Filibuster Reform Note
David Waldman tosses out an intriguingly simple filibuster-reform idea:
We also hear a lot of demands for Dems to “make the Republicans filibuster” — in the old school sense — but under current rules that puts much of the burden on those who don’t want additional debate, and very little on those who say they do. If there are going to be changes made, what about considering one that keeps the numbers the same, but puts the burden where it belongs? What if cloture still required 60 votes, but that debate only lasted as long as at least 41 of the Senators voting against cloture remained on the floor?
Without thinking real hard about it, I like it. It faintly resembles the usual “live filibuster” proposals—which will never work—but with enough of a twist that it might actually succeed in ending the era of permanent filibuster while preserving the opportunity for minority “debate” time (whatever that’s worth). Not sure if that would be better than no filibuster at all, though.
Comments
3 Responses to “Filibuster Reform Note”
Leave a Reply
About Me
- I write this blog.
-
My twitter feed:
Sounds like a good idea to me! It keeps the filibuster in principle, but makes it much harder to do in practice.
I’d like to know more about how a change like this, or any of the others that I’ve seen floated would actually be implemented. This stuff isn’t actually written into law, right? It’s just tradition. So could Harry Reid just make an announcement when the Senate reconvenes after the elections (assuming he’s still around) that this is what we’re doing? Or would there be some sort of formal procedure.
Given it’s the Senate we’re talking about I assume there some “formal procedure” (that manages to keep anything from actually getting done)
I’ve been working on a post that I hope will answer some of your questions, Lee. It just keeps getting longer and longer. But anyway I didn’t want you to think I’ve been ignoring your comment all this time.
looking forward to it!