Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Rs mad that Senate Ds might pass filibuster reform they agree with (98 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why not? Their goal isn't to do the government's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    isabelle hayes

    business, but to keep Democrats from being able to carry out their agenda, whatever the voters may have decided.

    Or if they don't filibuster 100 federal judges, but still filibuster anyone Obama proposes for the Supreme Court, a few other key judges and appointments, and major laws -- is that okay?

    No.

    THis "reform" is way too weak.

    If, as it seems, some Democrats (like Reid) are unwilling to completely do away with this "Senate tradition," then at the very least limit the number of filibusters either party can engage in to a very low number per Congressional session (2 years).  Perhaps 2 or 3.  And make them talk.

    The filibuster used to be an extraordinary, rarely used tactic.  REform is worthless unless it restores the filibuster to that status again, and keeps it there.

    Better yet, the length of a filibuster should be limited as well.  Give it a week.  Make it another delaying tactic, useful only a few times a session.  Theoretically, it would give the minority a way of calling attention to an issue they feel strongly about, time to get their objections out to the public and let the public reaction be heard.  That's all the minority can legitimately expect.  The Senate is supposed to be run by majority rule.

    --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

    by Fiona West on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 05:03:25 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Limiting it to 2 or 3 effectively eliminates it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dzog, rainmanjr, isabelle hayes

      Because the majority party would just introduce 3 or 4 separate bills about essentially the same thing and eventually get their way.

      I prefer the proposal that requires rising numbers of senators opposing cloture to actually be on the floor when it is invoked. That would take care of the problem of 2 senators at a time obstructing everything.

      But in reality, changing the filibuster from invisible to highly visible is a great improvement. Many republican senators do not have the luxury of gerrymandered districts that their house colleagues have, and putting the crazy obstruction on display would be a problem for them.

      •  I don't trust the power of visibility to control (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes

        Republican obstruction, and I dread seeing the Dems waste their one chance at filibuster reform, and thereby gamble the effectiveness of this second term, which is crucial in certain ways (in dealing with climate change, for instance; we have a limited window to make basic infrastructure changes in time).

        But the idea of requiring Senators who oppose cloture to be on the floor when it's invoked -- that has real potential.

        --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

        by Fiona West on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 09:49:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site