{"id":3747,"date":"2010-12-30T10:56:13","date_gmt":"2010-12-30T18:56:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=3747"},"modified":"2010-12-30T10:56:13","modified_gmt":"2010-12-30T18:56:13","slug":"plans-gel-for-filibuster-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2010\/12\/30\/plans-gel-for-filibuster-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Plans Gel for Filibuster Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"

I won\u2019t list here the many articles I have already posted on filibuster reform, so desperately need because of Republican abuse of the rule in their push to grab power by throwing the American people under the bus.  As we move toward the Senate\u2019s opening Day next Wednesday, Democrats are zeroing in on exactly what reforms they plan to seek.  Here\u2019s the latest.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"filibuzzards\"On January 5, 2011 — the first day of the 112th Congress — Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) will touch off a long debate, which he hopes will result in a majority-rules vote on a package of meaningful changes to the Senate rules. After a series of private conversations with Democratic members, he and his allies have settled upon a framework including three distinct reforms designed to unclog the Senate<\/strong> and scale back the minority’s power.<\/p>\n

The consensus package will aim to put an end to "secret holds"<\/strong> (anonymous filibuster threats) and disallow the minority from blocking debate on an issue<\/strong> altogether. Those two reforms are fairly straightforward. The third is a bit more complex. Udall, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)<\/strong>, say there’s broad agreement on the idea to force old-school filibusters. If members want to keep debating a bill, they’ll have to actually talk<\/strong>. No more lazy filibusters. <\/p>\n

But how would that actually work? In an interview Wednesday, Udall explained the ins and outs of that particular proposal. <\/p>\n

"What we seem to have the most consensus on, is what I would call… a talking filibuster," Udall told me. "Rather than a filibuster which is about obstruction."<\/p>\n

As things currently stand, the onus is on the majority to put together 60 votes to break a filibuster<\/strong>. Until that happens, it’s a "filibuster," but it’s little more than a series of quorum calls, votes on procedural motions, and floor speeches. The people who oppose the underlying issue don’t have to do much of anything if they don’t want to.<\/p>\n

Here’s how they propose to change that. Under this plan, if 41 or more senators voted against the cloture motion to end debate, "then you would go into a period of extended debate, and dilatory motions would not be allowed<\/strong>," Udall explained.<\/p>\n

As long as a member is on hand to keep talking, that period of debate continues. But if they lapse, it’s over — cloture is invoked and, eventually, the issue gets an up-or-down majority vote<\/strong>\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <TPM<\/a>><\/p>\n

I would have preferred a package that also reduced the number to invoke cloture from 60 to 55, but I can live with this package.  What I like about a talking filibuster is that it puts the Republican filibuzzards on front street, making each use a media event and putting the emphasis on Republican obstruction.<\/font><\/p>\n

We\u2019ll see on Wednesday what they do.  In the meantime, keep bugging your Senators to pass filibuster reform<\/a>.<\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I won\u2019t list here the many articles I have already posted on filibuster reform, so desperately need because of Republican abuse of the rule in their push to grab power by throwing the American people under the bus.  As we move toward the Senate\u2019s opening Day next Wednesday, Democrats are zeroing in on exactly what […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}