SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Filibuster Reform Squelched

TRB JANUARY 24, 2013

Filibuster Reform Squelched The real deal struck about reform: There would be none.

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

As I predicted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's calendar-freezing machinations to reform the filibuster turned out to be much ado about nothing. Reid and McConnell have struck a deal to eliminate filibusters on "motions to proceed," leaving intact filibusters on the actual legislation. In exchange, the minority will be guaranteed the chance to bring two amendments to the floor. There are also a few other chickenshit changes. The Washington Post's Paul Kane has some details here, and the Post's Ezra Klein has more here. It's mildly cheering to learn that National Review's John Fund considers the filibuster deal a catastrophe for minority-party rights (and therefore for representative government). But I feel pretty sure he's wrong about that.


 

In my earlier post I was too dismissive of another idea Reid was considering, which would have required the minority to produce 41 votes in order to sustain a filibuster (as opposed to current procedure, which requires the majority to produce 60 votes to break one). At least theoretically, it turns out, such a rule could have allowed the majority to call a cloture vote at some maximally inconvenient time for the minority. It seems Reid was figuring out at about the same time I was that the 41-vote rule had some real potential to halt filibusters, because he has now discarded it. "I'm not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold," Reid told Klein this morning. (Reid has never been terribly keen on serious filibuster reform.)

The Democrats are said to have sufficient votes to push through more meaningful filibuster reform, but my guess is they'll do as their majority leader tells them and drop it, at least for now. A vote is expected later this afternoon. Once that business is taken care of, the Senate can stop pretending that it's still Jan. 3 and begin a new legislative day. Whether the untamed filibuster will permit much more Senate action than that over the next two years is anybody's guess.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 13 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

13 comments

I'm pleased with this result. I've always felt that no bill should pass if it at least one senator is against it, hasn't had their morning coffee, or just isn't in the mood. So this is a step in the right direction. Democracy rocks.

- Fishpeddler

January 24, 2013 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The point of filibuster reform is to make the work of the Senate more efficient and productive. A filibuster wasn't used to challenge this filibuster reform and, therefore, hope springs eternal.

- Doug12

January 24, 2013 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chickenshit: (noun) contemptibly petty, insignificant nonsense, a coward; (adj.) contemptibly unimportant, petty, cowardly, afraid; (example) Reid (D, Nev.).

- rayward

January 24, 2013 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This could have been a major leverage point for change and instead becomes a major blown opportunity. Requiring would-be filibusterers to actually occupy the floor and speak would have been awesome. Requiring the minority to produce 41 votes for a filibuster would have also been worthwhile. Harry Reid has sabotaged these options. Anyone else for a new majority leader?

- JackR

January 24, 2013 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I recall, in the fiscal cliff post, that there were many who were arguing that Obama should have ceded the ground to the superior negotiating prowess of Reid.

- icarus-r

January 24, 2013 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's take stock of the following: the Democrats would have made an unforced strategic error had they unilaterally changed the rules. On top of that, a GOP cooperation would probably have reached a new low ebb...Enough whining about Harry...he won the day...

- mcmahon.an

January 24, 2013 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Republicans control the House I am not going to get all weepy about this. The only filibuster I would get rid of is executive level appointees (they are essentially term limited and few last two full terms if a Pres. is re-elected) other than that the filibuster stopped Bush and his insane Social Security scam. If Dems. survive 2014 in the Senate then they are set until 2020 (assuming Dems win in 2016 with Hillary) but if they don't and a Republican wins in 2016 I am going to want this filibuster. Of course Republicans will not feel the least bit restricted and will do whatever they can to maximize their power, but let them blow up the Senate.

- blackton

January 24, 2013 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What else is new?? Big talk, disappointing action.. applies to Reid and BHO.

- drofnats1

January 24, 2013 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of what was Reid afraid? That Republicans would become unreasonable? Like creating an unnecessary debt ceiling fight? Did Reid fear that if Republicans got control again they might pass a tax law that taxes wealthy people at 15% and working people at 35%; or make a tax law containing a provision that a wealthy married couple with $85,000.00 of dividends and capital gains would pay zero tax, but a couple who worked with the same income would pay $16,000.00 in income and payroll taxes? Or if you died on December 31, 2010, you could pay millions in estate taxes but a day later, zero? Well, I look forward to the new reasonable Republican Party.

- Nusholtz

January 24, 2013 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This debacle has convinced me that poor Harry the Hapless is just in over his head. I'm ready for Dick Durbin for Majority Leader. Anyone else in?

- JackR

January 25, 2013 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agree with Blackton. Largely irrelevant until we have a working majority in the House. Efforts need to be at building an organization at the state level to take advantage of the coalition that won nationally in Nov. There may be some hope here, as apparently BHO is not dismantling his grassroots organization this time around.

- Vogelfam

January 25, 2013 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the district court struck down Obama's use of the recess appointment. Reid should definitely have held out for non filibuster of executive branch appointments and make that a rule. Republicans have to believe that they themselves will one day get back to the White House one day so it works to both parties advantage. Judicial appointments are too long term though to not give that more care.

- blackton

January 25, 2013 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that a bill was never introduced to implement Bush's privitization of Social Security. The filibuster did not save us from that scheme, at least as I remember. Boehner has demonstrated that the Hastert rule - do not bring to the House floor a bill unless a majority of Republicans support it - is, like Hastert, history. President Obama has been able to publicly pressure Boehner to bring bills to the floor, and it is reasonable to expect that pattern to continue. So the filibuster is still a giant hammer that Republicans hold.

- peterpalys

January 25, 2013 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close