| poeTV | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook

Help keep poeTV running


And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 15
chumbucket - 2013-11-21

Congress needs a fresh battery.


Oscar Wildcat - 2013-11-21

It seems like a bad idea, until you realize that the Democrats, being Democrats, don't actually filibuster anything when they are in the minority. What's the point of supporting the tool if only one side is willing to use it?


13.5 - 2013-11-21

Anybody got a link to some hardcore explanation of the rule? CNN and the like only report "dems say its good GOP says OBAMACARE," of course

One thing I was curious about was whether the new rule permits an actual speaking filibuster of judicial nominees, where you have to talk in order to require a 60 vote cloture threshold


Sexy Duck Cop - 2013-11-21

Andrew Sullivan's had some typically awesome coverage:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/21/the-senate-partially -nukes-the-fillibuster-reax/


jaunch - 2013-11-21

Something tells me that the next time the republicans are in power, they are going to do this immediately, the very first time the democrats try to filibuster anything. Why on Earth wouldn't you?


13.5 - 2013-11-21

Because it fundamentally alters the rules of the institution that benefit you when you're out of power

The republicans talked about doing this in the late 2000s and did not do it

You can make an argument that this was necessary to keep the US government functioning during the death spiral of the current republican coalition, given that they seem determined to keep doubling down on white christian identity politics until the cows come home, but the "nuclear option" was gross; requires the majority leader or veep to declare a proper objection out of order (otherwise, minority just filibusters the rule change)

The less gross way to reform the filibuster is to work an agreement wherein the rule changes don't take effect until after an election

But, of course, the GOP won't get on board with that; they don't expect to have a serious chance of winning a Presidential election until at least 2020


Oscar Wildcat - 2013-11-21

Because the Democrats don't actually use the fillibuster. This is how we ended up with the current supreme court lineup. Neither lobe of the government is functioning properly, IMO.


Xenocide - 2013-11-21

Republicans are already throwing a tantrum about this and vowing to use the rule like crazy as soon as they regain power. I forget who said it, but one of them says he's looking forward to using the nuke option "to help President Rubio pack the courts."


GQ - 2013-11-21

It should also be noted that I REALLY doubt the Republicans would let that rule stay if they faced even a modicum of Democratic opposition to their nominees, especially with how much more extreme they've gotten after the Obama presidency. (Although I have major doubts, outside of a lot of voter intimidation/electoral college tampering, that they'll ever get the presidency any time soon)


EvilHomer - 2013-11-21

Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Gets Sent Home on His Ass


Ocyrus - 2013-11-21

What's stopping them from changing the rule back before the new Senate takes seat in 2015?


13.5 - 2013-11-21

Nothing. Of course, once the new Senate sits, nothing would prevent them from changing it back. Once the "nuclear option" becomes an socially acceptable Senate procedure, effectively the filibuster can be eliminated in every instance by a majority. (Possibly only one that also controls the Presidency, not sure how the VP's constitutional role as head of the Senate plays into it.)

Indeed, although the Democrats left the filibuster in place for Supreme Court appointments in legislation, there's no reason that a future majority couldn't use the same procedure to eliminate all filibusters


cognitivedissonance - 2013-11-22

Bear in mind that the filibuster was essentially a gentleman's agreement to begin with. As the Senate became less of a council of elder statesmen of equal social status and more of a parliamentary stop block of professional politicians, the filibuster took on a more sinister aspect.

A more elegant weapon, for a more civilized time.


Traces - 2013-11-22

cognitivedissonance


Bort - 2015-06-21

I'm not fond of this change -- it does improve things, but it goes about it in a pretty bad way. The 60-vote cloture requirement has not been changed, the Democrats merely ruled that 51 votes is sufficient to satisfy the 60-vote requirement.

I'll give you a minute to re-read that sentence, to check if there's any way you misunderstood me. But no, you understood me just fine; the Democrats ruled that 51 is 60 for some purposes.

Here's the deal. To change Senate rules requires 60 votes, but if there is any question about the INTERPRETATION of a rule, that can be achieved with a simple majority. So Reid arranged there to be a question whether 51 votes satisfies the 60-vote cloture requirement regarding executive appointments, and the majority of Democrats nodded and said "why of course it does, that's the only sane way to interpret it".

Now the Republican abuse of the filibuster was intolerable, but the solution to that, I feel, was to fix the filibuster, not to abuse the rules regarding interpretation. It sets a bad precedent about how you can get around a filibuster if you want to, or really any rule that requires more than a simple majority.

About fixing the filibuster ... some want a return to the talking filibuster and nothing else, but I'm not really a fan. That turns governance into an endurance contest, the Senate resembling a Japanese game show rather than a deliberative body. If the intention is that a cost be attached to the filibuster, how about making it a cost that impacts the entire minority faction and not just one speaker? How about: shift the burden from the majority (who must find 60 votes to achieve cloture) to the minority (who must keep 41 Senators present in the chamber to block cloture).


Register or login To Post a Comment







Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement