Tweet
For a while now, I've thought the filibuster had become an overused procedural device, but that it is paradoxically underused in terms of people actually performing a filibuster. By that, I mean that when one side threatens a filibuster, the other side doesn't bother with whatever legislation they intended to propose, and everyone moves on. It's the sort of gentleman's agreement that developed to keep legislators from looking ridiculous by reading the phone book for hours on end to block legislation and maintain some dignity to the proceedings (someone actually took a whizz into a bucket on the floor during a filibuster in MO a few years ago rather than cede the floor, for example, which isn't really good for anyone).
The threat of a filibuster has become so overused as a procedural tool, however, that there's now this sort of presumption that if you don't have a filibuster-proof majority, you can't get anything done. This, of course, is absurd, but it's become the way things have operated in Washington and most state legislatures for a while now. For that reason, I've advocated going back to the old days, where if someone wanted to filibuster a piece of legislation, you introduce it anyway and make them ACTUALLY filibuster the damn thing. I think it would result in it being used less and be used more for its original purpose, which was to block truly draconian acts foisted upon the minority. It would also bring the debate to the surface, and the taxpayers that pay the legislators' salaries would get to watch what transpires and make a determination of which side is actually being unreasonable.
It might surprise some of you on here to learn that I'm not a huge fan of unions, and I think that in a number of circumstances, they exert disproportionate power over businesses. With that said, I also understand that without unions, employees might lack the bargaining power to do much of anything, which isn't a great outcome either. Point is, I don't have a strident opinion on unions one way or the other.
With all of that said, I have to give some props to all involved in Wisconsin for the drama that is playing out.
I'm not in tune enough to the actual particulars of the situation to have much of an opinion of it from a substantive standpoint, but in terms of political drama and just laying it all out there, kudos to both sides. THIS, I think, is how the filibuster was designed to work, where both sides feel so strongly about something that they go to these sorts of extraordinary measures to get done what they want to get done. We all get to watch, people assemble and otherwise show their support, and people are involved in the process. It's really quite a spectacle.
So props to the Republicans for saying, "Oh, you want to filibuster? Yeah, we're going to have to see that..."
And props to the Dems for going through with it, and to the Dems in the Senate for actually fleeing the state to ensure that there's no quorum. That's a bold move, and people are either going to view it as a highly principled thing to do, or gross obstruction, but one thing it ain't, is feckless and cowardly.
Great theatre, if nothing else.
The threat of a filibuster has become so overused as a procedural tool, however, that there's now this sort of presumption that if you don't have a filibuster-proof majority, you can't get anything done. This, of course, is absurd, but it's become the way things have operated in Washington and most state legislatures for a while now. For that reason, I've advocated going back to the old days, where if someone wanted to filibuster a piece of legislation, you introduce it anyway and make them ACTUALLY filibuster the damn thing. I think it would result in it being used less and be used more for its original purpose, which was to block truly draconian acts foisted upon the minority. It would also bring the debate to the surface, and the taxpayers that pay the legislators' salaries would get to watch what transpires and make a determination of which side is actually being unreasonable.
It might surprise some of you on here to learn that I'm not a huge fan of unions, and I think that in a number of circumstances, they exert disproportionate power over businesses. With that said, I also understand that without unions, employees might lack the bargaining power to do much of anything, which isn't a great outcome either. Point is, I don't have a strident opinion on unions one way or the other.
With all of that said, I have to give some props to all involved in Wisconsin for the drama that is playing out.
I'm not in tune enough to the actual particulars of the situation to have much of an opinion of it from a substantive standpoint, but in terms of political drama and just laying it all out there, kudos to both sides. THIS, I think, is how the filibuster was designed to work, where both sides feel so strongly about something that they go to these sorts of extraordinary measures to get done what they want to get done. We all get to watch, people assemble and otherwise show their support, and people are involved in the process. It's really quite a spectacle.
So props to the Republicans for saying, "Oh, you want to filibuster? Yeah, we're going to have to see that..."
And props to the Dems for going through with it, and to the Dems in the Senate for actually fleeing the state to ensure that there's no quorum. That's a bold move, and people are either going to view it as a highly principled thing to do, or gross obstruction, but one thing it ain't, is feckless and cowardly.
Great theatre, if nothing else.
Comment