Relax
I think he might have the votes by the beginning of next session.
Today, Republican Senator Rand Paul threatened Reid with several rules changes that he would seek if Reid invoked the nuclear option with respect to curtailing filibusters. Paul says that he would seek rules changes on these and “many, many” more proposals using a 51-vote strategy.
The rules changes Paul suggests include: a requirement to balance the budget every year, a waiting period of 20 days for every page of legislation, and a sunset provision on all new “major” legislation. Clearly, he will not have support on some of these proposals: for example, the 200 page Violence Against Women’s Act would require a patently absurd 4,000 days of waiting before the Senate could vote; that rule which would presumably apply to all legislation would easily be voted down. But a Senate rule to require a balanced budget? Eh, that could very well garner majority support, despite the fact that it is a terrible idea.
I know of no way to distinguish between using the nuclear (or constitutional, if you prefer) option to curtail filibusters, but not allow it to be used for some rules changes that frankly should be filibustered. Does this change anyone’s opinion of the method by which Reid might seek rules changes on the filibuster?
I don’t think that would have a chance of passing, but once again, Rand Paul reminds us that maybe it’s not so bad if the Senate fails to act in the face of an enormous crisis.
Man, Paul must read really slowly.
Wait, I see a potential for some compromise/synergy here: If a Senator really wants to block a bill from a floor vote, no more filibustering, the rule should be that he has to do it with his fists.
I gotta agree with this. The exact same thing was being said about Senate fillibuster rules before the last session, for the exact same reasons, and the Dems did nothing. It it comes to an actual vote, you can bet that enough Dems will cross over and vote to kill it.
Nope. It’s actually a legislative relic that was common in most legislatures the Founding Fathers had to go off of as examples. The term has roots in ancient Rome, where it was used in the Senate, and it was used frequently in Parliament in the 18th and 19th centuries in both the Commons and the Lords.
Nothing exceptional about it. When we first started having Congresses, the House adopted rules that made a procedural filibuster in the House impossible. In the Senate they actually adopted a similar rule a few years in, but it was never used and the President of the Senate a few years later (Vice President Aaron Burr–they used to actually chair the Senate day-to-day as they have the right to do now if they were so inclined) said he found the rule to be unnecessary and pointless so it was done away with.
Since that point, the filibuster has always been possible, but it wasn’t ever actually used until decades later. By which point a cultural phenomenon had developed, namely that the Senate was the “great debate hall” of the Republic, and was a place of reasoned, lengthy, and thorough debate on the great issues of the day. At that point when a few Senators started to use the filibuster to try and “talk things out” no one wanted to give up the Senate’s status as a historical deliberative body and a realm of “cooler heads” in comparison to the House.
And the deal is struck. No real change, as predicted.
There are some small changes. But yeah, it’s not much to crow about.
As for: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15770899&postcount=13
He did change something, so it does seem that you win the shame token. 
I just don’t understand it. Why not look at how the filibuster SHOULD be used - whether you are in power or not - and implement rules to that effect? For Reid, what’s the advantage of doing virtually nothing?
It helps the country when President Santorum and the Republican Senate try to impose the Handmaid’s Tale Act of 2017.
But yeah, this is horseshit. The Republicans throw a four year tantrum and then are expected to behave.
OK. How’s this for a theory: The Democrats actually *want *a dysfunctional Senate where nothing gets done. The public is already contemptuous of Congress and mostly blame the Republicans for its problems, but aren’t quite willing to vote the bums out. Perhaps the thinking is that four more years of gridlock (or would it just be two?) will push voters over the edge and vote in a Democratic House and Senate.
I dunno. I’m just guessing.
I would think they’re going for two, so that maybe they can swing getting the house.
Of course, since Republicans have gerrymandered districts amazingly, it would take a huge Dem sweep (55% I read) to get control of the house back.
I think the dems want to strattle being progressive with not pissing off the powerful. progressive agendas are, more often than not, against the interests of the rich or large companies which could easily use that power to crush the dems. the dems want to pretend to be progressive w/o actually passing progressive laws. I think that is why they dont do reform, the filibuster lets them pretend they want to pass laws that piss off coal companies, the nra, oil companies, rx companies, insurance companies, oil companies, international businesses, the rich, etc but republicans wont let them.
it is all a tightrope con game, dupe progressives you support their ideas w/o actually enacting them and pissing off individuals and corporations collectively worth trillions.
Reid can’t push for stronger reform if he doesn’t have the votes in his own conference. Remember, the filibuster doesn’t just empower the Minority. It also empowers individual Senators because it takes fewer of them to reject a bill or nominee. With the filibuster Senators are more often in a position to extract favors.
We ALL know who’s going to enact filibuster reform. The Republicans, if and when they get a majority in Congress. Count on it.
Then why didn’t they last time they were in power?
The Republicans had not evolved to their current levels of batshit craziness.
You’ll note, I think, that Democrats weren’t anywhere near as obstructive as the Republicans have been.