# Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513 "2012-11-09T19:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/341 "2013-11-25T19:56:44Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > None of the GOP apologists have responded to my question in #316. Is that because there is no answer beyond admitting GOP hypocrisy? Because it’s a stupid question. Democrats didn’t need a filibuster to block Thomas. Very simply put, those Democrats that objected to Thomas being a SC justice should not have voted for confirmation. 11 Democrats thought he should be a SC justice. It was a \*\*bipartisan \*\*confirmation. As opposed to strictly partisan confirmation attempts that would sometimes necessitate a filibuster. Apples and oranges. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/342 "2013-11-25T20:08:30Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > [By like 2%.](http://www.nber.org/papers/w15371) Wanting to do tort reform first is like beginning the restoration of a car by changing the glove-box light. So, if you car battery dies you don’t just replace it, or if that doesn’t work, fix the electrical system. The first thing you do is buy a new car. Brilliant! And tort reform is not the only thing I suggested doing. Simply scroll up. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/343 "2013-11-25T20:12:04Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m not surprised that none of the GOP apologists have responded to this. That Democrats let Bush make his choice despite having 55% of the Senate, while Republicans take the opposite position with only 45% demonstrates that the two Parties have opposite views on the country’s power sharing and role of opposition. > > It might be informative if GOP apologists did dare to respond. I’ll make it easy; just click one of the boxes: > [ul][li] ( ) This example just shows how timid and stupid the Demos are. As long as they had at least 41% of the Senate they should have obstructed either of the Bushes at every turn, whining and threatening so they could get their way.[/li][li] ( ) Bad example. Clarence Thomas is an upstanding centrist Justice free of the slightest whiff of personal scandal, while Elena Kagan is probably a card-carrying Marxist lesbian.[/li][li] ( ) When we do it, we’re doing the Baby Jesus’ bidding. If the Democrats did it, it would be Satan acting through the zombies he controls.[/li][li] ( ) Gee, thanks for pointing this out, septimus. I guess the present-day GOP really is shamefully despicable after all.[/li][/ul] Wait—are off you of the mind that Dem President has had a more difficult time getting his Supreme Court Justice nominations approved? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/344 "2013-11-25T20:27:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, if you car battery dies you don’t just replace it, or if that doesn’t work, fix the electrical system. The first thing you do is buy a new car. Brilliant! ACA is hardly a new car. It uses the existing system and just regulates it and provides money to help people afford it. > [@](#): > > And tort reform is not the only thing I suggested doing. Simply scroll up. I was just talking about tort reform, and how it’s close to useless. So people should stop pretending that it’s a significant part of a realistic health plan. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/345 "2013-11-25T20:34:26Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > ACA is hardly a new car. It uses the existing system and just regulates it and provides money to help people afford it. Nonsense. Your analogy would work if you said it not like a new type of car, like a flying car. Obamacare changes things in a huge way. You really missed _all_ of the news coverage over these past years? > [@Lobohan](#): > > I was just talking about tort reform, and how it’s close to useless. So people should stop pretending that it’s a significant part of a realistic health plan. But I wasn’t, was I? I agree doing that and only that would not be enough. So you’re point is well, pointless. Now, if theres a plan that reduces costs 2% here and X% there and Y% there, that’s worth looking at. But even if you look at it alone, if you agree that it reduces costs 2%, why do you oppose doing that, regardless of what else you might do? Would you be more in favor of it if it was thought to increase costs by 2%? Come on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/346 "2013-11-25T20:44:36Z")
That’s \*your \*starting point. Probably close to your ending point too, right? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/347 "2013-11-25T20:55:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. Your analogy would work if you said it not like a new type of car, like a flying car. Obamacare changes things in a huge way. You really missed _all_ of the news coverage over these past years? I, I would assume, probably understand the ACA much better than you do, since I don’t rely on RW news sources. 😃 That said, the ACA keeps the insurance model we have, it just requires that insurance to provide certain standards, makes it easier to afford, and creates exchanges. It’s still the same bones. If we switched to something like Canada’s single payer, or the NHS, I’d see your argument. But we still have a shitty for-profit insurance system between patients and care. > [@](#): > > But I wasn’t, was I? I agree doing that and only that would not be enough. So you’re point is well, pointless. > > Now, if theres a plan that reduces costs 2% here and X% there and Y% there, that’s worth looking at. But even if you look at it alone, if you agree that it reduces costs 2%, why do you oppose doing that, regardless of what else you might do? Would you be more in favor of it if it was thought to increase costs by 2%? Come on. I’m for tort reform, if it isn’t too stringent. If you go to a hospital for a leg amputation, and they cut off the wrong one, I want them to pay a huge amount. If you’re limited to some small number for a goof-up like that, I’d be against it. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/348 "2013-11-25T20:57:31Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because it’s a stupid question. Democrats didn’t need a filibuster to block Thomas. Very simply put, those Democrats that objected to Thomas being a SC justice should not have voted for confirmation. 11 Democrats thought he should be a SC justice. It was a \*\*bipartisan \*\*confirmation. > > As opposed to strictly partisan confirmation attempts that would sometimes necessitate a filibuster. Apples and oranges. Minus the septimus’s obvious hyperbole I think this falls under response 2 > [@septimus](#): > > I > [li] ( ) Bad example. Clarence Thomas is an upstanding centrist Justice free of the slightest whiff of personal scandal, while Elena Kagan is probably a card-carrying Marxist lesbian.[/li] ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/349 "2013-11-25T21:09:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Minus the septimus’s obvious hyperbole I think this falls under response 2 It might, but only if Kagan had not also been confirmed on a bi-partisan basis. The “while” is plainly intended to imply that Kagan had a harder time of getting nominated than Thomas, becuase of the GOP filibuster. If you read that and then were told that one of them was confirmed 52-48 and the other was confirmed 63-37, I’m not sure you’d guess which was which. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/350 "2013-11-25T21:32:20Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > It might, but only if Kagan had not also been confirmed on a bi-partisan basis. The “while” is plainly intended to imply that Kagan had a harder time of getting nominated than Thomas, becuase of the GOP filibuster. If you read that and then were told that one of them was confirmed 52-48 and the other was confirmed 63-37, I’m not sure you’d guess which was which. I am not sure why **septumus** brought up Kagan at all. Her confirmation was not filibustered. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/351 "2013-11-25T22:37:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So? In your mind that automatically makes it “bullshit”? I’m shocked—SHOCKED—you would equate the two. PLease. Even Obama acknowledged that medical lawsuits, and the extraordinarily high judgements they can bring, can cause doctors and hospitals to practice defensive medicine, which raises the cost of healthcare overall. Not by much. Tort reform as it was understood at the time was a limit on damages for pain and suffering. All this would have achieved is limiting the size of the awards, it doesn’t affect behaviour because it doesn’t affect liability. So lets say you’re a doctor and you have a situation where you can order an expensive test to cover your ass on a remote risk or you can ignore the test but risk getting sued for actual economic damages and some limted amount of pain and suffering. Does that limitation to pain and suffering reduce your inclination to order that expensive and probably unnecessary test? These days, we have some more rational models of tort reform that are inspired by Obamacare. So the notion is to have some government panels codify best practices so that you are at least partially insulated from liability if you follow best practices. But none of these better idea are “easy stuff” or low hanging fruit that we should have implemented before we implemented insurance reform (and Obamcare isn’t health care reform so much as it is health insurance reform). > [@septimus](#): > > None of the GOP apologists have responded to my question in #316. Is that because there is no answer beyond admitting GOP hypocrisy? It was a different time. You can’t compare Pre-Obama to Post-Obama. The senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsberg 96-3, a lot of them were Republicans. Times are different now. > [@Terr](#): > > As opposed to strictly partisan confirmation attempts that would sometimes necessitate a filibuster. Apples and oranges. So if these are strictly partisan confirmation attempts that justified filibusters, can you please identify what makes these nominees so much more partisan than prior judicial nominees? I’m sorry, but it is the obstruction that is partisan, not the nominees. I don’t know if that fully justifies the nuclear option but its not entirely unjustified. > [@magellan01](#): > > And tort reform is not the only thing I suggested doing. Simply scroll up. Your other ideas are worse. Buying insurance across state lines serves absolutely no purpose unless you think that states should not be able to regulate insurance within their own states. Lack of competition is not the reason why health insurance costs more in NYC than Boise, its the cost of health care. There may be some differences ebcause of minimum benefit requirements and minimum solvency reserve requirements but by and large if there was money to be made by operating in another state, people would already be doing it. > [@magellan01](#): > > Now, if theres a plan that reduces costs 2% here and X% there and Y% there, that’s worth looking at. But even if you look at it alone, if you agree that it reduces costs 2%, why do you oppose doing that, regardless of what else you might do? Would you be more in favor of it if it was thought to increase costs by 2%? Come on. Some people think that health care is the biggest economic and fiscal crisis of our time and what you are proposing is like treating the gunpowder burns on a gunshot victim and see how it goes before you try anything as drastic as surgery. > [@Terr](#): > > I am not sure why **septumus** brought up Kagan at all. Her confirmation was not filibustered. No SCOTUS nominees have ever been successfully filibustered as far as I know. Both of Obama’s nominees were confirmed largely along party lines. I don’t think either of them are as liberal as Ginsberg. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/352 "2013-11-25T22:57:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **ElvisL1ves** : > > That’s your starting point. Probably close to your ending point too, right? Don’t be silly; there’s also removing the authority of the states to regulate health coverage within their borders, too. That’s another big part of the Republican health coverage plan, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/353 "2013-11-26T02:56:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Don’t be silly; there’s also removing the authority of the states to regulate health coverage within their borders, too. That’s another big part of the Republican health coverage plan, you know. I know! But then the GOP hates State’s Rights and always has. Really. The Federal Government is really the only true solution for this type of problem - just ask the GOP. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/354 "2013-11-27T00:01:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Don’t be silly; there’s also removing the authority of the states to regulate health coverage within their borders, too. That’s another big part of the Republican health coverage plan, you know. Oh, right, you mean their plan to permit cross-border insurance coverage, to spread the Mississippi system nationwide. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/355 "2014-01-17T01:40:06Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Except that the public hates deadlock and gridlock. The Republicans got so much blame for their recent escapades in the House (naughty word, I know) that they’ve already had to swear they won’t do it again in the next few battles. I don’t believe it and it appears that you don’t believe it either. That’s incredible. You are stating that the Republicans have no intention of being part of the process, confirming all our worse fears. With friends like you… > The Democrats just decided to govern. And I guarantee that all the whining being heard now has a distinctly Republican accent. > > This is an enormous win for the Democrats. That makes two in a row. Republicans should be feeling very scared now, especially with more budget battles ahead. No wonder the tone here is so bitter. After I called this an enormous win for the Democrats, the usual scoffers scoffed. I replied that we could look back and see whose predictions were better. Well, in today’s New York Times, I saw this headline: [In Defeat for Tea Party, House Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/politics/in-defeat-for-tea-party-house-passes-1-1-trillion-spending-bill.html?_r=0). It was such a big deal that it made [del]the front page[/del] page 14. Some excerpts: > [@](#): > > The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday, 359 to 67, to approve a $1.1 trillion spending bill for the current fiscal year, shrugging off the angry threats of Tea Party activists and conservative groups whose power has ebbed as Congress has moved toward fiscal cooperation. … > > The conservative political action committee Club for Growth denounced it and said a vote for it would hurt any lawmaker’s conservative scorecard. Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, castigated it as a profligate budget buster that is returning Washington to its free-spending ways. … > > The response in the Republican-led House was a collective shrug, with 166 Republicans voting for it and 64 opposing it. The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is expected to pass it easily this week. Also exactly as predicted, the Republicans who voted for the bill cited the need to show constituents that they were doing something positive rather than merely chanting no, no, no: > [@](#): > > “[The Heritage Foundation is] going to have their various metrics,” said Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “What we need to be able to do is go home and explain what’s inside the bills and why they matter.” … > > “Our people learned a lot of tough lessons in the last year, and I think you’re seeing the tough lessons applied,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. … > > “I hope they spend some time trying to win the United States Senate and working with us when we have a nominee to win the presidency,” Mr. Cole said. “But I don’t think condemning Republicans who are making amazing progress in a challenging environment is the appropriate thing to do.” The usual scoffers will do exactly that. And probably even try to tell me how this wasn’t an enormous win for the Democrats. And black is white, and up is down. ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/356 "2014-01-17T21:30:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, right, you mean their plan to permit cross-border insurance coverage, to spread the Mississippi system nationwide. 😛 Mississippi is much too regulated for them. The last time the GOP attempted to allow buying insurance across state lines, they had a definition of state that would have included the Northern Marianas Islands, which are not only [exempt from some federal labor laws](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands#Exemptions_from_some_federal_regulations), but do not have a department of insurance regulation. IOW, no regulations at all on insurance companies there. How long do you think before United Healthcare, BCBS, and the other companies had offices there for selling insurance, if that bill had passed? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/357 "2014-02-19T03:24:10Z")
[Senate filibuster reformers want to take it further.](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/filibuster-reformers-crave-nuclear-action-harry-reid) > [@](#): > > Three months after Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) triggered the so-called nuclear option to kill the filibuster for most presidential nominations, the Senate remains in a logjam. And the liberal activists who incubated filibuster reform are pushing Democrats to capitalize on that victory and further weaken the minority party’s ability to obstruct. > > Next on the wish-list of the Fix The Senate Now coalition: scrapping mandatory delays for confirming judges and requiring a “talking filibuster” for senators seeking to block nominations or legislation. They also want Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to nix a courtesy – called the “blue slip” – that lets senators single-handedly block a home state judicial nominee from coming up in committee. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/358 "2014-02-19T15:21:03Z")
The Dems have every reason to change the rules and no reason not to: if and when the Republicans get control of the Senate, ALL the rules that allow the minority to obstruct the majority will be nuclear optioned out of existence the day the Republicans are in control. Reid is a damn fool if he thinks otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/359 "2014-02-20T08:53:56Z")
I wouldn’t bet on it. For legislation the filibuster is only critical to a majority party if it also controls the House and the White House. Otherwise you have to bargain with the other side anyways. Unless the GOP were to sweep into full control there wouldn’t be a lot of pressure on the legislative filibuster. And even then it’s popular with senators (because it empowers them) and the GOP doesn’t need it for their main agenda, tax cuts (because they can use the reconciliation process). I figure if push comes to shove enough Dem senators could be found to serve in a “wonderfully moderate and bipartisan” “Group of Howmanyever” to cut a deal for whatever and allowing key Republican bills to come to the floor. I figure the legislative filibuster is safe enough for now. Whenever the Dems do manage a sweep then that’s the time for them to consider changing the rules for that next Congress. No point in it right now. But as **BrainGlutton** points out, the vacancies aren’t being filled as the Dems had hoped because the GOP is still holding them up by objecting to consent requests on motions for nominations. The Senate normally runs by consent. That is, the actual procedure is onerous on senators (who have to spend lots of time gladhandling and begging for money and whatever else) so instead unanimous consent is requested to set aside the rules and do whatever needs doing that day. So we might expect some further nuclear engineering from the Dems in this Congress. For instance, the motion to proceed could be ruled undebatable. That would help clear the logjam a lot. Due to the fact that senators need time to make themselves available for big votes the rules don’t allow them to be scheduled right away and even when you get cloture there are 30 hours of debate allowed. So it takes about four days for each step of the way. The Senate averages 167 days a session. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/360 "2014-02-20T23:04:52Z")
> [@](#): > > …and the GOP doesn’t need it for their main agenda, tax cuts (because they can use the reconciliation process). I thought reconciliation was only for bills which would decrease the deficit? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=19)