Carl Levin: Filibuster could Fall After Massive Conflict on the Floor
Senate Republicans made a persuasive case for abolishing or
reforming the filibuster on Tuesday night when they blocked a routine
nomination to the National Labor Relations Board that had been held up
since April.
The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche
Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig
Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while
the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a
nominee.
"I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it,"
said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no
previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to
filibuster such a routine nomination.
Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another long-serving member, said that
abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. "I think it will either fall
of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will
fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in
the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to
reform," Levin told the Huffington Post, adding that the filibuster
should be restricted to major issues.
Vice President Joe Biden will be sitting in that chair in January
when the Senate next has a chance to modify its rules, and is studying
the issue of the filibuster.
Leahy said he recently conferred with former Sen. Walter Mondale
about filibuster reform. Mondale led the charge that last changed the
rule in the 1970s. "He said it was just inconceivable to anybody at
that time" that it would be abused as it is now, Leahy said. "The
reason the filibuster rule has been supported all these years is people
have used it responsibly...this is unprecedented."
The GOP went to great intellectual lengths to find a reason to
oppose Becker, a labor lawyer. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the
highest-ranking Republican on the committee that approved Becker,
presented a novel argument. He noted that Becker had answered hundreds
of questions that Republicans had submitted to him, and then used that
fact to make the logical leap that he was a questionable nominee.
"If a nominee garners a greater level of public scrutiny and larger
than usual volumes of questions, we should ask why. This unique
scrutiny should be a signal that the individual has raised a great
level of concern and controversy," Enzi argued from the Senate floor.
Enzi also argued that the nomination, which was first made in April 2009, was being rushed through the Senate.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) responded that not even a "half dead" organization would consider that pace anything but lethargic.
In a fiery floor speech, Brown accused Senate Republicans of
McCarthyist tactics for highlighting Becker's connection to someone who
had once worked for the embattled community organizing group ACORN.
For decades, Brown said, Republican presidents have nominated
pro-management people to serve on the National Labor Relations Board
and Democrats nominated pro-labor individuals. The GOP, he said, had
thrown out the rulebook with its historic filibuster of a nominee to
the board.
The Huffington Post asked Nelson prior to the vote if he thought the
president had a right to nominate pro-labor people to the NLRB. "He
does," said Nelson. "And I have a right to oppose them." Newly-minted
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) voted against the nomination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the filibuster was last revised (1970) it was used less than 7% of the time.  In 2009 it was used 70% of the time, and that is not counting cloture votes, which are another type of tactic requiring votes on rules of procedure.  They are literally chocking out every nomination, every reform!
I think it is time we paid attention to Congress and the Senate and protested the tactics used.  They are about power and control and not in the interest of the American people.