HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Republicans can NOT put '...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:38 PM

Republicans can NOT put 'anonymous' holds/objections on nominees or bills anymore.



Today is a good day



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/objects 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




41 replies, 3044 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 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republicans can NOT put 'anonymous' holds/objections on nominees or bills anymore. (Original post)
Tx4obama Jan 2013 OP
jberryhill Jan 2013 #1
freshwest Jan 2013 #35
earthside Jan 2013 #2
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #6
Cha Jan 2013 #8
jeff47 Jan 2013 #10
CincyDem Jan 2013 #33
catbyte Jan 2013 #38
Cha Jan 2013 #3
seabeyond Jan 2013 #5
seabeyond Jan 2013 #4
Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #7
jeff47 Jan 2013 #9
catbyte Jan 2013 #39
Atticus Jan 2013 #11
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #12
meow2u3 Jan 2013 #13
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #15
jeff47 Jan 2013 #17
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #20
jeff47 Jan 2013 #21
Creideiki Jan 2013 #25
DianaForRussFeingold Jan 2013 #24
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #14
jeff47 Jan 2013 #16
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #18
jeff47 Jan 2013 #19
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #22
jeff47 Jan 2013 #23
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #27
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #29
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #34
still_one Jan 2013 #26
Pirate Smile Jan 2013 #28
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #31
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #30
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #32
JEB Jan 2013 #36
CranialRectaLoopback Jan 2013 #37
davidpdx Jan 2013 #40
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #41

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:41 PM

1. Awes man...

...and I already finished off my last bottle of hemlock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:31 AM

35. Oh, noes!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:44 PM

2. Is that in writing ...

... or is that another "handshake" agreement?

Your answer, Dr. Pangloss ... ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

6. It is in writing in Rule 22 change that The Senate voted on. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

8. Since apparently Sen Mitch McConnell is Not a man

of his word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:52 PM

10. No. Some of it's in writing. Some of it's another handshake.

For example, the ban on anonymous filibusters is a handshake agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:52 PM

33. So when an anonymous filibuster occurs...

...Harry calls Mitch and says "WTF ???"

Mitch says "Hey what can ya do, these guys are out of control - and besides, it's anonymous...I don't know who to talk to".

Then they have a good laugh and start talking about the next bill that won't ever see the light of day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:56 AM

38. It is a sick, disgusting joke. Reid & others not supporting reform are

traitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:44 PM

3. Good to know!

Thanks for providing facts on what's going on.

Those stupid pitchfork threads are self defeating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 PM

5. ya know,... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 PM

4. thanks tx, good to know. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:49 PM

7. While its not what many had hoped for, the timing was awful!

Even if they had included a talking filibuster, Republicans in the house would have killed anything that made its way through the Senate.

Harry should not have made the promise that he did, people now feel deceived... If he were to make that promise it should have been in a year that he new that we would control both houses of Congress.

There is good stuff in here, Thanks Tex!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:51 PM

9. So what?

Ya think Rand Paul wouldn't be thrilled to be the name on every single Republican filibuster? You think he's the only one?

There's tons of far-right senators who'd love to have their name attached to a filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:02 AM

39. Exactly. Utterly disgusting yet utterly predictable. We suck. No wonder the GOP sees us like a joke

That's because we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 PM

11. One question:

After this "good deal", how many votes does it take to pass ANYTHING that the GOP want to stop?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atticus (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:04 PM

12. Still 60, the new normal until Republicans regain the Senate, then it will go back to 51

for over 95% of Senate business as it was until 2009.

We suck on purpose!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:23 PM

13. That didn't go far enough

I was hoping for the talking filibuster, or at least shifting the burden to the minority to muster up 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster instead of forcing the majority to get 60 votes to quell it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:27 PM

15. That was Merkley's plan, not Reids. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:32 PM

17. It was Reid's plan yesterday.

41-to-sustain was part of Reid's plan yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:36 PM

20. It was a proposal by Merkley, it is not anything that Reid really wanted to do. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:40 PM

21. There were 3 competing proposals.

Udall/Markley went the furthest, required a talking filibuster and 41 votes to sustain a filibuster.

Reid's plan did not require a talking filibuster, but still required 41 votes to sustain a filibuster

McCain/Levin had a series of minor tweaks, and guaranteed the minority 2 amendments on any bill.

Today, we got McCain/Levin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:20 PM

25. True. Reid doesn't have a plan

Except to become Senate Minority Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:52 PM

24. Same here...

Also, disappointed and sick of it...

"Elizabeth Warren said in a statement Thursday that she's disappointed the changes aren't more extensive, but added that "some change is better than no change at all." http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280192

Here's Senator Sanders talking about the need for the talking filibuster.. on The Ed Show:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:26 PM

14. We're in the fifth year of a depression with no end in sight

These changes will do virtually nothing to get the 99% back on our feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:32 PM

16. Actually, you are wrong.

The ban on anonymous filibusters is another handshake agreement. The leaders agreed to ask their members really, really, really nicely to not do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:33 PM

18. ''senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so"


Which means they will NOT be anonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:35 PM

19. That's the agreement. But it's not written down.

The Rule 22 changes are only the parts about the debate time after the filibuster.

The "7 senators from each side or 2 amendments" is a standing order, not a rule.

The "no anonymous filibusters" is a handshake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:41 PM

22. Do you have a link for the text of S.Res.15 and S.Res.16


I can't get them to come up at the Thomas website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:51 PM

23. It's in the links you've been quoting

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:42 PM

27. Do we know yet if this is just a hand-shake, or if this is actually in writing?

I thanked you yesterday for all your informative posts and I'll thank you again for the very same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:44 PM

29. A little bit ago I was told that it was not in the actual resolution text that was voted on ...


so it appears to be part that they shook hands on.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:14 AM

34. Here is a little more info ...


-snip-

In a nod to those favoring the talking filibuster, Reid and McConnell agreed to use existing Senate rules aimed at spotlighting those who are objecting to legislation. Under their plan, if a senator tries to block a bill, Senate leaders — or senators leading floor debate — can demand that those who are objecting come to the floor to make their concerns heard. If a senator does not agree to speed debate during so-called quorum calls, the Senate will force live quorum calls that would compel senators’ attendance on the floor.

-snip-

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/filibuster-reid-democrats-nuclear-threat-86704_Page3.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:30 PM

26. So we know who does it, how will that change the result

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:42 PM

28. Obama needs to fill up the Courts.Let's hope this helps get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pirate Smile (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:50 PM

31. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:51 PM

32. After reading most from a couple of sources it is a good step.

All indications are that both Udall and Merkley voted for it.

Some might think these are only minor changes but there are plenty of major changes that also reduce the time they can try to delay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:35 AM

36. We always knew who was putting holds...

the same fucking pricks that dictated the terms of this "reform".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:39 AM

37. French'es or Grey Poupon for you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:43 AM

40. I'm not particularly happy about this

But the one point made in the article (post by the OP down thread) is that there may be some point where we find ourselves back in the minority in the Senate. The question is how much of it comes down to a handshake between Reid and McConnell. How do we know that McConnell will go back on his word after drinking himself silly one weekend in the next two months? As much as I dislike him, he's not stupid. I'm sure he's got his own strategy.

The other thing is as a voter in Oregon, my senator worked his ass off to lobby for these changes. If this backfires I will hold responsible those senators that clusterfucked this and we damn well know who they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:29 AM

41. Jeff's proposal with Udall was much stronger and better.

He's already saying they intend to revisit this issue when these baby steps of Reids don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread