Harry Reid has surely learned a hard lesson about the extent to which Republicans will utilize the filibuster to block Senate business.
So is there any chance the rules may change in the new Congress? Or is there an “gentleman’s agreement” to preserve the status quo?
Any thoughts?
I posted this in another topic, but I wanted to know that since the House was still GOP controlled, isn’t it half pointless to get rid of the filibuster? I know only the Senate needs to confirm things like judges, but the Dems still can’t get any laws through the House without GOP support. If we get rid of the filibuster, wouldn’t House GOP double down on obstructionism, arguing they are the only roadblock to liberal laws? I mean, I do like to be able to confirm judges without the filibuster, but seems to me that it would be half wasted if we don’t also control the House
The filibuster has such a long tradition in the Senate it’s not going anywhere.
Meh, its only been around in its current form since 1975. And even since then the way its been used has changed a lot. Its hardly an immutable rule.
I think we’ll see at least some weakening of the rule. Reid seems pretty serious about doing something about it.
And doing it now doesn’t really give anyone a partisan advantage. The House will still be in GOP hands, so its not like getting rid of it will give the Dems free reign. And even if the GOP captures the Senate in 2014, the Dems will still have the veto.
Seems like a good time to go ahead and, if not get rid of it, at least weaken it substantially.
The problem I have with the procedural filibuster is this–does a simple majority even matter anymore? If it requires 60 votes to do anything, what does 51 get you?
I appreciate that the filibuster is an important part of the Senate, I just don’t like that 41 senators can get together and say “sorry, not happening” and carry on with their business.
On the other hand, requiring them to actually orate would take time away from other pending legislation. I wish there were a simple solution to this that would preserve both the traditions of the chamber and the value of 51 votes.
Even with the House controlled by Republicans, stopping the filibuster would allow the Senate to confirm appointments. In fact I’ve long supported doing away with the filibuster (and the more egregious “holds”) on appointments. The appointees deserve an up-or-down vote.
I don’t want to get rid of the filibuster, but I’d like to see it go back to the old-fashioned way- the filibustering Senators should have to stay in the Senate and keep talking. Filibusters should be physically exhausting- not just politically exhausting- so they’re only used when the minority feels it’s most necessary.
From what I’ve heard the only concrete proposal Reid has put out is eliminating the 60-vote requirement on a Motion to Proceed. There would still be a filibuster (although perhaps modified) for Cloture. So basically you could stop a final vote with 41 votes, but not stop debate entirely.