ex-Sen Ben Nelson releases new book with acerbic title: Death of the Senate: My Front Row Seat to the Demise of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body

[basquebromance]

i will post the best excerpts if i'm able to get a copy

Former Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson talks about Trump, partisanship and why he left politics

It's been 13 years since Ben Nelson was reelected to the Senate, romping to a second-term victory over a Republican newcomer named Pete Ricketts in 2006.

journalstar.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious!!!!

 

[task0778]

If the Senate ever abolishes the filibuster, that will be the true death of the world's greatest deliberative body. There would be no chance of compromise or cooperation, except perhaps in the direst of emergencies. The majority party will spend most of their time undoing what the other guys did when they had the majority. And whatever the country's needs are would be an afterthought.

 

[Coyote]

If the Senate ever abolishes the filibuster, that will be the true death of the world's greatest deliberative body. There would be no chance of compromise or cooperation, except perhaps in the direst of emergencies. The majority party will spend most of their time undoing what the other guys did when they had the majority. And whatever the country's needs are would be an afterthought.

Problem is…they’ve chippedaway at the filibuster tell there is only a shell of it left. They got rid of it for judges, they made it so painless it is a push of a button to routinely block legislation. It is now no longer a rarely used tool but a routine means of obstruction. I am not in favor of abolishing it but I am in favor of reforming it. Make it painful.

 

[task0778]

Problem is…they’ve chippedaway at the filibuster tell there is only a shell of it left. They got rid of it for judges, they made it so painless it is a push of a button to routinely block legislation. It is now no longer a rarely used tool but a routine means of obstruction. I am not in favor of abolishing it but I am in favor of reforming it. Make it painful.

I am not sure that is the best way, because by making it painful for the minority party to block legislation you are also tying up the Senate's time and ability to do anything else.

The current filibuster system -- in which a senator doesn't have to actually do the whole Mr.-Smith-goes-to-Washington talking filibuster in order to slow attempts to hold final votes on legislation they don't like -- was actually put in pace to keep the business of the Senate moving. In a series of post-Watergate reforms in the mid-1970s, the Senate agreed to lower the threshold to invoke cloture -- a parliamentary term meaning to end the unlimited debate in the body and set a final vote on a measure -- from a supermajority (67 senators) to three-fifths of the chamber (60 senators). But because they believed such a move would raise the number of filibusters, the Senate also put a dual-track system in place.

The Brennan Center explained it all here:

"No longer would a filibuster delay all Senate business. Instead, the new Senate procedure would create a dual-tracking system that allowed the body to toggle between different bills so that a bill facing a filibuster was 'kept on the back burner' until a vote for cloture could be successful. This meant that no one observing the Senate would likely realize that a bill was being filibustered, since no one had to take the floor and stay there. This significantly reduced the public relations disincentive to filibuster and made it practically invisible to the public and the media. The talking filibuster had died; all a senator needed to do was indicate an intention to filibuster in order to move a bill to the end of the queue or 'the back burner.'"

If the talking filibuster was reinstated, so too would be the rule that no other Senate business -- judicial confirmations, Cabinet confirmations etc. -- could be conducted while the chamber was being held by someone in the process of filibustering. Meaning that for as long as the filibuster could go, the Senate would be at a complete legislative stop. Nothing could or would get done; if there's one thing politicians can do well, it's bloviate. Note that a talking filibuster is not limited to one guy up there talking for hours on end; they can rotate senators one after another and keep the talking going for a very long time.

Those who like the filibuster say it has been an important part of the American political system. The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise. They believe the filibuster is a safeguard to the democratic principles of the American political system. Throwing it away would mean losing an element that forces the majority to listen to the minority. It allows the minority to have a chance to make themselves and their opinions heard. IMHO, that's a big deal; I do not support the idea of a simple majority riding roughshod over the minority without pause or consideration.

The filibuster, while not in the Constitution, was instituted as a matter of Senate tradition as a way to uphold the values of the American notion of government: Namely, that laws should be difficult to pass, so that only the important issues, governed by consensus, got through. Over time, government has grown bigger and bigger, and too many people have adopted the mindset that the government needs to act, quickly and decisively, to deal with every problem in the country. The filibuster is an important reminder that this is not the point of government, at least not if it is to be free from tyranny.


And I would add this: whatever is done to make it as painful as possible now when your side has the majority will be the same rules when it's your side enduring the pain. Is that the way we ought to do business? Resort to physical pain for leverage? God help us if that is the only way.

 

[Coyote]

I am not sure that is the best way, because by making it painful for the minority party to block legislation you are also tying up the Senate's time and ability to do anything else.

The current filibuster system -- in which a senator doesn't have to actually do the whole Mr.-Smith-goes-to-Washington talking filibuster in order to slow attempts to hold final votes on legislation they don't like -- was actually put in pace to keep the business of the Senate moving. In a series of post-Watergate reforms in the mid-1970s, the Senate agreed to lower the threshold to invoke cloture -- a parliamentary term meaning to end the unlimited debate in the body and set a final vote on a measure -- from a supermajority (67 senators) to three-fifths of the chamber (60 senators). But because they believed such a move would raise the number of filibusters, the Senate also put a dual-track system in place.

The Brennan Center explained it all here:

"No longer would a filibuster delay all Senate business. Instead, the new Senate procedure would create a dual-tracking system that allowed the body to toggle between different bills so that a bill facing a filibuster was 'kept on the back burner' until a vote for cloture could be successful. This meant that no one observing the Senate would likely realize that a bill was being filibustered, since no one had to take the floor and stay there. This significantly reduced the public relations disincentive to filibuster and made it practically invisible to the public and the media. The talking filibuster had died; all a senator needed to do was indicate an intention to filibuster in order to move a bill to the end of the queue or 'the back burner.'"

If the talking filibuster was reinstated, so too would be the rule that no other Senate business -- judicial confirmations, Cabinet confirmations etc. -- could be conducted while the chamber was being held by someone in the process of filibustering. Meaning that for as long as the filibuster could go, the Senate would be at a complete legislative stop. Nothing could or would get done; if there's one thing politicians can do well, it's bloviate. Note that a talking filibuster is not limited to one guy up there talking for hours on end; they can rotate senators one after another and keep the talking going for a very long time.

Those who like the filibuster say it has been an important part of the American political system. The filibuster allows for more debate, and may force the two parties to come together to talk about the bill and come to a compromise. They believe the filibuster is a safeguard to the democratic principles of the American political system. Throwing it away would mean losing an element that forces the majority to listen to the minority. It allows the minority to have a chance to make themselves and their opinions heard. IMHO, that's a big deal; I do not support the idea of a simple majority riding roughshod over the minority without pause or consideration.

The filibuster, while not in the Constitution, was instituted as a matter of Senate tradition as a way to uphold the values of the American notion of government: Namely, that laws should be difficult to pass, so that only the important issues, governed by consensus, got through. Over time, government has grown bigger and bigger, and too many people have adopted the mindset that the government needs to act, quickly and decisively, to deal with every problem in the country. The filibuster is an important reminder that this is not the point of government, at least not if it is to be free from tyranny.


And I would add this: whatever is done to make it as painful as possible now when your side has the majority will be the same rules when it's your side enduring the pain. Is that the way we ought to do business? Resort to physical pain for leverage? God help us if that is the only way.

My concern though is that for one, they have already weakened it when they decided to nix it for judicial nominations and 2, it really seems to have become tool of simple obstruction for the purpose of partisan obstruction. How can we work around that if we keep it as it is? (And no, I’m not for eliminating it either).

 

[task0778]

My concern though is that for one, they have already weakened it when they decided to nix it for judicial nominations and 2, it really seems to have become tool of simple obstruction for the purpose of partisan obstruction. How can we work around that if we keep it as it is? (And no, I’m not for eliminating it either).

LOL, I don't know. The political environment is so toxic these days, and the extremists in both parties seem to have too much power and influence relative to their actual numbers, and so many pols are afraid to buck the party line and work with the other guys. Nobody wants to get primaried out of their job, right? I don't see the problem as a structural or process problem that can be fixed with a rule change(s), what we have here is a people problem. If you show any sign of cooperation/compromise then you are labeled as a RINO or traitor and your career is threatened. The progressives get after your ass on the dem side and the Trumpsters get on you over on the Right. Maybe we need an independent 3rd political party with enough members to influence what goes on in Washington.

 

[Oddball]

The Senate was ruined forever in 1913.....We're only now seeing the ultimate result.