What's in the ACTUAL Filibuster Reform package
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2024, 06:36:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What's in the ACTUAL Filibuster Reform package
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What's in the ACTUAL Filibuster Reform package  (Read 932 times)
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,050
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 05, 2011, 04:48:39 PM »

Pretty sensible changes, unless of course you're a douchebag like Mitch McConnell or Jon Kyl.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/author_blogs/2011/01/the-modest-filibuster-reform-package.php

Let's be clear that the reforms Tom Udall introduced today aren't radical at all. Sure, Republicans are in high dudgeon about them, calling the move an unprecedented power grab, etc, etc.

But going through them one by one, you'll see just how modest they really are.

1). Eliminating Anonymous Holds: This has broad bipartisan support, and wouldn't change much of anything -- at the very least, anybody who might drop a hold out of embarrassment could just as easily enlist a shameless proxy to place the hold for them.

2). The Talking Filibuster: This doesn't eliminate the 60 vote requirement. It just makes the minority work harder to sustain its filibuster. But rotating people on and off the floor in brief intervals isn't an insuperable hurdle, even for a modestly determined minority.

3). No Filibustering Debate: This privileges the motion to proceed to debate. Unlike the above changes, it actually does reduce the minority's leverage, particularly to demand votes on amendments, or changes to a bill before it hits the floor. But the idea of allowing the majority to debate whatever they want doesn't eliminate the minority's right block debate from ending. And, for what it's worth, the notion of blocking debate in what is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body is ridiculous to everyone but, well, senators themselves.

4). Guaranteed Amendments: This actually strengthens the minority's hand...slightly. If the majority leader "fills the tree" and files for cloture on a bill, the minority still gets one more shot at changing it...but not until their filibuster comes to an end. Then they're promised up to three germane amendments. Not a huge bonus, but not bad.

5). Expedited Confirmations: This saves about 28 hours for every nominee, or group of nominees, that gets filibustered. Since the 30-hour "post-cloture" clock is designed to allow for more amendments, and you can't amend a nominee, this winnows that time down to two hours. No wasting time for wasting-time sake.

Taken together, these reforms would grease things a little bit. But even if they were all adopted, it wouldn't end the era of the de-facto 60 vote requirement. Not even close.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,101
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2011, 05:02:05 PM »
« Edited: January 05, 2011, 05:43:42 PM by Torie »

Only number 2, having to actually keep talking, will make much difference, and even there, only for legislation that is not in the first tier of import and controversy.

The rest just means that you won't get 60 votes for anything, until every detail has been negotiated out, and every possible amendment, since you will effectively get only one bite at the apple.

It should expedite matters however, for enacting those bills, which in due course you will secure the necessary 60 votes, after a tortuous path attended with some uncertainly at the margins as to how the passage of time, and who comes up with what amendment, changes things perhaps a bit. And when you are close to the end of the session, the just running out the clock strategy will be less effective - which I think at the end was what was really pis*ing off the Dems.

And of course getting rid of the secret holds I don't think could really be criticized by anybody.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2011, 05:08:33 PM »

Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,457


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2011, 05:42:05 PM »

I would like to see it go further, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2011, 05:58:27 PM »

I would like to see it go further, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2011, 08:07:04 PM »


This has been the GOP strategy for the entire Obama administration.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,003


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2011, 08:09:50 PM »

Well, this is very reasonable. Thank you px75. I will have to drop my opposition to these changes.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,006


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2011, 08:47:39 PM »

Only a hack seriously lacking in integrity could oppose these. Do these reforms actually have fifty votes though?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,420
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2011, 12:46:57 AM »


Well, that was a douchey response.



RE: Udalls's proposal--Suburb and long overdue reforms.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2011, 01:57:16 AM »

1). Eliminating Anonymous Holds: Don't really care either way.  I'm not strongly against it, but I'm certainly not strongly in favor of keeping them.

2). The Talking Filibuster: Strongly support, and I've been calling for this for years.

3). No Filibustering Debate: Support

4). Guaranteed Amendments: Support

5). Expedited Confirmations: Support
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.227 seconds with 9 queries.