NorthSideSox72 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Tex said: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:55 AM) 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?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Right, that's my point. It'd be no different than simply abolishing the filibuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 3, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 They'll like this idea until it's used against them in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Whaaa whaaa whaaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) They will do like Indiana Demcrats did and run to a state. haha, didn't Wisconsin Democrats do the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:05 AM) Whaaa whaaa whaaaa You say that, but it's true. This isn't the first time, won't be the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:07 AM) haha, didn't Wisconsin Democrats do the same thing? And Texas Democrats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 06:08 PM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 06:14 PM) 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) 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. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts