Ir is interesting to note that we have been complaining for the last two years about the filibuster or threat of filibuster that has thwarted and delayed legislation desired by the majority in the Senate and the House. With the election of a majority in the House of Republicans, but maintaining the majority in the Senate of Democrats, the situation changes. With the majority in the Senate, the Democrats are in a position to reject and prevent legislation passed by the majority in the House without using the threat of filibuster, and there is nothing the minority in the Senate can do about it. Thus it is likely that there will be much less use of the filibuster for at least the next two years--unless the Senate minority can gain enough votes from Democrats to force the majority to appeal to the filibuster as a way to prevent adoption of the minority position. But again even if the majority is forced to do so, there is little the minority can do to stop it.
This was the situation for much of the later 1800s, with the Republicans in the majority in the Senate, and thus able to prevent legislation coming from the House it did not like, whether it came from their own party or the opposition party. Political paralysis and gridlock does not entirely depend on the use of the filibuster.
Unfortunately, this will also cause the Republicans to waste lots of time bringing up bills that have little chance of passing, but attractive-seeming premises. Even worse, some Democrats will cave in some of these cases, if only because the are afraid of a loud minority, but not enough to change the final outcome (though likely enough to win a majority in the Senate). The Tea Partiers are already promising an unending vigil on Washington until healthcare is repealed. See http://tlinexile.blogspot.com/2010/11/eve-of-conflict.html for the craziness that will begin in January.
ReplyDelete