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?

[The Sisko]

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 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.

[skinsmarydu]

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.

And pizza. (Just not Papa John's, lol)

[Prosperity]

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

I think it will help. We have 2 houses that have to pass the bill, a President that has to sign it into law, and courts to review it. I think it'll be ok, and I don't think hyperbolic language helps the discussion. And yes I realize others have called it "going nuclear"

[Larry]

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 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.

The phrase "nuclear option" is the term the Democrats used, back when the Republicans were claiming that it was an Unconstitutional act of Treason for the Dems to filibuster confirmation votes on 6 of W's federal judges, and wanted to make it illegal to filibuster confirmation votes.

(The votes were being filibustered because the Republicans had already changed the Senate's rules, to get rid of all the other ways that minority parties used to be able to block confirmation votes.)

(Don't know if it's still true, but I recall reading that, like 2 years into Obama's administration, the Republicans were filibustering the confirmation votes on over a third of Obama's appointments, not just for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, but all appointments at all levels of the executive branch.)

Establishing the precedent of "well, as long as we aren't getting rid of the filibuster entirely, just adjusting it a little", can get real slippery real fast.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 05:29 PM ----------

I think it will help. We have 2 houses that have to pass the bill, a President that has to sign it into law, and courts to review it. I think it'll be ok, and I don't think hyperbolic language helps the discussion. And yes I realize others have called it "going nuclear"

I'll postulate an example where I think a "silent filibuster" is Good For The Country.

"The Balanced Budget Amendment"

This is a proposal that the Republicans bring out every election cycle, to try to convince the voters that people who consistently vote to slash taxes and increase military spending want to reduce the deficit. At least the one I saw would modify the Constitution to state that in order to pass any federal budget that is not completely balanced, requires a 60% vote in both houses of Congress.

In short, it embeds in the Constitution a permanent filibuster of all federal budgets. In both houses of Congress.

Just my opinion, but I assert that a similar rule, and Prop 13, are the two biggest reasons for why California is the ****** up mess that it is, today.

In my opinion, passing such a Constitutional Amendment would enshrine Stupid in our Constitution. It would, IMO, be the single worst thing our nation would have ever done in it's history.

But, it's really popular. It sounds good. "Look how responsible and patriotic and thrifty I am! I voted to mandate that somebody else (besides me) balance the federal budget! And don;t you think that a balanced budget would be good, too?"

Passing that Amendment would be like a mutual suicide pact, for the whole country.

But, if it ever comes up for a recorded vote, the Congressmen are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.

I suspect that most of them know what a disaster it would be. I suspect that at least 60% (maybe 75%) of the people in Congress, would vote in favor of not allowing it to come up for a vote, as long as their vote is private.

But, if the vote is recorded, it likely passes, by large numbers. The people who would have voted against it, in private, (because they think it would harm the country), will vote in favor of a Constitutional Amendment (that they think will harm the country) rather than stand up to the voters.

----------

In short, I think it's Good For The Country that some proposals can be blocked from coming up for a vote, without a recorded vote taken on it.

[Predicto]

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

Yep. Agreed.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 04:39 PM ----------

In short, I think it's Good For The Country that some proposals can be blocked from coming up for a vote, without a recorded vote taken on it.

Hrm. That's a really good point as well.

Maybe require 25 senators for a silent filibuster, rather than just one? Or would that not help?

[Larry]

Hrm. That's a really good point as well.

Maybe require 25 senators for a silent filibuster, rather than just one? Or would that not help?

As I understand it, what happens with the "silent filibuster" is, the Senate leadership has an option.

The Senate rules allow a filibustered bill to be brought to a floor vote, while still filibustered.

If the bill gets 60 votes, then the filibuster is broken, and the bill passes, all with one vote.

But, if it doesn't get 60 votes, then not only has the filibuster not been broken, but the bill has been killed. It's dead, and they have to start over.

(I think of it as "if your challenge is overturned, then you lose a time out".)

The result is, just like NFL teams won't challenge unless they're almost 100% certain that they will win, the Senate leadership won't bring the filibustered bill to a vote, unless they have 60 promises of votes.

That's why pretty much every single vote that gets brought to a vote, now days, you see "Needed to pass: 60", on the vote. The bill was filibustered.

Now, I don't know how many Senators it takes ti start a "silent filibuster". But, it takes 40 to maintain it. It's just that, instead of having a recorded vote on the floor, the vote takes the form of "Can you tell us, privately, how you would vote, if the bill came to the floor?"

[Prosperity]

In short, I think it's Good For The Country that some proposals can be blocked from coming up for a vote, without a recorded vote taken on it.

You're right in saying that is a terrible situation, but I don't think there is enough support to make that a Constitutional amendment. I don't think the risk of your hypothetical outweighs real life situations we are facing, and have faced in the past decade. The country is on an unsustainable path, we will need huge structural reforms, we can't have that if a minority of the Senate can prevent a resolution. These political parties aren't going to reach compromises just because we seriously need that to be done.

[DogofWar1]

The phrase "nuclear option" is the term the Democrats used, back when the Republicans were claiming that it was an Unconstitutional act of Treason for the Dems to filibuster confirmation votes on 6 of W's federal judges, and wanted to make it illegal to filibuster confirmation votes.

(The votes were being filibustered because the Republicans had already changed the Senate's rules, to get rid of all the other ways that minority parties used to be able to block confirmation votes.)

(Don't know if it's still true, but I recall reading that, like 2 years into Obama's administration, the Republicans were filibustering the confirmation votes on over a third of Obama's appointments, not just for lifetime appointments to the federal bench, but all appointments at all levels of the executive branch.)

Establishing the precedent of "well, as long as we aren't getting rid of the filibuster entirely, just adjusting it a little", can get real slippery real fast.

Right, I remember all that, and was thinking of bringing up the differences in situation to justify democrats changing the filibuster now despite opposing changes prior to '06, mainly because the situations aren't really analogous. For the appointments, democrats wanted a compromise whereby all but 6 appointments would get up or down votes, but Republicans refused to separate them into individual votes, so Democrats had to filibuster all 300 some of them, I think. Democratic filibustering there was a much more responsible use of the filibuster than is currently going on.

Anyways, the talking filibuster is nothing like what Republicans wanted with the judges. They wanted to do away with the filibuster entirely on appointments, the talking filibuster doesn't do away with that at all.

I don't really buy the slippery slope argument for the filibuster IF the talking filibuster is implemented. It doesn't actually reduce the minority's power, simply forces them to do what they used to do. I think both sides would recognize the danger of actually reducing the power of the minority, which is why the talking filibuster is the most popular proposal by democrats, and why it's unlikely Republicans would go farther.

I mean, imagine Republicans won the Senate in 2014 (democrats defending 20 seats, republicans defending only 13), and implemented changes getting rid of the filibuster, using the change to talking filibuster as justification. Now, in 2016, more Republicans than democrats are up for reelection, what happens if they lose the Senate again? Suddenly they have been hoisted by their own petard, especially if a democrat wins the White House in 2016.

Sure, they'll whine now, but when push comes to shove the talking filibuster would change practically nothing, and they won't suddenly go destroy the filibuster because they know it would backfire in time.

I'll postulate an example where I think a "silent filibuster" is Good For The Country.

"The Balanced Budget Amendment"

This is a proposal that the Republicans bring out every election cycle, to try to convince the voters that people who consistently vote to slash taxes and increase military spending want to reduce the deficit. At least the one I saw would modify the Constitution to state that in order to pass any federal budget that is not completely balanced, requires a 60% vote in both houses of Congress.

In short, it embeds in the Constitution a permanent filibuster of all federal budgets. In both houses of Congress.

Just my opinion, but I assert that a similar rule, and Prop 13, are the two biggest reasons for why California is the ****** up mess that it is, today.

In my opinion, passing such a Constitutional Amendment would enshrine Stupid in our Constitution. It would, IMO, be the single worst thing our nation would have ever done in it's history.

But, it's really popular. It sounds good. "Look how responsible and patriotic and thrifty I am! I voted to mandate that somebody else (besides me) balance the federal budget! And don;t you think that a balanced budget would be good, too?"

Passing that Amendment would be like a mutual suicide pact, for the whole country.

But, if it ever comes up for a recorded vote, the Congressmen are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.

I suspect that most of them know what a disaster it would be. I suspect that at least 60% (maybe 75%) of the people in Congress, would vote in favor of not allowing it to come up for a vote, as long as their vote is private.

But, if the vote is recorded, it likely passes, by large numbers. The people who would have voted against it, in private, (because they think it would harm the country), will vote in favor of a Constitutional Amendment (that they think will harm the country) rather than stand up to the voters.

----------

In short, I think it's Good For The Country that some proposals can be blocked from coming up for a vote, without a recorded vote taken on it.

The funny thing about the balanced budget amendment is that it always comes up, and yet, even when they had majorities in both houses and the presidency, it didn't pass. I doubt it would get very far in a new "talking filibuster" rule Senate. Heck, Republicans probably wouldn't even bring it up, because the smarter ones among them would realize that implementing a balanced budget amendment now would mean huge increases in taxes and massive cuts in defense, neither of which the Republicans want.

Mainly I agree with Prosperity. There will always be hypothetical situations where a silent filibuster is preferable to a loud one, for both sides at differing times.

The issue is, we have many serious real world problems that are being blocked in the Senate in reality, not hypothetically. If we don't go with the talking filibuster (which really only reduces the minority's media cover, and not their ability to filibuster if they are ardent enough), we either have to keep the current system in place, which means we have a broken incompetent system, or put in a system that ACTUALLY reduces the power of the minority, which I think would be far more harmful than the talking filibuster proposal. Reality trumps hypothetical, we can deal with the unintended consequences if/when they pop up.

[Larry]

You're right in saying that is a terrible situation, but I don't think there is enough support to make that a Constitutional amendment.

Really?

The House has already passed such an Amendment. (I think more than once, but I'm not sure.)

The topic of the thread is the Senate, so let's just make an example of them. (The situation is the same at other levels of government.)

It takes 67 Senators to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.

You're a Senator. This measure is scheduled to come up for a vote. Your vote on this matter is going to be a matter of public record. Everybody in your district is going to know how you voted. (And if you vote against it, your next opponent is going to remind them of it, 150 times.)

Your choices are:

1. Vote in favor of a bill which your voters overwhelmingly think is a good idea. (They're wrong. but that's what they think.0
   
2. Or you can be one of the minority of Senators who willingly, publicly, stands up and casts a vote which your next opponent is going to paint as "Opposes balancing the budget".

Note that, if you vote in favor of this bill, it still doesn't become part of the Constitution. Even if you cast the deciding vote, to pass this bill, it will still have to be approved by 33 state legislatures. So you can vote in favor of it, please your voters, garner all of the credit that comes from pleasing your voters, and it still won;t take effect.

It might never take effect. Even if it does, it'll be years, maybe over 10 years, before it does.

----------

You really want to gamble on this theory that 34 Senators are going to stand up in front of the TV cameras and chose Option 2?

----------

But, next point.

Far as I know, it is possible, right now, to publicly hold the GOP's feet to the fire for the filibustering that they say they aren't doing.

Call a cloture vote.

I certainly know that it's possible to do this, right now. Because cloture votes are, in fact, occurring, right now. (In fact, in record numbers.) A cloture vote forces every member of the Senate to publicly vote on whether to continue to filibuster a bill, or to break it.

Now, I don't know what the rules are, for these votes. But I know for a fact that they are at least possible.

[Thiebear]

Reid of the Senate has said for years that the Senate is allowed to make its own rules.

Fillibuster is being abused, Fix it and make the elections count for something.

[Larry]

Reid of the Senate has said for years that the Senate is allowed to make its own rules.

And the Republicans said the same thing, when they were in power.

(And no doubt, will again.)