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.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So the conservatives in Congress are not patriots because they opposed the President's policies?

hmmmm, the minority party criticizing the majority party's policies has always been viewed as a patriotic endeavor...

and straightforward opposition is good for the country, hearing both sides of issues during vigorous debate is a hallmark of democracy...

but blind rejectionism and obstruction are not helpful to the national discourse, because it prevents rational discourse and compromise...

one can argue as to the extent republicans engaged in rejectionism and obstruction in the last congress, but it appeared to be quite prevalent to the untrained eye...

we need dialogue, not rejectionism...

discussions, not ultimatums...

both sides need to learn how to negotiate in good faith or we're ****ed in the long run...

heh, **** me running... i always liked that expression...

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by go bowe

hmmmm, the minority party criticizing the majority party's policies has always been viewed as a patriotic endeavor...

and straightforward opposition is good for the country, hearing both sides of issues during vigorous debate is a hallmark of democracy...

but blind rejectionism and obstruction are not helpful to the national discourse, because it prevents rational discourse and compromise...

one can argue as to the extent republicans engaged in rejectionism and obstruction in the last congress, but it appeared to be quite prevalent to the untrained eye...

we need dialogue, not rejectionism...

discussions, not ultimatums...

both sides need to learn how to negotiate in good faith or we're ****ed in the long run...

heh, **** me running... i always liked that expression...

Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

he's not MY pussy president...

just because i voted against mitt romney doesn't make me a follower of the pussy president, so there!

in reality, both the pp and the republican leaders in congress need to lead on this one...

it really does take two to tango...

and three's company, or the beginnings of a truly grand orgy...

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by go bowe

he's not MY pussy president...

just because i voted against mitt romney doesn't make me a follower of the pussy president, so there!

in reality, both the pp and the republican leaders in congress need to lead on this one...

it really does take two to tango...

and three's company, or the beginnings of a truly grand orgy...

If Obama chooses to go over the cliff because he won't negotiate on spending or entitlements it's all on him.

If republicans choose to go over the cliff because they won't budge on taxes when Obama negotiates on spending and entitlements it's on them.

Really simple if you look at it.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

You really should NOT bad mouth our Governor (that thinks he's President) that way....some of his friends from Spink County might be narks.

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

If Obama chooses to go over the cliff because he won't negotiate on spending or entitlements it's all on him.

If republicans choose to go over the cliff because they won't budge on taxes when Obama negotiates on spending and entitlements it's on them.

Really simple if you look at it.

I really hope the Reps in Congress play it that way....because if they do, they will be really, really screwed. They were wrong on November 5...and they are wrong about this.

[go bowe]

i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by go bowe

i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...

UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

[JonesCrusher]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

UNLESS...are a RWNJ tea-party douchenozzle...and there are a lot of them around. Especially, here...in D.C. Heh.

heh, indeed!

[Psyko Tek]

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.

I agree this should be the rule
you want to stop something stand up and explain why

there where bills not even brought to the senate floor , because a filibuster was threatened.
Go back to the Mr Smith ways

you want it stopped at least go to the floor and talk it down , no more motions

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Because only conservatives can? Conservatives are not all patriots. The latest Congress certainly proved that. You're all over the board on this issue. There is no sense to requiring a 60 % majority to allow anything to pass. We've only had five Presidents that ever got 60% of the vote.

I asked you a question. I see no answer.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

You really should NOT bad mouth our Governor (that thinks he's President) that way....some of his friends from Spink County might be narks.



I really hope the Reps in Congress play it that way....because if they do, they will be really, really screwed. They were wrong on November 5...and they are wrong about this.

What is it you think they're wrong about?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by JonesCrusher

I think we all know what Kotter's been up to again.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by go bowe

i dunno...

seems like they could both negotiate on taxes, entitlements and spending and then nobody would be wrong...

the right thing for the country would be for a deal to be reached and passed, the bigger the better...

Right, we'll see if that happens and which side bargains in good faith. Maybe they will.

One side is worried about re-election and the other his legacy.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Again, tell your pussy president to lead.

But I'm guessing he won't because even he knows he's not a leader.

You've been fed a line of crap. What Republicans want is for Obama to continue to bargain against himself. He is the only one offering compromise and Republicans say its not enough. Then they expect another offer.

Republicans want entitlements in the debate but won't say what they are. That way they can say Obama cut social security and medicare. I have never seen such a bunch of spineless anti-patriots in my life.