tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4833933324577501048..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Udall/Merkley DetailsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63531636767242840082011-01-06T09:10:48.220-06:002011-01-06T09:10:48.220-06:00Ron,
Outside of that I'm against a simple-maj...Ron,<br /><br />Outside of that I'm against a simple-majority Senate, I think you're wrong about the politics of it. Whether or not the Dems do anything minor this time around, every Demcoratic candidate for Senate with a contested primary is going to be for reform in '12. If Obama wins reelection and the Democrats retain control of the Senate, there's every chance that a second round of reforms will pass.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-60952643702733395522011-01-06T09:02:06.697-06:002011-01-06T09:02:06.697-06:00There's some value in these changes, but the f...There's some value in these changes, but the failure to lower the cloture requirement means that fundamentally they won't deter Mitch McConnell and company from obstructing or delaying every bill and nomination the next 2 years.<br /><br />Now is the time to go to a majority rules Senate. Putting on a show that reform is possible without really doing reform just means it will never happen. We saw the same situation when a President was elected by the electoral college+Supreme Court without a popular plurality in 2000 and yet the electoral college wasn't abolished the next year. The issue just died and we'll be stuck with the EC at least until the next time some Republican is appointed President by the Supreme Court.Ron E.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42924594417809449792011-01-06T08:56:22.840-06:002011-01-06T08:56:22.840-06:00Jonathan,
Thanks for this analysis. It seems to ...Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks for this analysis. It seems to me that what's at stake is "proving" (perhaps demonstrating is a better word) that Senate rules can, in fact, be changed. Given what we've been through in recent years, that's no small accomplishment...if the Dems can pull it off.massappealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17883213166005005577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3787392711118892472011-01-06T07:12:59.669-06:002011-01-06T07:12:59.669-06:00I have a catch related to one of Bernstein's p...I have a catch related to one of Bernstein's pet issues (legislator age), but do not have twitter capability--can someone alert him?:<br /><br />http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/wily-old-dems-take-whippersnapper-republicans<br /><br />Barone of the Washington Examiner is talking about how the GOP House caucus got significantly younger with all the newbies; the Democratic caucus got significantly older, with all the young legislators from 2006 and 2008 being defeated.<br /><br />Except...<br /><br />the very numbers he quotes say that the 112th's Dem caucus is 2 years older than the 111th's Dem caucus. So in the 111th, the average Dem was born in 1951... and in the 112th, the average Dem was born in 1951! This is just because turnover was largely age-INdependant! His entire column is gobbledegook!GonenUSMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04809954969690197202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11367526373979820292011-01-05T22:21:36.691-06:002011-01-05T22:21:36.691-06:00Just plain Anderson,
You are not correct. Under ...Just plain Anderson,<br /><br />You are not correct. Under both current rules and the Udall/Merkley proposal, the minority only needs to keep someone talking. The difference is that under current rules, the minority doesn't even need to do that; they can just switch to a quorum call, and if the majority doesn't provide enough Senators, the quorum call keeps going. <br /><br />Chris Anderson,<br /><br />Postcloture time won't affect the things that can't get cloture. It certainly can mean that the majority can squeeze more nominations into the same amount of floor time. However, it's not clear that the reduction in floor time required will make it worth it for the majority to move nominations with not much opposition. <br /><br />It's worth mentioning that it hasn't been unusual for the minority to yield back postcloture time, anyway. It's just not certain to me that this reform will really change anything.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29566324604859745122011-01-05T16:51:11.427-06:002011-01-05T16:51:11.427-06:00I think these reforms could be a lot more signific...I think these reforms could be a lot more significant than you realize. For instance, the significant reduction in time on cloture votes. I did not know this at the time, but apparently one of the main reasons why Reid rarely forced the GOP to actually start a filibuster was because of the 30 hour requirement after filing for cloture. Reid just had to many pressing items on the agenda to spend a lot of time on 30 hour procedural motions. By reducing this to one or two hours it could significantly increase the likelihood that he would actually call for a cloture vote.<br /><br />The vote could still fail because of the 60 vote requirement, but at least it would be on record. This would be a vast improvement over the defacto silent filibuster we have today where the GOP just has to inform Reid of their intent and that causes him to punt on them making it official.Chris Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18139817527808942227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-52334297203700925692011-01-05T16:38:28.825-06:002011-01-05T16:38:28.825-06:00Am I correct that to maintain a live filibuster, t...Am I correct that to maintain a live filibuster, the minority has to keep 40 senators (or however many) actually present?<br /><br />I think the notion is to (1) make the filibuster more inconvenient to the minority and (2) get the media's attention so it's clear the minority is indeed obstructing.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.com