Democrats Should Use the Filibuster Ruthlessly Against the Republican Senate

[ErikJ]

When the 114th Congress starts in January, Harry Reid will find himself in an uncomfortable position: the minority. Along with this demotion, Reid will have to decide whether Democrats should use the filibuster to block GOP legislation, just as Senate Republicans have over the past six years. The answer says a lot about the dysfunctional politics in the upper chamber.

Obstruction, while destructive for policymaking, has been good politics for the Republicans. Future Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has successfully blocked bill after bill—and avoided giving Democrats victories on them—by using the filibuster. For a time, McConnell also stopped the president from appointing many Democratic nominees—leaving judicial posts empty and kneecapping agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and National Labor Relations Board, which had to operate without leaders or members.

The blocking of nominees ended last November, when Democrats invoked the “nuclear option”—they changed the rules of the Senate to eliminate filibusters for all executive branch and judicial nominees. (They left an exception for Supreme Court justices.) But don’t expect Reid to use the filibuster any less than Republicans have. Reid has a history of supporting the filibuster when in the minority and criticizing it when in the majority. There’s no reason to expect that to change with McConnell as majority leader.

And that’s a good thing. If Republicans are going to reap the political benefits of indiscriminant filibustering, then Democrats should do so as well. The advantage of filibustering is that it allows a party to block progress without taking all of the blame for it, for the simple reason that most of the public—and, surprisingly, most of the media—don’t realize that filibusters are basically thwarting majority rule. Presidential vetoes, on the other hand, are easy for the public and media to understand and easy to appropriate blame. If Democrats relinquished the tool now, they’d give up a chance to make the same sort of gains. It’d be the equivalent of unilateral disarmament.

...............................................more
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120131/harry-reid-should-copy-mitch-mcconnells-use-filibuster

[KingCharlemagne]

1. Not only the filibuster but also the veto. Obama should veto every piece of legislation that

reaches his desk for the next 2 years, save continuing appropriations. Any bill authored by Repubs should be vetoed. No compromises, no mercy.

[world wide wally]

2. The day Republicans take over the Senate is the day the filibuster will be eliminated

[cascadiance]

5. This could be helpful for Merkley in 2016...

He just won a pretty resounding win here in Oregon and Oregon did pretty well within the state for Democrats too.

And if the Republicans, sensing that the Democrats will copy their strategy of filibustering everything, decide to just shut down the filibuster altogether, then it will help Democrats in the coming election as then the Republicans can't moan about Democrats obstructionism if there isn't any besides a presidential veto, and Democrats can turn around and blame Republicans for not working in a bipartisan fashion to craft bills, etc. that Democrats have tried to do to get past a Republican filibuster in recent history.

If Democrats retake the Senate, perhaps it might be time to consider putting Merkley in charge as senate majority leader, especially if Reid retires by then. Then his rule change that he'd suggested the Democrats putting in place, which would allow time for debate in terms of a filibuster but still try to enforce more of a simple majority vote after a certain time frame would be looked more like a decent gesture to the other side compared to what the Republicans are likely to put in place in the coming month or so. And it wouldn't allow Republicans to obstruct, but just be heard, if their stances on bills are anything that the American people want or not. I think the American voter would like that compared to what we are likely to see in the coming two years, and hopefully we'll have someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the White House to help us get things done then too.

[davidpdx]

3. We better hope and pray that none of the liberal justices on the Supreme Court

step down or get sick in the next 27 months. If so, we will be screwed on a whole new level.

[Live and Learn]

4. They should but I'll be surprised if they do. nt