Democrats Hopeful About Changing Filibuster Rules (Rollcall.com)

[DogofWar1]

Democrats Hopeful About Changing Filibuster Rules

Indeed, Reid commented earlier this year that he was “wrong” to reject filibuster changes in favor of an informal “gentlemen’s agreement” with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. And in his first post-election press conference, Reid planted himself firmly in the filibuster overhaul camp, vowing, “We’re going to make it so that we can get things done.”

Several Democrats, including Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, have indicated the talking filibuster has momentum in the caucus.
.
.
.
The “talking filibuster” proposal would require opposition senators to hold the floor after a cloture motion received majority vote but failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to limit debate under the current rules. If the senators gave up control of the floor, there would be a process for ending debate without needing the supermajority currently required. Senate aides said how that would happen remains under discussion.

There were some side discussions on the Filibuster in other threads, but it's a big enough issue that it probably deserves its own thread.

My feelings towards the filibuster are not particularly friendly ones, the recent trend has been to simply filibuster everything coming before the Senate. The talking filibuster proposal seems like a good way to ensure that bills can't simply be killed without action, without marginalizing the minority.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I know this is not popular, but I don't think we should get rid of the filibuster. At least not all together. It would work better if it wasn't a sin to cross party lines, but the idea that the Senate is a slower process makes some sense to me.

[Kilmer17]

The simple solution is to actually MAKE the side filibustering, ACTUALLY filibuster.

It's not like those assclowns are busy doing anything other than fundraising anyway.

[Duckus]

I am torn on my view of filibusters in general. I hate filibusters on the nation level, but it saves us from the wackos on the state level.

I do agree that they should be forced to actually filibuster a bill.

[maxiumone]

Yes make them have to stand on the floor and really do a true filibuster. I have a feeling not one of those douche bag senators has the guts to stand up and go through a true filibuster. They are to damn lazy.

[DogofWar1]

The simple solution is to actually MAKE the side filibustering, ACTUALLY filibuster.

It's not like those assclowns are busy doing anything other than fundraising anyway.

Right, and that's basically what the "talking filibuster" rule would do, at least that's the initial idea. Hopefully that's the result. I would love to see news coverage of a Senator filibustering for hours on end against a popular bill. Fertile ground for opposition videos come election season, and it might make use better judgement on what they oppose.

[HOF44]

The simple solution is to actually MAKE the side filibustering, ACTUALLY filibuster.

QFT, it's just to easy now, you file you paper saying I filibuster this and go home. They need to have to stand up there and read the phone book like it used to be. It would really have to mean a little more to them then.

[JimboDaMan]

The simple solution is to actually MAKE the side filibustering, ACTUALLY filibuster.

It's not like those assclowns are busy doing anything other than fundraising anyway.

Agreed. As things stand it's almost effortless to "filibuster" and therefore is used far too often. Preserve the filibuster but make then actually stand and deliver. Filibusters should be, er, "safe, legal, and rare". Now where have I heard that expression before?

[Larry]

I'm gonna be conservative on this one. I want it to stay the same.

Some times, for example, something may be really popular, but it's really bad. (No, I can't cite an example. Well, maybe this proposal. )

I'll also point out some other aspects about the "old style filibuster", as I understand them.

• Under the old rules, a filibuster takes one Senator. That's all. He waits his turn to start talking, and simply keeps talking.
• Once he does this no other business can take place on the floor. They can't move on to the next topic. Can't adjourn for lunch. Can't send bill NCC-1701 to committee. Nothing.
• Once a filibuster is begun, nothing can be done for two days.
• After two days, then it takes 40 Senators, if they want to maintain the filibuster.

Yeah, I confess. I would love to see the Republican Party, standing on the floor of the Senate, for days on end, reading the phone book to prevent a bill extending the Bush tax cuts, on every person in America, on the first $250K of income, from coming to a vote.

But, I don't want it bad enough, to get rid of a tool which, on rare occasions, can save us from doing something that is really popular, but really stupid.

[Prosperity]

The federal legislature basically can't function right now. We have no reason to believe partisan gridlock will change in the foreseeable future, so we ought to at least reduce some of the systemic friction. What we have now is not normal or healthy, and it's a recipe for catastrophe because we have a lot of fiscal issues to sort out.

[Larry]

The federal legislature basically can't function right now. We have no reason to believe partisan gridlock will change in the foreseeable future, so we ought to at least reduce some of the systemic friction. What we have now is not normal or healthy, and it's a recipe for catastrophe because we have a lot of fiscal issues to sort out.

And you think that "going nuclear" on the rules for the filibuster will cause things to work out?

[Yusuf06]

The simple solution is to actually MAKE the side filibustering, ACTUALLY filibuster.

It's not like those assclowns are busy doing anything other than fundraising anyway.

Agreed. However if I remember correctly I think there's a rule that requires the majority to prove they have enough votes present so it can be painful for both sides, hence the desire to avoid it at all costs.

[PeterMP]

I agree with Kilmer. You want to fillibuster show that you have the courage and commitment to get up there and talk about SOMETHING!

Bring back the cots.

[mistertim]

And you think that "going nuclear" on the rules for the filibuster will cause things to work out?

It would at least allow bills to be debated. The way things are now, the minority party basically stops anything they don't really like from even getting to the floor.

[DogofWar1]

And you think that "going nuclear" on the rules for the filibuster will cause things to work out?

That's the thing though, I don't think the "talking filibuster" is nuclear. Forcing people to stand and filibuster is how it used to be done, and that made sense. We've become too lax, and now any block of 41 senators can, in theory, make it so no laws can be passed.

I think it needs to be executed well, but doing nothing basically guarantees that the next time a major piece of legislation comes forward, that it will be either A) stalled until the last second (student loans, the upcoming fiscal cliff), or B) watered down well beyond the point where a majority concurs (Healthcare bill).

Now, if they were talking about doing away with the filibuster altogether, I agree, that'd be a bit too far, but that doesn't appear to be what's happening.