tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4511349491758600822..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Back to the "Live" FilibusterJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-34721664880644178232013-06-27T08:59:06.636-05:002013-06-27T08:59:06.636-05:00It would be easy to write it for appointments, wri...It would be easy to write it for appointments, writing it for legislation would be hard. What you would want is to have that a "substantially" changed bill would constitute a new piece of legislation and therefore a new filibuster. Who determines what is a "substantial" change? Obviously, changing a word here or there would not count. Would deleting a handful of sections from a 200 page bill be a "substantial" change? The obvious person to make these determinations is the parliamentarian, but it would really politicize that job. I still think it is an idea worth pursuing.James Eppersonhttp://www.civilwarcauses.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-20754730377801149612013-06-27T08:14:36.907-05:002013-06-27T08:14:36.907-05:00Permitted filibusters proportional to the number o...Permitted filibusters proportional to the number of bills the majority proposes are allocated to each member.<br /><br />Of course this means that any time a senator has a "fractional" number of filibusters. Multiple senators must combine their allocations to produce a complete filibuster. Alternatively, every proposed bill gives all senators an allocation of time they can spend on blocking the bills/nominations they hate most (not blocking all bills). This allocation could even be proportional to the length of the bill (Algorithmic description length FTW!)<br /><br />This would mean the minority gets to block the stuff it hates most, but not block everything. It also means the priorities and decisions of individual senators would be very important, even if they were "ideally polarized" and had the same Yea or Nay vote on every piece of legislation.<br /><br />Or you could just do that Superbill thing, and it would be much easier to understand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61512261864556141992013-06-26T23:55:12.260-05:002013-06-26T23:55:12.260-05:00Jonathan, if the risks are so small then I'd h...Jonathan, if the risks are so small then I'd have to agree with anonymous -- it's hard to understand why this hasn't happened more often.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-32544754043145907232013-06-26T23:21:41.859-05:002013-06-26T23:21:41.859-05:00The idea is appealing, but it's just really ha...The idea is appealing, but it's just really hard to execute. You probably couldn't write it to avoid loopholes.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64267279231534886862013-06-26T23:20:09.823-05:002013-06-26T23:20:09.823-05:00To Anon:
Little or no opportunity. Dems basically...To Anon:<br /><br />Little or no opportunity. Dems basically go for cloture when they can get it, and don't bring something to the floor when they can't. That only leaves situations in which nothing is at stake in the extended speech, which doesn't make it impossible to get press attention (as Paul and Bernie Sanders did), but it takes most of the drama out.<br /><br />(And even then, mostly they wait to move to a bill until they can get a UC agreement which makes an extended speech impossible).<br /><br />Couves: I think the risks to Paul were tiny. He was certain to get people who agreed with him on board, and given that he wasn't actually trying to block anything (and indeed given how limited his "demand" was) there wasn't really much reason to fight back against him. He did take some risks by yielding for questions -- he could have made a fool of himself answering them -- but that's about it. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-31519188006388480172013-06-26T19:40:14.345-05:002013-06-26T19:40:14.345-05:00Because Jonathan is ignoring the potential costs o...Because Jonathan is ignoring the potential costs of a filibuster.<br /><br />Rand Paul's filibuster could have easily gone very badly for him. Some tried to argue that he was grandstanding or making ridiculous claims. If that had become the dominant narrative, it would have been a massive failure for Paul. Also, his party could have joined McCain in ridiculing him for being to the left of Obama on the issue. Instead of becoming a frontrunner for the GOP nomination, he could have become known as just another principled but eccentric gadfly like his father.<br />Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-87534764732858251362013-06-26T15:43:40.951-05:002013-06-26T15:43:40.951-05:00I think the short answer there is, they're not...I think the short answer there is, they're not necessary. If they were, some senators would rise to the challenge, and given the right issues and stakes, the party caucuses would also rise to the challenge.andrew longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-58299493673173588242013-06-26T14:36:34.675-05:002013-06-26T14:36:34.675-05:00My idea for filibuster reform is to impose a hard ...My idea for filibuster reform is to impose a hard limit on how many times it can be used per Congress: say, no more than 45 times. Repeat votes on the exact same legislation/nomination would not count against the total. (You would have to write the rule carefully to prevent the majority from changing a single word in an bill to create a "new" vote.) T<br /><br />The minority could still block things it deemed important, but it could not block *everything*.James Eppersonhttp://www.civilwarcauses.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42888313855771515342013-06-26T13:57:50.073-05:002013-06-26T13:57:50.073-05:00Jonathan, all your arguments make a great deal of ...Jonathan, all your arguments make a great deal of logical sense.<br /><br />But can you explain then why we don't see more talking filibusters by the minority in the US Senate, if (a) they provide such good press, and (b) they are not prohibited? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com