Senate leaders agree on filibuster changes

[nageov3t]

the important bits:

• dropping the confirmation process for about 400 federal agency nominees.
• repeal the decades-old stalling tactics of secret holds -- in which an anonymous senator could slow action on a bill
• reduce by one-third the number of federal government positions that require Senate confirmation.
• McConnell has agreed to rarely use a tactic that forces Reid to hold a vote to break a filibuster on a motion to consider a bill... In turn, Reid has agreed that he will rarely maneuver to forbid Republicans from offering amendments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012703379.html

I hope the deal holds, I actually don't really see anything in there that I disagree with.

 

[Thump553]

Sounds like a reasonable start to fixing this procedure which is the root of so much abuse and gridlock.

 

[hal2kilo]

the important bits:

• McConnell has agreed to rarely use a tactic that forces Reid to hold a vote to break a filibuster on a motion to consider a bill... In turn, Reid has agreed that he will rarely maneuver to forbid Republicans from offering amendments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012703379.html

I hope the deal holds, I actually don't really see anything in there that I disagree with.

Yea, checks in the mail, and I won't c** in your mouth.

 

[Craig234]

Sounds like a reasonable start to fixing this procedure which is the root of so much abuse and gridlock.

After 4 years of abuse by Republicans, before Republicans are expected to have a good chance to take control in 2012 because far more Democratic seats are up.

 

[MovingTarget]

After 4 years of abuse by Republicans, before Republicans are expected to have a good chance to take control in 2012 because far more Democratic seats are up.

This is true, but I think that it is still a good thing over the long term. The filibuster still exists, but it should only rarely be used.

 

[Craig234]

This is true, but I think that it is still a good thing over the long term. The filibuster still exists, but it should only rarely be used.

Ya, it's just 4 years too late, after the historic opportunity for Democrats to fix things they should have had, the House passing many big good bills, was blocked with the abuse.

There hasn't been an opportunity like that really since before Reagan, to fix some of the problems, and now the Democrats will likely be the ones who can't block bills.

Republican leaders agree not to block the House so easily - now that they are in control of it. It's pretty disgusting when you correlate the rules to the party affected.

Reminds me of things like how the Republicans made it really easy to block nominees under Clinton, and then harder again under Bush.

 

[Throckmorton]

How about making the filibuster actually be a filibuster, instead of simply threatening? None of this crap fixes the bullshit where every damn bill requires 60 votes.

 

[MovingTarget]

How about making the filibuster actually be a filibuster, instead of simply threatening? None of this crap fixes the bullshit where every damn bill requires 60 votes.

That would be ideal. If you want to fillibuster, bring a phone book, a few bottles of dasani, and the extra absorbent Depends. No more empty threats of fillibuster

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It's pretty disgusting when you correlate the rules to the party affected.

Reminds me of things like how the Republicans made it really easy to block nominees under Clinton, and then harder again under Bush.

Sort of like when Ted Kennedy wanted to change the process for selecting replacement Senators in Massachusetts so that the Democrats would benefit from it? The same thing he did in 2004 as well?

Both parties do it and both should be punished for it. This is a step in the right direction.

 

[Lemon law]

I will join the forum consensus, sadly the filibuster and similar abuses have become an a giant impediment to American governmental wisdom.

We can say that it will short term aid one political party or the other, but over a longer term future its will prevent abuses by all parties, and we the American people will get better governance as a result.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seems peachy, except that what Repubs say and what they do are not necessarily the same. Instead of using the gentleman's filibuster, they'll simply attempt the same result offering endless amendments that have no hope of passage, and waste more of the Senate's time in the process. There's more than one way to prevent a vote.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Sort of like when Ted Kennedy wanted to change the process for selecting replacement Senators in Massachusetts so that the Democrats would benefit from it? The same thing he did in 2004 as well?

Both parties do it and both should be punished for it. This is a step in the right direction.

That's totally different. You're an idiot. </Craig>

 

[Craig234]

Seems peachy, except that what Repubs say and what they do are not necessarily the same. Instead of using the gentleman's filibuster, they'll simply attempt the same result offering endless amendments that have no hope of passage, and waste more of the Senate's time in the process. There's more than one way to prevent a vote.

There's nothing stopping them from changing back when it suits them, as they have before. They have no shame, they have shown clearly. They tried to 'go nuclear'...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Seems peachy, except that what politicians say and what they do are not necessarily the same. Instead of using the gentleman's filibuster, they'll simply attempt the same result offering endless amendments that have no hope of passage, and waste more of the Senate's time in the process. There's more than one way to prevent a vote.

FTFY.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

There's nothing stopping them from changing back when it suits them, as they have before. They have no shame, they have shown clearly. They tried to 'go nuclear'...

Wow, they sound more and more like the Ted Kennedy situation I pointed out above!

 

[EagleKeeper]

There's nothing stopping them from changing back when it suits them, as they have before. They have no shame, they have shown clearly. They tried to 'go nuclear'...

A kid sees a pony in a pile of shit stored in a barn.

Craig sees a pile of shit that was wasted to create an opportunity

 

[Lemon law]

Sadly, I hear the filibuster reforms failed to pass.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sadly, I hear the filibuster reforms failed to pass.

Link please?

It will be interesting on why - spins

 

[Atreus21]

Frankly, I wish they made the filibuster easier and harder to break.

The less congress can do, I'd bet the better we are as a whole.

 

[trenchfoot]

Link please?

It will be interesting on why - spins

My guess: The Dems are still in power, and for the repubs to give up such a wonderful tool to torment and leverage the Dems with is too much to lose and too soon to lose it with two years of Dem control to go and..... It was just too difficult to hide the usual bait and switch game the repubs are famous for with this agreement, where they would say something up front with granduer and fluff, yet do the opposite behind closed doors.

 

[Thump553]

Frankly, I wish they made the filibuster easier and harder to break.

The less congress can do, I'd bet the better we are as a whole.

People say this all the time and frankly I think its stupid. Without a legislature (which is saying what you really want) we would have an elected dictator controlled only by the judiciary. And numerous other countries have shown us how easy it is for a strong man government to emasculate the judiciary.

What we want-I think-is a legislature that is effective and tackles real problems.

 

[thraashman]

Wow, they sound more and more like the Ted Kennedy situation I pointed out above!

Yes, because the one significant time that Democrats do it is equivalent to the HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of times the Republicans have used it in recent years.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes, because the one significant time that Democrats do it is equivalent to the HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of times the Republicans have used it in recent years.

Sigh -- I really get tired of cheerleaders on both sides.

"But...but....my side did it when it was justified!!!"

or

"My side may have done it, but not as many times as your side and it wasn't as significant!!!"

Grow up folks. Both sides are equally guilty of bending/changing laws/rules to their advantage and if you seriously think the Democrats don't play politics and use similar tactics, you're simply naive. Politicians don't give a damn about you.

And as far as the situation I mentioned -- the Democrats tried to change that particular law TWICE in a 5 or 6 year span so that it would benefit them TWICE, so your assertion they did it "once" is BS.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ya, it's just 4 years too late, after the historic opportunity for Democrats to fix things they should have had, the House passing many big good bills, was blocked with the abuse.

The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for over a year, what happened?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Craig blames the Blue Dogs - they are not true Democrats.

Funny how Obama, Pelosi and Reid felt that they could run roughshod over the Republicans in the beginning.

By the Blue Dogs defecting; it indicates that the Dem policies were not as sound as proposed.