Filibuster Fridays?! (0.00 / 0)

Chris,

Thanks for keeping a "whip count" on filibuster reform.  Based on what's happened in the Senate over the past year, this is arguably the single most important legislative issue for progressives, and for small 'd' democrats in the US.

I'd be up for a "Filibuster Friday" campaign in the liberal blogosphere:  action proposals, whip count updates, summary of the week's events related to Senate rules reform, links to key resources, etc.

Anyone else interested?

---

by: massappeal @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 23:26:39 PM UTC

Byrd's idea is appealing (0.00 / 0)

It's a simple change in the existing filibuster rules instead of creating an entirely new structure. It's an easier sell to the elected Senators who have to enact the change and a much simpler concept to sell from a communication/PR standpoint.

One caveat -- they must also do something about the debate requirements before cloture votes. As they are now the Senate can be effectively be stalled by simply requiring cloture votes on all action, even if there is no actual Byrd-envisioned real filibuster after the cloture vote. Perhaps allowing concurrent 'running of the clock' on multiple cloture votes would solve this.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 23:33:44 PM UTC

Byrd's comments are NOT Serious! (0.00 / 0)

Byrd calls for something that Senate rules say is IMPOSSIBLE: forcing Senators to talk.

Chris Bowers then jumps to the conclusion that Byrd takes his rhetoric seriously. What he is doing is griping. He has ZERO intention of supporting changes in the Senate rules as his statement should make abundantly clear.

"Senators are obliged to exercise their best judgment when invoking their right to extended debate," Byrd said. " They should also be obliged to actually filibuster - that is, go to the floor and talk, instead of finding less strenuous ways to accomplish the same end."

The key word here is "should". How can you FORCE someone to talk and to talk about the subject at hand?

Well, I suppose you could amend the rules to allow the chair to challenge a speaker for departing from the subject or force them to yield the floor if they stop talking altogether.

But:

1. If you could change the rules like that you could just invoke the Nuclear Option and go to direct majority rule by abandoning the filibuster altogether, or you could modify the filibuster to require only 55 votes for cloture. Those options would actually be easier and less contentious to enforce.

In short, It's Not Going To Happen.

2. After Republicans win 5 to 8 Senate seats the LAST thing Democrats will do is change the rules. At that point, given the number of ass-hats like Lieberman, Bacus, and Lincoln (who will all still be in the Senate although Bayh, Landrieu and Nelson (as well as Reid) will be replaced by Republicans), Republicans would actually control a working MAJORITY!

Thus, you'd be giving functional control of the U.S. Senate to the Tea-party scumbags by invoking majority rule.

Ergo: All impetus to "reform" the Senate to make it more Democratic will instantly evaporate from the left and Glenn Beck will start screaming about it instead.  

---

by: Cugel @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 15:41:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

I hate to think what 'bipartisan' bills would be enacted with a nuclear Senate next session - the Baucus Caucus plus Obama giving himself a hernia with all that 'reaching out'!

The whole idea of reform at the start of next session is ludicrous (based on a 53-47 Senate, or thereabouts). There won't be 2/3 for any change in the rules under the 'normal' method. And (I'm fairly certain) the nuclear option is only good for killing the supermajority stone dead, not tinkering about with it.

The time for going nuclear would have been at the start of this Congress - assuming we had a prez and Dem Congressional parties who wanted to pass laws that erred ever so slightly on the progressive side. (Not the current team, obviously.)

Still, on a positive note, at least Byrd's well enough to shovel bullshit...

---

by: skeptic06 @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 16:56:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Harkin plan would do the trick (4.00 / 1)

while assuring that a majority couldn't silence a minority (which was what the filibuster was originally meant to do, ironically enough). It's also kind of cumbersome and still not very transparent.

I've come to favor something simpler: switching the burden of sustaining a filibuster to the minority instead of making the majority responsible for ending it. Require 40 votes to allow extended debate instead of requiring 60 votes to halt debate as is the case now. The minority could make its case, but would inevitably fail to sustain the 40 votes as the majority leader, over hours or days, called the roll. Simple, elegant, fair. Whaddya think?

Either way, reform of the Senate should be a major priority this year.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 23:38:59 PM UTC

That might work too... (0.00 / 0)

...if the vote can be called at any time (different from the current scheduled cloture votes that occur after 30 hours of debate).

As it stands now, if you force a 'real' filibutster the majority must have 50 members present or on call because the minority can request quorum calls if a quorum isn't present. That dynamic would change if the minority were required at any moment to produce 40 votes to continue debate. Every time a speaker yields the floor they should be required to produce 40 votes. That would change things quite a bit.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 00:07:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Byrd (0.00 / 0)

Actually, was'nt this the old way of conducting filibusters before the 1976 rule change?  If so, then it should be considered, since things were better then than they are now.  

---

by: jim s @ Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 15:46:23 PM UTC