tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3613062347027562909..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Filibuster Reform WeekJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-81614599543061438982011-01-04T03:24:43.885-06:002011-01-04T03:24:43.885-06:00".....certainty that the GOP will eliminate i...<i>".....certainty that the GOP will eliminate it as soon as they have unified control does leave unexplained why they didn't do it last time it would have helped them."</i><br /><br />The difference is that the GOP / Tea Party base has been further radicalized since then. I just have trouble imagining them accepting the reverse of the situation we've seen in this last Congress, where their party loses or gives up on things despite big 50+ majorities, or constantly has to find ways to please the least ideologically pure members of the caucus. Imagine that Mitch McConnell or whomever tries to tell them that he's got 58 votes for some bill or appointment they really want, but they're not going to get it anyway, or it all has to be hollowed out to please the 40th and 41st most liberal Senators. I think there would be armed crowds surrounding the Capitol at that point.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14853655699478944552011-01-03T17:09:27.534-06:002011-01-03T17:09:27.534-06:00Jonathan-
Why would low-population states go alon...Jonathan-<br /><br />Why would low-population states go along with filibuster reform? Although I disagree with the absurd level of power senators from Maine, Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas, etc., have, I can't imagine that any of them would get behind real proposals to reform the filibuster, even if it helped their party. I just don't the Senate as a sustainable body long-term, given demographic trends and the growth of the east/west/south coastal states.Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59182458651684254962011-01-03T15:19:15.821-06:002011-01-03T15:19:15.821-06:00Jeff,
Could be. I would note, however, that Repu...Jeff,<br /><br />Could be. I would note, however, that Republicans didn't eliminate the filibuster in 2003-2006. Now, I know it's not quite the same -- the Democrats didn't impose a full 60 vote Senate, and they did threaten it on judicial nominations. And perhaps they would do it in the future. But I do point out that certainty that the GOP will eliminate it as soon as they have unified control does leave unexplained why they didn't do it last time it would have helped them.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42074919351919748152011-01-03T15:05:46.712-06:002011-01-03T15:05:46.712-06:00".....things being as they are it's somew...<i>".....things being as they are it's somewhat more likely that the GOP will be slow to act because they will have spent six years defending the filibuster."</i><br /><br />You lost me here. The moment they decide it's in their short-term political interests, it will take the current GOP/Fox axis all of 48 hours, max, to turn the filibuster into some kind of Kenyan Marxist plot against all that is good and holy and American. (I'm especially looking forward to future majority leader Jim DeMint's big speech blasting the filibuster as a onetime tool of racists, and explaining that it was an accidental development that the Founders never intended anyway.)Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14633150939266379272011-01-03T11:04:32.780-06:002011-01-03T11:04:32.780-06:00On #2, I liked saying "we can and should ref...On #2, I liked saying "we can and should reform rules on the first day", noting the precedent for that, without referring to later days. You've convinced me that Democrats should more explicitly state that they can reform the rules at any time. <br /><br />On #4, the "sunshine" will also require 41 active votes to sustain the fiilbuster, rather than the requirement on the 60 votes to overcome it now. Senatorial vacancies and hospitalizations and dental work are common enough that this may be significant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79288442080693335672011-01-03T10:07:46.748-06:002011-01-03T10:07:46.748-06:00The motion to proceed is already non-debatable (an...The motion to proceed is already non-debatable (and so can't be filibustered) on nominations, so it's irrelevant to that.<br /><br />My guess is that in the lame duck, Reid did in fact threaten to extend hours (and keep them in until post-Jan 1), and that he won some cooperation in exchange for dropping that. (Well, we know he made the threat, since he did it publicly). <br /><br />On legislation, it's hard to know what percentage of time it would eliminate because it's only one of several possible filibusters/cloture clocks. We've also seen cases where cloture on the motion to proceed is used as a test vote, and if it passes then the minority doesn't actually use all it's possible time. So it's really hard to generalized about that stuff.<br /><br />I do think that Reid could have been more aggressive about scheduling prior to the lame duck, but it's hard to tell from where we sit whether it was him, or the Dem caucus.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-70711147809683053162011-01-03T09:58:28.596-06:002011-01-03T09:58:28.596-06:00"(Eliminating one procedural step -- the poss..."(Eliminating one procedural step -- the possible filibuster on the motion to proceed -- is probably a minor gain)."<br /><br />what percentage of the floor time loss does this eliminate? <br /><br />Why didn't Reid extend the Senate hours, particularly during the lame duck session?<br /><br />Why didn't Obama/Reid insist that all outstanding nominations that had been approved by Ctee be voted on before they went home?Johnny Canucknoreply@blogger.com