tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8497987157315041387..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Get Filibuster Reform RightJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42551583530677472582012-11-11T23:05:05.857-06:002012-11-11T23:05:05.857-06:00Personally, my main fear is if it's scrapped, ...Personally, my main fear is if it's scrapped, 30 years down the road we'll run in to some horrible christianist monstrosity and be S.O.L. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-28766371872178936002012-11-11T22:59:05.799-06:002012-11-11T22:59:05.799-06:00Worse, what's to stop the majority from simply...Worse, what's to stop the majority from simply offering exactly the same bill seven times, then doing whatever it pleases? <br /><br />IMO the key is forcing the minority to be physically uncomfortable during the process. Preserves it for serious issues while retaining flexibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10752917607180862932012-11-11T05:52:07.279-06:002012-11-11T05:52:07.279-06:00Cool, that makes a lot more sense.Cool, that makes a lot more sense.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68502500685920929762012-11-11T02:55:08.401-06:002012-11-11T02:55:08.401-06:00Have you seen California? This is where you can v...Have you seen California? This is where you can vote in a tax-credit on a majority-vote and can't remove it without a 2/3rds vote...Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71103617943285482582012-11-11T02:53:57.422-06:002012-11-11T02:53:57.422-06:00Then you just add more items to the calendar, enou...Then you just add more items to the calendar, enough so they have to use up their filibusters. It's pretty simple. You load up your Borks so that you can get later Borks in without an argument.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5125344778949561282012-11-10T23:46:23.168-06:002012-11-10T23:46:23.168-06:00I don't see what's so great about the fili...I don't see what's so great about the filibuster in the first place that it should just be reformed rather than scrapped. Historically it's been used mostly by Southern Senators to stop civil rights, not by businesses or anything like that. The kinds of intense minorities Bernstein is talking about have no troubling influencing majorities in the Senate during the amendment process; they don't need the filibuster.star15389https://www.blogger.com/profile/02349899585178825093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-1611651782651925792012-11-10T20:00:08.904-06:002012-11-10T20:00:08.904-06:00I hope the current efforts at filibuster reform ar...I hope the current efforts at filibuster reform are successful, for the sake of our democracy...explained better (in cartoon form) here: www.cartoonomist.comAndy Lubershanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288361681295719143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-52526410513563048662012-11-10T16:48:13.224-06:002012-11-10T16:48:13.224-06:00Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. I mean the numbe...Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. I mean the number of times that you vote per bill, not the number of Senators. <br /><br />Dropping the extra vote on the motion to proceed won't make much difference. Changing the number for cloture to 55 certainly will.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66183707602643660362012-11-10T10:45:01.681-06:002012-11-10T10:45:01.681-06:00Well, if the filibuster is to remain because it is...Well, if the filibuster is to remain because it is a good rule I would like to see it expanded to ALL voting matters. No budget reconciliation, which favors Republicans most of the time. <br /><br />If the filibuster is good, lets have more of them.<br />Honeyboy Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268312972803113627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18833186239937300362012-11-10T08:21:36.877-06:002012-11-10T08:21:36.877-06:00"I'd like to see procedures which at leas..."I'd like to see procedures which at least open up possibilities for cross-partisan alliances"<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just really don't understand why this is important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59912339192609137142012-11-10T06:09:52.452-06:002012-11-10T06:09:52.452-06:00The NFL Replay Challenge Rule could become the *Se...The NFL Replay Challenge Rule could become the *Senate Filibuster Challenge Rule.*<br /><br />As an example, 6 challenges/filibusters a session. The rights of the Minority would be protected, but they would have to use the filibuster judiciously instead of gratuitously. They would have to save filibuster challenges for something that mattered rather than just throwing the Sands of Stall into every gear.<br /><br />The number could be negotiated.<br /><br />The nature of *How* you filibuster (like having to actually talk instead of just breezing by the Leader's office and calling in thru the doorway, "Hey Harr, we're on the way to Ruth's Steak House -- we're filibustering this bill too, tra la la.") could be part B of filibuster reform.Fleethttp://www.wendyfleet.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73904753710478722072012-11-10T05:43:52.892-06:002012-11-10T05:43:52.892-06:00Our country survived into the late 1990s (or reall...Our country survived into the late 1990s (or really until 2009) without a routine 60 vote requirement in the Senate. Let's go back to majority rule in the Senate. It works and makes sense. Elections should mean something. If a party wins a majority in the Senate, they should be able to pass legislation. If the voters don't like what they do, it should be the voters' responsibility to throw the bums out and give the minority party power again. <br /><br />The only place where I could understand having a higher vote requirement is for lifetime judicial appointments. But I'd rather deal with that with term limits or requiring periodic reappointment than having "get 60 votes then you're there for life."<br /><br />With 2 branches in Congress, a separately elected President, an independent judiciary, and numerous lower levels of government, power is already sufficiently or even excessively diffused in our country. Allowing a 40 vote Senate minority the power to block all nominations and bills is unnecessary and contrary to the Founders' intent.Ron E.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-30769058325871233642012-11-10T02:24:01.300-06:002012-11-10T02:24:01.300-06:00I don't understand this: "Changing the nu...I don't understand this: "Changing the number of votes has little or nothing to do with it." If you cut the threshold to 55, doesn't that reduce the ability of the minority to block stuff with a filibuster, because they have to get 45 people together rather than 40?Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59087880349999361392012-11-10T00:53:50.090-06:002012-11-10T00:53:50.090-06:00That's always been my assertion as well. The ...That's always been my assertion as well. The forty-need-only-hide option seems lazy.<br />Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84233088579590138272012-11-09T21:12:02.060-06:002012-11-09T21:12:02.060-06:00I rather thought that public holds would help, but...I rather thought that public holds would help, but the news seems unwilling to name specific lawmakers until much later in the cycle. There's no light, just the potential for light. And generally, the ones doing the holds don't care.Crissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389565751169783614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68305598159450217162012-11-09T20:29:05.738-06:002012-11-09T20:29:05.738-06:00To be honest, I'd like a majority-based body. ...To be honest, I'd like a majority-based body. Our system already has a huge pile of checks and balances, we don't need to throw an extra-constitutional one into the mix. <br /><br />But if you have the (perfectly coherent!) view that filibusters can protect a minority but can also be abused, and right now they're being abused too often and should be employed less frequently, then it makes sense to target the things that you seem to be dismissing--the convenience and number of votes required to sustain a filibuster. <br /><br />I do wonder, though, if having a position that indifferent majorities should not overrule intense minorities just encourages all factions to up the intensity level and make every debate a "Hell no!" drag out fight.Consumatopianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-89528336837076695172012-11-09T17:13:07.750-06:002012-11-09T17:13:07.750-06:00I fail to understand why Your "Superbill"...I fail to understand why Your "Superbill" proposal ( 1 bill a year that can't be filibustered ) would lead to any kind of reform ore improvement whatever. <br /><br />How is it defined? What restrictions will there be on saying X is the Superbill this week, then saying Y is the Superbill next week? <br /><br />And how does it improve anything? All the lobbyist and insider pressure would then go into getting lobbyist-demanded provisions A, B, and C into the Superbill, and getting craven senators 1, 2, and 3 to say they won't vote for the Superbill unless A, B and C are in it. philosophical ronhttp://www.philosophical-ron.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-87157091430354761562012-11-09T17:02:30.206-06:002012-11-09T17:02:30.206-06:00The burden needs to be reversed. If two-fifths of ...The burden needs to be reversed. If two-fifths of the sworn Senators need to affirm it, and the acting Senate leader can call for a snap vote at any time, then 40 obstructing Senators need to remain present continuously. This retains the filibuster for critical situations, but makes it much harder to use frivolously. <br /><br />The rest of Greg's suggestions, above, are also worth pursuing. (I just prefer this harsher proposal to his first bullet point.)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00975440137165270965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14474532056144161872012-11-09T16:42:19.822-06:002012-11-09T16:42:19.822-06:00"the idea of retaining the current possibilit..."the idea of retaining the current possibilities for individual Senators and small groups of Senators to have considerable clout"<br /><br />There is only power to *stop* things from happening, no power for any group of any size to do anything. That's an unstable equilibrium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-569284433184510482012-11-09T16:26:55.186-06:002012-11-09T16:26:55.186-06:00My thoughts:
-it should take an affirmative vote ...My thoughts:<br /><br />-it should take an affirmative vote of 2/5ths of senators present to continue debate, rather than the vote of 3/5ths chosen and sworn to end it. <br /><br />-Once they've voted to end the debate they should have the vote, instead of taking two more days. <br /><br />-Get rid of motions to proceed entirely.<br /><br />-Set time limits on debates for executive branch nominees.<br /><br />-No supermajority for amendments, and get rid of the filling the tree business. Minorities should be able to offer amendments from the floor and at least get a vote.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16387816156204378075noreply@blogger.com