Reid going after the Procedural Filibuster

[NorthSideSox72]

For all the complaining I do, I figure it is only fair to point out the rare occasions when something right is happening in Congress.

 

Harry Reid has decided he is going to get rid of the procedural filibuster in the Senate (the rule of 60). Normally, it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate (67) to to change Senate procedural rules. But there is an exception for the first day of a new Senate seating, when only a simple majority (51) is needed to pass rule changes. Reid is going to take advantage of that.

 

He and Mitch McConnell are in negotiations on how to come up with a compromise, since the GOP is of course against removing the rule (because they are currently in the minority). But through a procedural trick, Reid will keep the Senate gaveled in on Day One, single session, for as many days as necessary, to keep his leverage. If no compromise can be found, he will simply call the vote to change the rule. If you want to filibuster, you have to do it the old fashioned way, get up on the podium and make your case.

 

Now, of course, Reid isn't doing this out of some sort of wonderful sense of patriotism. He's doing it because he has a 55-45 majority. Just like the GOP is against it because they are in the minority. But whatever the reasoning, the result is a very good one - so I applaud it.

 

CNN updated on it yesterday. We'll see where this goes.

 

The best part of this is, once it has been changed, it will probably stay changed forever. Because once a party is in the majority, why would they want to change it back?

 

[Texsox]

I agree. It would also be nice if they had to speak on something substantive or on subject instead of reciting the Declaration of Independence or recipes.

[cabiness42]

I agree. It would also be nice if they had to speak on something substantive or on subject instead of reciting the Declaration of Independence or recipes.

 

Just start discussing the futility of the Cubs beginning with 1909 and the other side will give in pretty quickly.

[StrangeSox]

I agree. It would also be nice if they had to speak on something substantive or on subject instead of reciting the Declaration of Independence or recipes.

 

Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?"

[Balta1701]

There is another actual potential use for the extended, talking filibuster. Without it, you run into the situation in the House currently, where the minority has zero leverage to bring any legislation to the floor. Give you a couple examples from this week; the House utterly failed to even consider a Hurricane Sandy relief package and let the Violence Against Women Act expire, despite both having been passed by the Senate, because the minority has zero leverage in forcing bills or amendments to bills to the floor for a vote.

 

There are way too many block points in the Senate, I'll be the first to agree with that. The current plan is a good upgrade to try...force a talking filibuster where people have to be on the floor to do so and cannot be off fundraising, remove the filibuster of the motion to proceed (so that legislation cannot be filibustered twice), get rid of the filibuster of executive branch nominees (or just limit the number of nominees voted on), but maintain the ability of the minority to have leverage over what happens on the floor.

[bmags]

I agree. It would also be nice if they had to speak on something substantive or on subject instead of reciting the Declaration of Independence or recipes.

 

The senate didn't even require that, the mere threat was enough, because the minority doesn't even have to keep much of their caucus there to keep the filibuster going.

[Texsox]

Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?"

 

The idea is unworkable I know, but most of the time they start reading the phone book or other such nonsense. perhaps they must speak on the bill they are tying to prevent going to a phone?

[witesoxfan]

The idea is unworkable I know, but most of the time they start reading the phone book or other such nonsense. perhaps they must speak on the bill they are tying to prevent going to a phone?

 

They should do it like "Whose Line is it Anyways?" If they want to filibuster, the rest of Congress draws ideas out of a hat and the speaker must speak (or do improvisational comedy) on that topic.

[Texsox]

They should do it like "Whose Line is it Anyways?" If they want to filibuster, the rest of Congress draws ideas out of a hat and the speaker must speak (or do improvisational comedy) on that topic.

Awesome idea.

[StrangeSox]

agreed

[Jake]

Who gets to define what's "substantive" or "on subject?"

 

The Speaker We see how fun that is in the House. It is at times efficient, and others times anti-democratic

[StrangeSox]

Right, that's my point. It'd be no different than simply abolishing the filibuster.

[juddling]

They should do it like "Whose Line is it Anyways?" If they want to filibuster, the rest of Congress draws ideas out of a hat and the speaker must speak (or do improvisational comedy) on that topic.

 

 

 

OK....IRISH DRINKING SONG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Y2HH]

They'll like this idea until it's used against them in the future.

[mr_genius]

They'll like this idea until it's used against them in the future.

 

yes. then the same Democrats that are in here supporting it will be posting about how terrible this mean old Republican created rule is. They have Irish Alzheimers, forget everything except the grudge.

Edited January 4, 2013 by mr_genius

[bmags]

Whaaa whaaa whaaaa

[southsider2k5]

yes. then the same Democrats that are in here supporting it will be posting about how terrible this mean old Republican created rule is. They have Irish Alzheimers, forget everything except the grudge.

 

They will do like Indiana Demcrats did and run to a state.

[mr_genius]

They will do like Indiana Demcrats did and run to a state.

 

haha, didn't Wisconsin Democrats do the same thing?

[Y2HH]

Whaaa whaaa whaaaa

 

You say that, but it's true. This isn't the first time, won't be the last time.

[southsider2k5]

haha, didn't Wisconsin Democrats do the same thing?

 

And Texas Democrats...

[bmags]

You say that, but it's true. This isn't the first time, won't be the last time.

 

Is it a good policy or isn't it? "Let's oppose this because we are worried about future hypocrisy". The senate filibuster is horrible, it needs to be reformed.

[Y2HH]

Is it a good policy or isn't it? "Let's oppose this because we are worried about future hypocrisy". The senate filibuster is horrible, it needs to be reformed.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't.

 

But in typical Washington fashion, they'll change it with a shortsighted mentality, because it's helping them now, but when it's used against them in the future they'll whine that it needs to be reformed...again. The problem is, they'll have already reformed it...only they didn't reform it in a future proof way, they reformed it in a way that was right for them at THAT specific time.

 

This is what they always do.

[bmags]

I'm not saying it doesn't.

 

But in typical Washington fashion, they'll change it with a shortsighted mentality, because it's helping them now, but when it's used against them in the future they'll whine that it needs to be reformed...again. The problem is, they'll have already reformed it...only they didn't reform it in a future proof way, they reformed it in a way that was right for them at THAT specific time.

 

This is what they always do.

 

Who cares? If it's good policy for the country to change it, who cares what the motives were?

[StrangeSox]

They'll like this idea until it's used against them in the future.

 

that's always been the danger with abolishing or curtailing the filibuster, but it absolutely needs to be done. It didn't exist for a long time in this country and it didn't exist in its current form until recently.

[NorthSideSox72]

yes. then the same Democrats that are in here supporting it will be posting about how terrible this mean old Republican created rule is. They have Irish Alzheimers, forget everything except the grudge.

 

 

You say that, but it's true. This isn't the first time, won't be the last time.

 

Of course its true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is good policy. I don't care which party decides to put it in. Both parties will be effected the same way, in the long term.