In filibuster deal, a glimpse of how the Senate could actually work
The filibuster deal to avoid the Senate's 'nuclear option' showed that when senators actually talk to each other (a rare thing nowadays), they’re not so bad at figuring things out.
(Page 2 of 2)
Even more problematic, senators in both parties acknowledged, is that the two parties understand the basic facts of an issue in fundamentally different ways.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
“In two caucuses, it’s like two tribes,” Merkley explains, “you hear different versions of the facts. History is sliced differently.”
The debate over Senate rules was no exception. Lugging an annotated copy of the Senate rules into the chamber, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee made the case that not a single Supreme Court Justice, cabinet member, or district court judge had ever been blocked by a filibuster in American history.
“Part of the problem is we have too many [caucus] lunches and we operate on different facts,” Senator Alexander says. “In many ways, this is a manufactured crisis.”
Still, he acknowledges that five of President George W. Bush's circuit court judges were blocked by Democrats in a showdown that nearly sent Senate Republicans to the nuclear option lever. Republicans blocked two of President Obama's circuit court judges in retaliation, he says.
For most of the Senate’s history, Democrats counter, there were no filibusters of nominees to the executive branch -- yet Mr. Obama has seen 16. Democrats charge Republicans had delayed nominees that would eventually receive overwhelming Senate support for months on end and had stalled nominees as a way to undercut government agencies they simply don’t like, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Both sides' arguments are, in their own ways, tendentious. Alexander's analysis ignores the bevy of other procedural tools minority senators can use to block nominees without resorting to a formal filibuster, such as secret holds on presidential nominees. Democrats play down the many ways recent majority leaders have used their powers to limit traditionally open floor debate to exclude minority party concerns, aggravating Republicans who feel cut out of the Senate's business.
Merkley, summing up Monday’s meeting to reporters on Tuesday, quoted to a line from the Rudyard Kipling poem, “If”: “Trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too.”
That’s not to say everything that happened in the Senate Monday night was poetic: Things got awful “repetitious,” as Sen. Mike Johanns (R) of Nebraska put it.
Republicans like Alexander still felt that Democrats didn’t understand the severity of their threat to the very underpinnings of the Senate. Democrats didn’t exactly feel like Republicans felt their pain on the sluggish pace of the chamber.
And lawmakers on both sides said much of the discussion focused on lawmakers venting their frustration about filibusters against legislation, even though Reid said he had “zero” intention of changing anything about how laws pass through the Senate. (Reid threatened only to allow presidential nominees to bypass potential filibusters).
But the level of bonhomie and general goodwill fostered by a conclave that went on for more than three hours already has Senate leaders promising to do such meetings again.
Up next, Reid said, could be a similar closed session with former Senate majority leaders George Mitchell (D) of Maine and Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi to discuss matters of the Senate.
“We are going to do more meetings, and we're going to do them on a periodic basis,” Reid said. “We're going to try to – I repeat, try – to talk to each other than past each other.”
RECOMMENDED: So you think you know Congress? Take our quiz.