# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/161 "2013-11-22T00:12:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes. And note that threatening is not the same as doing it. If you’re going to threaten to do something, you don’t have a lot of grounds for complaint if the other side actually does it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/162 "2013-11-22T00:20:30Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Consensus used to be 50%. 50% is not consensus. Never was. ---
**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 22, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/163 "2013-11-22T00:33:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 50% is not consensus. Never was. Does 50.0000001% make you feel better? Filibusters used to be saved for extreme cases. The modern GOP uses them over and over. They can’t be trusted with what generations before them had, so they lose it. Isn’t that a conservative way to do things? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/164 "2013-11-22T00:35:50Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Does 50.0000001% make you feel better? That’s not “consensus” either. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/165 "2013-11-22T00:36:39Z")
Government is by majority, not ‘consensus’. Consensus means the agreement of all participants, not 60 out of 100. So please don’t claim it ‘used to be’ by something it never was. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/166 "2013-11-22T00:39:16Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Consensus means the agreement of all participants, not 60 out of 100. No, consensus does not require unanimity. It is a “general agreement”. 51% is not “general agreement”. 60% is much closer to “general agreement”. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/167 "2013-11-22T00:41:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, consensus does not require unanimity. It is a “general agreement”. 51% is not “general agreement”. 60% is much closer to “general agreement”. [Consensus](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus) > [@](#): > > : a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group ---
**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 22, 2013, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/168 "2013-11-22T00:48:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, consensus does not require unanimity. It is a “general agreement”. 51% is not “general agreement”. 60% is much closer to “general agreement”. Where does it say that it requires “general agreement”? Aren’t you imposing a requirement of consensus where there is none? To be clear, you are saying consensus, and it only requires 50%. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/169 "2013-11-22T00:55:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. Ah. So this the break the Romney campaign needs. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/170 "2013-11-22T00:56:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > [Consensus](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus) Geez, you didn’t have to use the factual option on him. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/171 "2013-11-22T01:03:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Where does it say that it requires “general agreement”? Aren’t you imposing a requirement of consensus where there is none? Let me repeat: septimus asked me to “comment on GOP refusal to consent to Obama’s judiciary appointments. Do you defend their behavior? If so, why?” And my response was: Yes, I think filibustering judiciary appointments is quite legitimate. The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations. Thus they have to reflect a reasonable consensus, and not just a momentary 51% majority. Hope this makes it clearer for you. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/172 "2013-11-22T01:08:48Z")
Well, given how intransigent the Republicans have been, citing [this](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/filibuster-spike1.png) and [this](http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/58293/large/BZHrDPnCIAA53B-.png?1384889640) and [this](http://mydd.com/uploads/35/original/congressionalnomineesgraphs1.png), it was clearly needed to get this show on the road. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/173 "2013-11-22T01:12:43Z")
The problem is that the Senate has no limit to debate due to a belief that gentlemen should be able to talk on an issue without limit. Reid should just use the nuclear option and pass a motion that limits debate like every other deliberative body has. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/174 "2013-11-22T01:44:29Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let me repeat: > > septimus asked me to “comment on GOP refusal to consent to Obama’s judiciary appointments. Do you defend their behavior? If so, why?” > > And my response was: > > Yes, I think filibustering judiciary appointments is quite legitimate. The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations. Thus they have to reflect a reasonable consensus, and not just a momentary 51% majority. > > Hope this makes it clearer for you. I agree with you. The Senate should be able to filibuster judiciary appointments. But this is contingent on the entire Senate consenting to a filibuster rule because deterring unqualified or fringe candidates benefits everyone in the long term. This means there has to be some link between the identity of a nominee and the likelihood that someone in the Senate will filibuster. This link is now broken. It makes no sense to expect the Senate to permit a procedural rule that is no longer mutually desirable, so out it goes. That’s just how the game works. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/175 "2013-11-22T01:52:59Z")
I heartily approve of ending the filibuster for judicial appointees. I’m with Andrew Jackson: to the victors go the spoils. If the Republicans don’t like it, they can try nominating some candidates with sense. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/176 "2013-11-22T01:56:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let me repeat: > > septimus asked me to “comment on GOP refusal to consent to Obama’s judiciary appointments. Do you defend their behavior? If so, why?” > > And my response was: > > Yes, I think filibustering judiciary appointments is quite legitimate. The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations. Thus they have to reflect a reasonable consensus, and not just a momentary 51% majority. > > Hope this makes it clearer for you. They were not striving for a reasonable consensus. Had they filibustered an individual candidate who was utterly lacking in qualification (sort of like Harriett Myers), filibustering a single nomination can make sense. They aren’t trying to object to particular candidates, they were seeking to prevent this president from nominating any judges to any court. I’m sure they would be more than willing to consider judges nominated by a white male Republican just like Jesus intended, but since they decided that they didn’t give a fuck about who was nominated, only who was doing the nominating, the circus had to leave town. ---
**Author:** ![Parthol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/dec6dc/32.png) [@Parthol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Parthol)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/177 "2013-11-22T02:06:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Consensus is consensus. Lack of consensus is lack of consensus. What is not clear about that? What’s not clear is the disconnect between this: [QUOTE=Terr] The reason is that those are not positions that serve at President’s whim, and cannot be removed by subsequent administrations [/QUOTE] and this [QUOTE=Parthol] …reasons that have little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves? [/QUOTE] How is your reason relevant, if the reason they’re being filibustered has nothing to do with their qualifications? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/178 "2013-11-22T02:11:02Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > They were not striving for a reasonable consensus. Had they filibustered an individual candidate who was utterly lacking in qualification (sort of like Harriett Myers), filibustering a single nomination can make sense. They aren’t trying to object to particular candidates, they were seeking to prevent this president from nominating any judges to any court. You’d be correct if there were, in fact, no judges approved for any court during Obama presidency. Is that true? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/179 "2013-11-22T02:12:03Z")
> [@Parthol](#): > > How is your reason relevant, if the reason they’re being filibustered has nothing to do with their qualifications? Lack of consensus is lack of consensus. For any reason. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/180 "2013-11-22T02:13:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You’d be correct if there were, in fact, no judges approved for any court during Obama presidency. Is that true? Some of course were in the past, including two Supremes. But now you’ve got guys like Cruz declaring a Teahad on Obama, the only way to get more judges in office was to take the toy away from the naughty little boys. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=10)