HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I don't care much for Rei...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:29 PM

I don't care much for Reid, however, what benefit would filibuster reform do now?

With the Republicans in control of the House, what bills would the Senate want
to pass from the House?

For 2009-10, absolutely. Now, what is the benefit?

Busting the doors open on filibuster reform now would only give
the right for a Republican majority in the Senate (heaven forbid...no really, please)
to kill the filibuster all together. And it would screw America for decades...

19 replies, 962 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply I don't care much for Reid, however, what benefit would filibuster reform do now? (Original post)
TheProgressive Jan 2013 OP
sadbear Jan 2013 #1
TheProgressive Jan 2013 #2
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #5
TheProgressive Jan 2013 #8
jeff47 Jan 2013 #9
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #12
jeff47 Jan 2013 #14
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #16
jeff47 Jan 2013 #17
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #18
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #6
earthside Jan 2013 #3
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #7
jeff47 Jan 2013 #10
earthside Jan 2013 #15
Bigbluebrush Jan 2013 #4
jeff47 Jan 2013 #11
blkmusclmachine Jan 2013 #13
moondust Jan 2013 #19

Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:32 PM

1. Cabinet and judiciary appointments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:37 PM

2. Good point...

I did not think of that. One could weigh that with the negative effects as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:42 PM

5. There were changes made today that affect the judicial nominations ...



Two of the main things that today's rule change will HELP is regarding judicial nominations (2 hours of debate, instead of 30 hours) which are voted on 'only' in The Senate, AND the elimination of 'anonymous' holds/objections on nominees and bills.

Just because Reid did not go along with Merkley's plan does not mean that we didn't get good changes!
Senator Reid got the majority of the changes that HE wanted.

===============



-snip-

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.

http://www.alan.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-im-not-ready-to-get-rid-of-the-60-vote-threshold/


Full Ezra Klein Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/


=====================================




Also...

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting against will be eliminated/fixed by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012



Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections


-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:54 PM

8. I was aware of the anonymous holds..

In general, I don't like the 60 vote filibuster. As you know,
the Constitution reserves 2/3's vote for extremely important
procedures.

Should we remove the filibuster altogether? Maybe yes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:56 PM

9. Only the unimportant ones.

Still 30 hours for cabinet and SCOTUS appointments. 8 hours for high-level judicial appointments. 2 hours is only for lowest-level judges and executive branch positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

12. U.S. District Court Judges are not really that low-level or unimportant, and that is where ...


... the most obstruction has been.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

Only 7 appellate nominees are waiting, compared to 24 district nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:06 PM

14. They're the lowest level of federal courts.

There's more district nominees because there are more seats on the district bench. And as the lowest level of judge, they don't have much effect beyond the people currently in their courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:24 PM

16. Filling Those Vacancies Have Long Term Benefits...

A lot of the federal judges were appointed by Raygun and the boooshies...and they've helped create the right wing lean in most courts today. The rushpublicans know the power of filling judicial nominations and tried to prevent most of President Obama's nominations from even getting a hearing and preventing him from appointing more moderate and liberal justices. This agreement will hopefully open the gates on many of these held nominations and enable the President to name more Democratic judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:31 PM

17. At the appellate and higher level

District courts can only decide the cases before them, and are required to apply precedents set by higher courts. Appellate courts get to start setting such precedents, and so can have effects beyond the case before them.

For example: Prop 8 case. The district judge can only rule on prop 8 itself, and ruling against it only makes "Gay Marriage" legal in California. Appellate courts could have ruled "Gay people have a right to marry" and suddenly "Gay Marriage" is the law of the land everywhere in that court's jurisdiction (They have kept their rulings to Prop 8 so far).

So appointing more district judges, while good, is not really much of a change. Their greatest effect is as the pool of people usually nominated for higher courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:35 PM

18. True...

...but these judges will move up the system just as we've seen with the Raygun appointees of the 80s. While precedent is a key tenet of our judicial system, interpretation of those laws is another story and I'd rather be facing a Democratic judge than a right winger. The judicial is where President Obama's legacy lives on long after he leaves office.

Cheers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:43 PM

6. See comment #5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:41 PM

3. Both houses of Congress controlled by Repuglicans.

The House with a majority of Repuglicans and the Senate with a 'tyranny of the minority'.

I think filibuster reform would have put pressure on the House to have votes on all bills passed by the Senate, i.e., the end of the Hastart rule.

And, like with the Bush tax cuts bill, you could have hopefully cobbled together all Democrats and 25 or so Repuglicans to actually pass some bills and send them to the President of his signature.

Now, that is not likely to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:45 PM

7. Huh? The filibuster has nothing to do with the House, only the Senate ...


The House doesn't have a filibuster rule, and the Senate rules do not affect the House.

So I'm not sure what you're saying there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 PM

10. The 60 vote filibuster gives them control of the Senate.

Just like the last two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:15 PM

15. And the Hastert rule ...

... is a Repuglican 'rule' that says Boehner won't bring anything to the floor unless they know it will be passed by the Repuglican House members.

As to the problem with the filibuster, well, why should Boehner have any votes on anything controversial if they can just blame it on the Democrats inability to invoke cloture in the Senate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:42 PM

4. No benefit

There's a need to preserve the political theater possibilities of a contentious cabinet appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:01 PM

11. Aside from appointments mentioned above

Having a bill pass the senate makes it easier to apply pressure to the house.

With the Senate unable to pass anything remotely liberal, it's harder for us to make the case against Republicans in the house in 2014. With the Senate not getting anything done, "both sides do it" will be easily applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:02 PM

13. 4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years.

That should do the DEMs in for 2014/16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:11 AM

19. Without votes, how does anybody know where Senators stand?

They can say this and say that off the record but you never really know until they actually vote up or down on something.

Timely case in point: I believe it was Rachel's show Thursday that showed numerous clips of Harry Reid positively assuring people many times that the filibuster reformers are right and that he would change the filibuster when the time comes. Well, the time came and pfffft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread