comes down to calculation. That's why Reid and McConnell used these stratagems. They had the votes on their side. So they went ahead and executed their plans.
Reid and McConnell both administered their systematic filibuster schemes to energize Presidents Obama and Trump, respectively. So why would not a Senate majority try to strengthen the president of his own party by putting an end to the filibuster?
Trump repeatedly repeats McConnell about the filibuster rule in force for the legislation. Sixty votes are needed to end a legislative filibuster. A buccaneer prevented Trump from winning a big victory two years ago to repeal and replace ObamaCare. At the time, Republicans had only a 51-49 advantage in the Senate. Senate Republicans worried that the elimination of the filibuster could backfire. Democrats would only have to poach the votes of two Republican senators to advance their own legislative priorities – despite the GOP's control by the Senate. For example, a coalition of Republican senators worked last year with Democratic senators to undermine the Trump administration's policy on internet neutrality.
It would take a lot to eliminate the systematic obstruction of laws.
Forty-four standing rules govern the functioning of the Senate. Rule XXII (22) of the Senate deals with filibusters. Article XXII allows the Senate to thwart a filibuster. Sixty years are needed to end a filibuster on legislation (called "closing invocation"). A simple majority of Senators is needed to end the debate or filibuster on nominations, thanks to Nuclear Options # 1 & # 2.
The Senate can vote to change any of its bylaws. But changing the rules is subject to a filibuster itself. The threshold to remove the systematic obstruction of a proposed rule change is 67 years old. Two thirds of the Senate.
It is therefore almost impossible to change the rules of the Senate.
But that's the problem. The Senate conducts much of its work through precedents. There are only 44 permanent rules. Yet the Senate's book of precedents is immense. Neither Reid nor McConnell could win 67 votes for a rule change. But they could certainly guide the Senate in the proper parliamentary posture to implement a previous change. A change of precedent requires only 51 votes (or a simple majority). This is exactly how Reid and McConnell made the latest parliamentary changes for buccaneers. And if the Senate ever eliminated legislative obstruction, Senators would likely follow the path set by Reid and McConnell for the nuclear option.
Americans are romancing the buccaneer. They think of the prayers that go on all night and Jimmy Stewart. But most filibusters are not as intriguing.
Speaking in the Senate and speaking for hours do not always obstruct. Blocking something is a filibuster. Remember the "buccaneer" just before the closure of the government by Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas in 2013? Cruz spoke on the floor for 21 hours and 18 minutes. It was the third longest speech since 1900. But Cruz did not make filibuster. Cruz was to give the floor at noon the next day, because Reid blocked the Senate for a procedural vote. So, even though Cruz spoke for a very long time, it was not really a filibuster. The Texas Republican simply delivered an exhausting speech.
The public rarely notices a buccaneer, even if he continues all the time. Dozens of bills never reach the assembly because a senator or a group of senators obstruct the bill. You do not just see them doing it publicly. The majority leader in the Senate knows when he has the votes to carry out a bill. If it does not, the manager usually does not try to force the problem because of a ghost flibustier. Therefore, the Senate never addresses these bills.
That said, the Senate votes to constantly break the filibusters. The Senate eliminates filibusters by "invoking closure". In these cases, the filibuster is real. Senators do not usually speak all day and all night. But to move forward, the leader of the majority begins the process through Article XXII in order to "close the debate". The leader usually knows that he has 60 votes to "invoke the fence" and kill the buccaneer.
On Capitol Hill, it is thought that the filibuster could evaporate if the Republicans retained control of the Senate in 2020 and if Trump won a second term. The same scenario may be at stake if the Democrats also win the Senate and the White House in 2020. Others suggest that legislative flibustice will not succeed until 2025.
But one thing is certain: there is a weapon to eliminate the buccaneer. Harry Reid invented the ploy of the nuclear option. McConnell is perfecting it now. The only difference is that the Senate has the political will to eliminate its tradition.
[ad_2]
Source link