 |
| Source:East Bay Times- U.S Senate Democratic Leadership. From Left to Right (not necessarily ideologically) Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray. |
"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them, but when evaluating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ideas for making the Senate more like the House of Representatives, consider the source. Reid is just a legislative mechanic trying to make Congress’ machinery efficiently responsive to his party’s progressivism. And proper progressives think the Constitution, understood as a charter of limited government, is unconstitutional.
They think the “living” Constitution gives government powers sufficient for whatever its ambitions are, enabling it to respond quickly to clamorous majorities. Hence the progressive campaign to substantially weaken the ability of senators to use filibusters to delay action.
Until 1917, it was generally impossible to stop extended Senate debates. Then — during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats’ first progressive president — the Senate adopted the cloture rule whereby debate could be ended by a two-thirds majority vote. In 1975, the requirement was lowered to three-fifths. If there is now another weakening of minority rights, particularly by a change brought about by breaking Senate rules, the Senate will resemble the House. There the majority controls the process and the disregarded minority can only hope to one day become the majority and repay disregard in kind.
Wilson was the first president to criticize the American founding, which he did because the Constitution bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms, especially the separation of powers. The point of progressivism, say its adherents, is to progress up from the Founders’ fetish with limiting government and restraining majorities. Hence progressives’ animus against the filibuster, which protects minority rights by allowing for the measurement of intensity as well as mere numbers."
You can read the rest of George Will's column at the East Bay Times
George Will's column is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Democrat, Nevada) attempt to reform the Senate to make it harder for the minority party (in this case the Republican Party) to block legislation by simply voting against cloture, instead of actually just filibustering legislation by holding the floor and speaking about whatever the bill on the floor is. Or blocking legislation by simply voting against the motion to proceed resolution, that also requires 60 votes for the Senate to just begin debate on any bill that needs 60 votes to break a filibuster.
I agree with George Will that the Senate should not become like the House of Representatives and it should remain the upper chamber of Congress where minority rights are protected and where the Senate Minority Leader should remain a major player in as far as how legislation is written and passed. But right now the Senate is the Congressional graveyard where legislation goes to die. Where Senate Republicans led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, blocks any legislation that wasn't already passed by the Republican House, generally with just 43-47 votes out of a hundred.
When the two parties and leaders in the Senate can't come together on any legislation, the Senate Majority Leader should be able to act on his own to bring legislation and executive nominees up for consideration. And the Senate minority party, led by the Minority Leader should be able to offer and indefinite amount of relevant amendments to the current legislation that's being offered, within a certain period of time. And after every amendment is offered and every member who wants to be heard on any bill and nominee that's being considered is given that opportunity, the Senate would then vote up or down.
If the minority party, led by the Minority Leader, actually wants to hold the floor and filibuster the legislation, they could do that to block the legislation, until they give up the floor or are cut off with 60 votes or more for cloture. Instead of just voting against cloture, just to block legislation. If Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, they would want this same authority as well.
