>RIP: David Broder

>The media suffered the loss of one of its best journalists yesterday. David Broder wrote opinion editorials for the Washington Post, was a frequent guest on political news programs such as Meet the Press, and won a Pulitzer Prize for his editorials during the Watergate Scandal.

Broder’s writing was known for its clarity, and his ability to engage questions larger than the hot topic of the day. He was a consumer of political science research and brought some of what he gleaned from these studies to his writing.

Even though a liberal Democrat, Broder did not shy away from criticizing democratic leaders. For instance, in 2007 he criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for killing an effort to withdraw troops from Iraq because, by Reid’s estimation, it would benefit Democrats in the next election to do so. And more recently, he criticized President Obama for missing an opportunity in his recent State of the Union Address to tackle tax reform.

Rest in peace, Mr. Broder. You will be missed.

>Will Democrats Still Try to End the Filibuster?

>In an opinion editorial for the Columbus Dispatch on May 22, 2010, I argued that Republicans should support changing Senate rules to disallow filibusters. When the new Senate convenes on Monday, Democrats will still be the majority party. With a much slimmer margin, however, will they still try to change the Senate rules?

During the health care debate, liberal columnists, bloggers, and interest groups advocated changing Senate rules to limit use of the filibuster. These politicos grew frustrated at Republican senators’ ability to block, frustrate, and tame the agenda laid out by President Obama in his 2008 campaign. Reasonably, therefore, Democrats began to question the wisdom of Rule 22, the Senate rule that allows filibusters by requiring 60 votes to end debate on a bill.

Paul Krugman, in a February 7, 2010 editorial for the New York Times, argued that “the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government;” therefore, Senators should “recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster.” Ezra Klein, writing for Newsweek on March 27, 2010, decided that Rule 22 is “no longer appropriate given the polarizing realities of our politics.” Liberal blogs ProgressiveCongress.org, CredoAction.com, ActBlue.com, and DailyKos.com have all taken up the cause of filibuster reform. You can go to their websites and sign a petition calling for reform.

Tom Udall (D-NM) has led the charge for filibuster reform in the Senate with committee hearings on the topic. He also has Tom Harkin on his side, who last tried to change the filibuster rules, along with Joe Lieberman, in 1995 while Democrats were in the minority. Dick Durbin and Carl Levin are also rumored to support reform.

Harry Reid, who had opposed any changes to the filibuster when Republicans wanted to ban its use for judicial confirmations, said in a March 10, 2010 press conference, Democrats are “going to take a look at the filibuster,” and, “we are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that….” Would Reid still support changes to the filibuster if Democrats were in a position to abuse it?

In an strange twist, Jack Conway, the Democrat’s US Senate nominee in Kentucky, had a campaign ad asking, “can you imagine adding Rand Paul to the ‘party of no’? We need filibuster reform.” Did he want you to vote for him, or support filibuster reform because he expected his opponent to win? If Conway had won, would he still support reform, or would he think it unnecessary without Paul in the Senate?

Some liberals, such as Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, have suggested that the filibuster should remain to stop legislation that liberals would not like. This type of short-sighted thinking makes filibuster reform difficult. Senators should consider what is best for the Senate in the long term, not what is best for their party in the short term.

Democrats are correct to support changing Rule 22. By empowering every Senator with the ability to stall or halt legislation, Rule 22 has made the Senate dysfunctional. Hopefully, Democratic defeats in the 2010 elections will not dissuade them from pursuing reform.  

Related Posts:

Guest Post: Where do Florida Senate Candidates Stand on Senate Filibusters? 

Suite101.com: Why Don’t US Senators Filibuster Anymore?

>Guest Post: Where do Florida Senate Candidates Stand on Senate Filibusters?

>

The following is a guest post from Michael Martinez, Professor of Political Science and department chair at the University of Florida. He studies elections, voting behavior, and public opinion.  

  

Florida media outlets have done a reasonable job informing voters about the issues in the U.S. Senate race. But voters also should know whether Charlie Crist, Kendrick Meek, and Marco Rubio support reforming the Senate itself. Currently, a minority of 41 Senators can block votes on most legislation and nominations. Several of President Bush’s judicial nominations were delayed for years by a minority of Senate Democrats who refused to allow the nominations to come to a vote, and a minority of Senate Republicans has stalled consideration of many of President Obama’s initiatives.

Several proposed reforms would weaken the minority’s power to obstruct votes. One would reduce the votes needed to break a filibuster, and another would require the 41 Senators objecting to a vote to actually be present on the Senate floor.

Before we know which party will have a majority in the Senate as a result of this election, we should ask each candidate whether he favors reform of the Senate itself.

>The Newshour on Bork’s Lasting Impact

>Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Elana Kagan begin today. In anticipation, The Newshour interviewed Marcia Coyle, its go-to correspondent on Supreme Court stories, on changes in the nomination process. I agree with Coyle that the Robert Bork nomination was a turning point. Prior to Bork, the Senate generally showed deference to the president’s picks. There were some exceptions, but the reasons Senators provided for rejecting a nominee were never for ideological reasons prior to Bork. (Ideology may have been the real reason for rejecting a nominee, but this was not admitted to in public.) Since Bork, every Supreme Court nomination has been an ideological battle, with interest groups heavily involved on both sides. Democrats have argued that Republican nominees are too conservative. Republicans have argued that Democratic nominees are too liberal. You can expect more of the same this week.

In “Federalist #76,” Alexander Hamilton wrote about the reasons he thought the Senate may reject a president’s nominee:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.  

Hamilton thought that Senate confirmation was a check on the president to make sure they appoint qualified people, rather than friends and family members. Just having this check, however, would be enough to prevent nepotism. It would work as “a silent operation,” meaning that the president knows not to make a foolish nomination due to the confirmation process. The “silence” also suggests that most confirmations would happen without much debate or controversy.

What do you think? Should Senators reject nominees on ideological grounds, or should they show deference to the President.

>Suite101.com: Why Don’t US Senators Filibuster Anymore?

>Have you ever wondered why you don’t see senators actually filibustering anymore? Read my post on Suite101.com to find out.

>47 senators want guns in national parks – Yahoo! News

>Here is an example of how Congress can try to influence the bureaucracy. In this case, it was not a committee hearing, but simply a letter, signed by 47 Senators, to the Interior Secretary asking him to review the rule against carrying firearms in national parks. The Senators want the national parks to abide by state laws. The rule is under review as a result of the letter.

Should citizens be allowed to carry firearms inside national parks, if they are allowed to do so outside the park?

47 senators want guns in national parks – Yahoo! News