Filibuster Reform Is Upon Us

[Direckshun]

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Not really.

Harry Reid is seeking two reforms: kill the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and turn the non-speaking filibuster back into the speaking filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0ab3_blog.html

Full speed ahead on filibuster reform?
By Greg Sargent
Posted at 05:04 PM ET, 11/26/2012

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

***************************************

UPDATE: It’s also possible that unilateral action on the rules by Democrats to change the filibuster may not happen, if Dems and Republicans reach a deal. As Ornstein emails me:

In 1975, we had the threat of one party action to change the rule, and it led to a bipartisan compromise. That could happen this time, despite the rhetoric — a bipartisan move to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, a few more changes, and in return, a guarantee for the minority on at least some amendments on bills.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Both parties do that. Put in amendments to kill bills.

But why would they need to do that since they could just filibuster the bill?

Perhaps it isn't just poisoning the bill? Perhaps it's an attempt to debate the bill and propose amendments that benefit their constituents? and when they get shut out of that prossess they are left with no alternative?

Are Democrats deluded enough to think that a sleaze like Harry Ried isn't culpable in any of this?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

If you want nothing to get done, or the minority party setting the agenda.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you think that now but wait till there is a republican president and the dems pay back the R's.

Word.... Which ones are the crips and which ones are the bloods?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you think that now but wait till there is a republican president and the dems pay back the R's.

We've already seen that.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by donkhater

But why would they need to do that since they could just filibuster the bill?

Perhaps it isn't just poisoning the bill? Perhaps it's an attempt to debate the bill and propose amendments that benefit their constituents? and when they get shut out of that prossess they are left with no alternative?

Are Democrats deluded enough to think that a sleaze like Harry Ried isn't culpable in any of this?

Amendments that the majority fears will be popular and might damage them politically to vote them down.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

I agree the filibuster is a positive influence on government.

Remember Wisconsin's union-busting law? They don't have filibusters in a lot of state legislatures, so the minority's last-ditch move is to leave the state and hide out to prevent a quorum from being met.

If you tossed out the filibuster, instead of Republican filibusters, Republicans could hop on a ship and sail to international waters to avoid quorum.

The filibuster is decidedly less insane.

Which is why nobody's suggesting removing it.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The filibuster is the most brilliant thing we have in our legislative process.

The founding fathers do not agree

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I agree the filibuster is a positive influence on government.

Remember Wisconsin's union-busting law? They don't have filibusters in a lot of state legislatures, so the minority's last-ditch move is to leave the state and hide out to prevent a quorum from being met.

If you tossed out the filibuster, instead of Republican filibusters, Republicans could hop on a ship and sail to international waters to avoid quorum.

The filibuster is decidedly less insane.

Which is why nobody's suggesting removing it.

There would be a huge political price to be paid for doing that. Obviously a senator from Utah or Alabama could do whatever, but from a competitive state, I can imagine the campaign commercials now about lazy, do-nothing Senator Smith who cant be bothered to go to work and do the job you elected him to do.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

There would be a huge political price to be paid for doing that. Obviously a senator from Utah or Alabama could do whatever, but from a competitive state, I can imagine the campaign commercials now about lazy, do-nothing Senator Smith who cant be bothered to go to work and do the job you elected him to do.

All due respect, but that doesn't seem to be much of a hinderance in state legislatures.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by patteeu

We've already seen that.

Who was that?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Who was that?

Who was what?

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by FD

I agree with returning to the true filibuster system. Let the minority have that ability to stop things, but make them stand on the floor and defend it, not just anonymously place a hold on anything and everything. I'm glad the Dems have come around on filibuster reform after fighting it in 2006.

[Taco John]

Rand Paul renews threat to filibuster the NDAA

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/ra...#ixzz2DeVyxeMc

[FD]

Filibuster fans, do you think we should add it to the House rules?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FD

Filibuster fans, do you think we should add it to the House rules?

Great question...