Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:41 AM
DonViejo (26,025 posts)
What killed filibuster reform?
Senators have a disincentive for getting rid of the anti-majoritarian rule: It gives them more power
BY SCOTT LEMIEUX, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator McConnell reached an agreement yesterday that will be called “filibuster reform” by some reports. But as The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein summarizes it, “The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed.” There were some minor changes in the deal that will streamline the confirmation process for nominees to federal district courts (although not appeals courts), but overall the deal is a fizzle for supporters of filibuster reform.
The failure to reform the filibuster is a very bad thing. The question is why so many Democratic senators—including some blue-state representatives like Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer—showed so little inclination to act in the interests of progressive values.
One issue is that some senators may not accurately perceive the damage that the filibuster does to Democratic interests. One Senate staffer wrote Talking Points Memo to defend the non-reform:
I have not see anyone show how these rules will help advance the progressive cause and lack of reflection about how rules reforms under the constitutional option could be used to hurt us someday when President Rubio teams up with Speaker Cantor and Leader McConnell. Is the progressive community oblivious about what happens when the minority has no tools to prevent majority excess?
4 replies, 1112 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
What killed filibuster reform? (Original post)
|Buzz Clik||Jan 2013||#1|
|Pab Sungenis||Jan 2013||#2|
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:01 AM
Samantha (9,146 posts)
4. Isn't that pharmaceutical company that received the one-half billion dollar break
in the f/c agreement in California? If so, that would explain why Feinstein and Boxer are silent on this issue. As for Leahy, who knows, perhaps he owns stock in the Company! I am really upset about that, but I have heard no discussion about it on cable. And that is just as upsetting.