I’m very disappointed in the deal Harry Reid struck with Mitch McConnell on the filibuster (standing order and rules changes). I’m still sorting through what the deal will mean in practice. Figuring that out is not easy. It requires not only understanding the precise meaning of the language in the agreement and how it differs from the status quo, but also the use of my imagination to foresee how the Minority Leader’s incentives will differ in the new system. Here are a few preliminary thoughts.

The agreement is not primarily focused on the filibuster as a 60 vote requirement but, rather, with the filibuster as a dilatory or stalling tactic. Without getting into the weeds of the cloture rule (used for ending filibusters), the agreement dramatically shortens the amount of time that can be chewed up simply by failing to grant unanimous consent for moving to whatever order of business the Majority Leader would like to take up. It has gone underreported, but Mitch McConnell has exploited post-cloture debating time extensively in order to chew up legislative days. Even on bills and nominations that the Republicans overwhelmingly supported, the Republicans have often delayed the vote for days for no other reason than to slow down the Senate. This is what Harry Reid really wanted to stop, and he got what he wanted.

McConnell’s tactics were really in very bad faith and had absolutely nothing to do with protecting minority rights, which is why he willingly gave them up. The obvious benefit is that much less time will be wasted debating things that the Senate actually agrees about. However, on things the Senate does not agree about, I cannot report much progress at all. It will not be any easier to confirm a contentious judge or to pass a controversial bill.

It will be slightly easier to begin debate on a bill, but only a bill that the Minority Leader and at least seven other Republicans want to debate. That means that a lunatic like Rand Paul or Mike Lee or Tim Scott might have a harder time gumming up the works, but I am not even sure about that because there is still the issue of holds. Independent of the (permanent) rules changes and the standing order (which sunsets at the end of this Congress), there is a gentleman’s agreement that I think deals with secret holds.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so.

In other words, you will no longer be able to hide under another senator’s skirt. If you object to a motion to proceed, you will need to make that objection yourself.

I guess one way of looking at this is that it did a lot to address the way the rules have been abused, but it did very little to help the president pass his agenda. Some will argue that it doesn’t really matter because the House is controlled by Teahadists and they won’t be voting for anything contentious anyway. But that is pure defeatism. Since the election, the House has already passed bills twice with majority Democratic support. If we want to put pressure on the House to act on immigration, climate, guns, or anything else, we need to be able to at least pass something in the Senate. This deal doesn’t help with that.

The best I can say for the deal is that it will make it easier to confirm district judges. Whoo-hoo!!