HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Filibuster Reform is (Pra...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:40 AM

Filibuster Reform is (Practically) Dead

by Justin Green Jan 22, 2013 11:01 AM EST

The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports that the Senate will live on as a continuing body, Harry Reid will decline to exercise the constitutional option, and the talking filibuster is no longer on the table. In short, we're getting a very watered down version of what could have been a major step in pushing the Senate down the road to a parliamentary body.

Greg Sargent laments:

In the name of Senate comity, we’ll get weaker reforms that will only make it easier for the opposition to block the will of the majority for purely partisan purposes.


"Block" is such a strong word. All Democrats have to do to prevent filibusters is convince five Republicans to join their vote. Is this not President Obama's bipartisan appeal? (But I digress).

MORE...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/22/filibuster-reform-is-practically-dead.html

Reid to lay out plans for filibuster reform

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will present colleagues with options for reforming the Senate’s filibuster rules in a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday.

Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) are close to reaching a deal to speed the pace of work in the Senate, but some of the details remain unresolved.

The agreement between Reid and McConnell is not expected to include the talking filibuster, which would require senators who want to block action on legislation to actually hold the floor and debate for hours on end.

In recent days, Reid has begun to focus on a proposal to tweak the filibuster rule by requiring the minority party to muster 41 votes to stall a bill or nominee. Under current rules, the responsibility is on the majority to round up 60 votes to end a filibuster.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/278419-reid-to-lay-out-plans-for-filibuster-reform

10 replies, 1325 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 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Filibuster Reform is (Practically) Dead (Original post)
Purveyor Jan 2013 OP
Faux pas Jan 2013 #1
Purveyor Jan 2013 #4
leftyohiolib Jan 2013 #2
ebayisajoke Jan 2013 #3
yurbud Jan 2013 #5
musiclawyer Jan 2013 #6
karynnj Jan 2013 #7
davidpdx Jan 2013 #8
dmosh42 Jan 2013 #9
Wabbajack_ Jan 2013 #10


Response to Faux pas (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:32 PM

4. Thanks for the link. Just signed the petition. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:47 AM

2. didnt mcloser and reid have a handshake deal last year and then mcloser backed out on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:04 PM

3. My Opinion on it..

I agree to remove it, it's holding up business for this country. I honestly believe we are in more debt then 16.4T tho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:44 PM

5. why would McConnell have to agree if a rule change takes a simple majority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:54 PM

6. No FB reform = POTUS 2nd term failure

It's that simple Democratic Senators

We will remember this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:03 PM

7. I think forcing the minority to get 41 is better than requiring any number of Senators

to speak continuously.

Think of the status quo. We need to get 60 Senators to vote to get cloture. Any missing Senators - gone for personal, state or other reasons effectively count as NO. Requiring 41 means that all missing Senators count as yes. Now consider that if cloture fails, the issue is dropped if there is no real chance of getting 60. With 41 required, the vote could be called at inconvenient times. (as the Republicans did requiring weekend votes in December 2009 on ACA.)

Compare that to the most recent idea floated - it would still take 60, but if cloture won to open the debate the no sayers would be required to speak. There is also the classic filibuster where a SOLE Senator could stop the Senate. Imagine the fun a Rand Paul would have.

I do think it could be nice if 60 became 55, but thatdoes not look the direction they are going in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:42 AM

8. If this is true

A small number of Democrats killed it. I hope the names come out and soon. Primary all of them. We have 55 total in our caucus and couldn't get 50 to agree. What a load of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:57 AM

9. Not enough Dem senators want a change in filibuster rule. Case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:05 AM

10. I don't like the fillbuster

But we'll probably regret changes if the repugs take back the chamber. Best not do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread