Filibusters and Priorities
There were two filibusters mounted by Republicans on Wednesday. One in involved Rand Paul and got a lot of attention, and the other was the one they were actually serious about.
Meanwhile, Weigel has a nice concise explanation for the Halligan filibuster. With perhaps one or two particularly clueless exceptions, I very much doubt any of the Democratic senators who agreed to the the non-reform deal actually thought it would do anything to reduce this kind of obstruction. I think they simply support the filibuster.
Can American Prospect not afford an editor?
I guess it’s not uncommon that a piece contradicts itself but in consecutive paragraphs?
Practical and positive mean the same thing?
What is a specific example of a positive consequence that is not a practical consequence?
When it doesn’t involve any actual change in government policy or government personnel? I mean, Jesus, it’s really not hard to see why the Halligan filibuster has immediate, tangible, practical consequences and the Brennan one doesn’t.
The idea that the Brennan filibuster had no practical consequences is completely reasonable. I would agree. But I think at that point you can’t really say that it had “positive consequences” – which I would say are a subset of “practical consequences.”
If you think “raising awareness” or whatever “positive consequence” you think the Brennan filibuster may have had is something real and important, then that seems to me to be a “practical consequence,” although perhaps not an “immediate practical consequence.”
I’d say that “practical consequences” here indicates a concrete accomplishment (for the filibusterers), while “positive consequences” connotes something more abstract. I.e., Halligan has been blocked from her appointment, while . . . some more people are sort of murmuring about executive power & GWOT issues in a vague sort of way.
The words aren’t all that far off from each other, but I don’t think you can just swap one for the other.
Deciding if something is practical or not is dependent upon what the goals are. Without those, any judgement is meaningless.
I understand what the piece is trying to say, but I think Mizner is right that this is poor editing and writing.
If there was a contradiction, you would have a point.
What options were available to hold up the NDAA?
“All” he did do, was take to the Senate floor and call the NDAA an “abomination,” urge colleagues to vote against it, and launched a more general critique of the 2001 AUMF.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/ndaa-indefinite-detention-bill-rand-paul_n_2347774.html
Words! That’s nice. I really hope that Republicans start mounting practical opposition to judicial and executive branch nominees by urging people to vote against them, and then allowing the votes to proceed.
I am no fan of either Paul, Scott, but I think you’re being sort of unfair here.
Paul matched words to actions. He said the bill was bad, lambasted the people voting for it as bad people, said nobody should vote for it, and then he voted against it, did he not?
That’s not just words. That’s actually doing something. In theory, this is sort of how the Senate is supposed to work.
Yeah, but Obama signed it, but with good intentions. Paul merely spoke out against and voted against it. What a dick!
If only, say, the Republican opposition to Halligan was confined solely to “no” votes. You know, votes that were allowed to proceed.
By the way, how much can you care about civil liberties if you think that the D.C. Circuit should be permanently dominated by statist wingnuts?
What’s doubly funny is you’re minimizing the importance of Paul’s filibuster because it didn’t have any “practical” effect (didn’t change the vote) at the same time you’re criticizing him not doing exactly the same thing on NDAA.
Well, if you’re going to mount a purely symbolic filibuster, it does seem to me that it should at least be directed at the legislation that enables it, yes.
That enables what?
That enables the president to arbitrarily detain people?
But his filibuster focused on targeted killing, which the NDAA touches on only indirectly. There’s no directly relevant bill Paul could filibuster. The information he sought is directly relevant both to Brennan’s former and future role, so.
True Progressives projecting their positions on to members of the Paul family? What’ll they think of next?
Umbrage that people keep pointing out the million and one issues where Paul is dogshit awful?
Projecting? Hardly. Taking the opportunity he’s provided to broaden the discussion.
Believe me, I wish there was Democratic willing to take stand against the killing of brown people overseas — who represent 99.9 percent of deaths by drone — but there ain’t any. Leahy, Udall, and Wyden have made few baby steps in that direction. It’d be good to have Feingold around at this point.
I wish there was Democratic willing to take stand against the killing of brown people overseas — who represent 99.9 percent of deaths by drone — but there ain’t any.
Nor are there any Rand Pauls willing to take that stand. So, yes: projecting.
Leahy, Udall, and Wyden have made few baby steps in that direction.
Which are seemingly longer than the steps taken by Rand Paul.
The really sad thing is that it was Paul filibustering. Apparently many of the Dems have no problem at all with executive overreach if the executive is a Dem. I’m grateful to Wyden, and even Durbin, but really–that the issue should be ceded to a cockroach like Aqua Buddha?
What’s telling is that all the people who’ve been out front talking about the horrors of the drone program overseas are praising on Paul whereas all the people who’ve basically ignored it are criticizing Paul for not going far enough. Yes there is insincerity on display, but I don’t think it’s Paul’s.
And if he had launched a filibuster you would’ve blasted him for being insincere. Or not liking black people. Or opposing Medicare.
But re. your piece, don’t worry, no one is confused about where most Republicans stand on executive power and civil liberties in the counterterrorism realm. McCain and Lindsey’s attack on Paul make that clear for everyone. And Democrats’ silence makes their position clear as well.
There a few pols in both parties (a few more in the Democratic Party) who care about civil liberties. Paul’s filibuster is part of a small but growing effort to exercise some oversight. As a matter of fact, Paul’s been working behind the scenes with Wyden, Lee, and Udall for some time. The Checks and Balances caucus, they call themselves. Fortunately Udall and Wyden, caring about these issues, are willing to work with Paul even though he’s not “our friend.”
Don’t forget the misogyny! He’s kind of an all purpose dipshit.
“There a few pols in both parties (a few more in the Democratic Party) who care about civil liberties.”
true enough. however, neither paul is among them.
You seem very confused, addressing people from past comment threads rather than the argument I’m actually making. Please to be citing the text where I say that “nobody should work with Rand Paul,” or suggest that this filibuster was “insincere,” or where I praise Obama for signing a shitty arbitrary detention bill.
If you don’t want to say it, I will. I totally thing this is insincere grandstanding from an obvious con artists, and it depresses me that people are taken in by it.
Taken by what?
We were glad to see someone make an issue of this issue in a way the political class couldn’t ignore.
Jack Goldsmith:
But that doesn’t matter because Paul is [fill in the blank]
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/03/two-additional-thoughts-on-senator-pauls-filibuster/
political class couldn’t ignore
Oh, I think you’re going to be surprised.
?
As you yourself acknowledged, he forced the Obama administration to cave on clarifying its position. He also compelled Durbin to pledge hearings.
You’re right, though, to the extent that that Paul didn’t bring about an immediate end to the Bush-Obama war on terror.
Thank god Rand Paul’s empty formalism generated more empty formalism!
Thank god Rand Paul’s empty formalism generated more empty formalism!
Hold on! Maybe there will be a blue ribbon panel! There’s no way Congress or the White House will be able to ignore that.
As you yourself acknowledged, he forced the Obama administration to cave on clarifying its position.
Yea, there’s no possible way that Obama and Holder enjoyed the opening Paul gave him, or made him look like an idiot by typing a one-sentence answer. Paul forced them.
Maybe there will be a blue ribbon panel! There’s no way Congress or the White House will be able to ignore that.
Certainly not if it were co-chaired by a bipartisan pair of august statesmen like Gary Hart and Dick Lugar!
Yet Scott says the filibuster was beneficial. [While also saying he would take Paul “more seriously” if he’d launched a similarly “entirely symbolic” filibuster at another time.
David, in the linked article Scott praises Paul’s filibuster “Paul’s idiosyncratic and largely salutary filibuster aside”.
Now, now, quoting my actual argument, what fun is that? The conservation David is having with various strawmen if so much more fun.
Thanks again, Senator Harry Reid!
Here, let me help clean you up after you fell on your ass in the mud trying to kick the football that Senator Lucy McConnell was holding for you – AGAIN!!!
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh…
He has 51 votes does he?
Thanks again to the various Dems who support filibusters. If we cannot actually point to the actual problem, solutions will be harder to come by.
To be fair, Feinstein gave him a low snap.
LOL!
“They simply support the filibuster.”
That’s all, folks.
Still waiting for Udall to explain what he meant by saying ‘we have51 votes’
Also, too, interesting that only Merkley gets acknowledged now in virtually all the articles.
Hmmmmmmm.