|
What's he's apparently saying is that they'd restrict debate: 51/100 would be sufficient for cloture, quashing fillibusters. I can understand that on confirmation votes, where there are no amendments and so the need for debate is limited--you give everybody a chance to speak, by the time 100 have spoken there's little new that's going to come out, and nothing's going to make anything else relevant. Confirmation votes are a step away from procedural votes, and those usually have lower cloture requirements (and some kinds of votes cannot be debated at all). I don't like the idea of limiting debate for confirmation votes, but I can at least understand it and see how it's not a completely unreasonable idea.
That was the repubs' "nuclear option."
But to limit debate on normal bills guts one of the primary purposes of parliamentary procedure: To ensure that minorities on a committee get a chance to speak. This has as a consequence that actions that a sufficiently large minority considers worth going to the mat over can be blocked. That "going to the mat" has become routine is a problem; however there are usually ways around that, called "bargaining", "arm-twisting", and "negotiating". It's something I'm against; I like the idea of a minority blocking legislation--it raises the bar on some issues (but I think the process is abused these days), but can never allow a minority to pass legislation that the majority doesn't like. So it's a limit on majoritarianism, a kind of system I loathe. But limiting debate, even after ample time is given, will also be abused, which will further majoritarianism (which is a kind of system I still loathe and therefore don't want to see enabled, even these many letters later).
I can understand why De Fazio never actually says it's under discussion. He hopes it is, suspects it is, knows people who are "progressive" (and "democratic" in the sense "majoritarian", apparently, but not "liberal" in any traditional sense). But he doesn't say "yes, it is". That, at least, gives me hope.
|