Skip to main content

View Diary: Reid considering more modest filibuster reform plan (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  60 for cloture is the whole problem (14+ / 0-)

    If they can't whip 60 votes, a bill won't even be introduced because there is no point. They need to get rid of the 60 vote rule for cloture. If the minority wants to stop a bill from being debated, let them talk. If they want to stop it from being voted on after cloture, let them talk. This painless silent filibuster that doesn't make the GOP own up to their obstruction is why people think the Senate does nothing.

    •  That's actually the part that shouldn't change. (0+ / 0-)

      Last year, PIPA would have been rammed right through if it only needed a simple majority. Thanks to the 60-vote threshold, we still have the Internet.

      That said, we definitely need to get rid of private holds & restore the hold-the-floor requirement. (Continuing my PIPA comparison, I'd have been glad to mail Ron Wyden a whole crate of phonebooks...)

      Remember Savita Halappanavar!

      by Brown Thrasher on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:17:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One good result (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        From a bad rule doesn't make a bad rule good.

        We had the 60-vote threshold, and still got huge chunks of the Bush agenda with a split Senate.  Heck, since Reagan was in office, we've always had at least 45 Democratic Senators.  How much of the right wing agenda was stopped by a 60-vote threshold in that time?

        •  In that case, Blue Dog establishment fecklessness (0+ / 0-)

          ...should be, by your own argument, a bigger concern to you than any arcane rule change — as in primarying out cardboard cutouts like Reid as well as 5th columnists like Baucus.

          The cloture threshold itself is not the problem — I think plenty of us can think of legislation that should simply not be discussed, whether last year's Kill-The-Internet bill onn behalf of the MPAA or some possible future Kill-The-Gays bill sponsored by the Family — but the fact that no Senator has to stand up on the floor & say the words "I Object" makes a grotesque, undemocratic farce out of the legislative process.

          Remember Savita Halappanavar!

          by Brown Thrasher on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:16:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly this! (0+ / 0-)

      After a bill in introduced by the Senate Majority leader, the default rule is UNLIMITED DEBATE.  Now, you'd think maybe they'd have some kind of policy on setting debate limits at the outset - say 1 hour for a minor issue, 10 minutes for naming a post office, whatever.  But no, UNLIMITED.

      Then, after people get tired of the UNLIMITED debate, the only way to stop the talking is to get 60 Senators to vote for cloture (and even then, they still get 30 more hours - almost a whole work week to debate something 3/5 of the Senate has just said they're sick of talking about!).

      And Harry wants to preserve the cloture requirement?

      Stop treating the Senate like a damn aristocratic club, and start treating it like a legislative body that we need functioning.  America literally depends on it.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site