The filibuster deal that Jeremy Peters is reporting in the New York Times looks wholly inadequate. The one upside is that it will apparently have significant Republican support. If all the Democrats agree to the rule changes, it will take at least 12 Republicans to reach the magic two-thirds needed to change the rules in a non-nuclear fashion. In theory, this preserves the prejudice against using a mere majority to upend the rules and makes future power moves of that type somewhat less likely. In reality, Reid bolstered the precedent for using the threat of the nuclear option to force the minority to make significant concessions.
Some of the details are still up in the air or unreported, but it looks like relatively little will change. The minority will no longer be able to filibuster a motion to proceed, which means that the majority can put any bill or nomination it wants on the floor and begin debate. However, the minority will still be able to prevent a vote by refusing to end debate. And they will still be able to do it without maintaining a cloture-proof presence in the Senate chamber.
The other reforms being discussed have merit, but they are all aimed at eliminating delays so that the Senate can move bills and nominees through the process faster. The primary problem, however, is not the dilatory practices of Mitch McConnell, but the inability to pass bills or confirm nominees in the first place.
There may be some further concessions on judges and perhaps other nominees in the final deal, and that would be an improvement, but this deal still makes it too easy to obstruct.
It’s nice to be able to start a debate but Harry Reid will still be wasting time if he devotes a bunch of time to debating something that won’t be voted on because of the filibuster. In reality, Majority Leaders are not going to have a bunch of pointless debates. Time is too precious.
What we need are rules that make it possible to filibuster, but so painful that it would only be done a few times a year, at most. It should be reserved for really big things, not be part of the everyday procedure of the Senate.
This deal doesn’t even come close to doing that. And it’s going to haunt Harry Reid for the next two years. just like his decision not to punish McConnell in 2011 has haunted him for the last years.
FAIL!
This is especially painful for me because Carl Levin is an alumnus of my school (Swarthmore).
However, it occurred to me that maybe some of the Senate Democrats opposed to the talking filibuster justify their position by saying it’s pointless to do any reform now when the Republican House will just block anything they pass anyway.
Maybe we’ll have to try again in 2014…
No way around it; this is disappointing.
I’m sure there will be howls of outrage when the Republicans go all the way on this when they eventually take the Senate.
I’m not seeing much discussion on this point. What does it mean to “offer” an amendment? Does that mean the GOP can tack any two amendments onto a bill without opposition? because if that’s the case, that looks a lot worse than just doing nothing.
What about anonymous holds? Those are just as badly abused as the filibuster, but I haven’t seen any discussion on them, either.
A surprising disappointment. How can Harry Reid be such a scrappy fighter on some issues and so knock-kneed on others? Especially after being driven out of his mind by McConnell’s obstruction over the last 4 years.
Did they just not have the votes for anything better? Does Reid think big reform isn’t necessary right now because nothing sane will get through the House in this Congress?
I don’t get it.
Harry pretends to be a fighter once in a while, but when push comes to shove he goes back to the gutless wonder we all know so well.
Perhaps. I’d like to know what really happened.
surprised? nah
way back in october l predicted that when it came for henry to buck up and make meaningful filibuster reform happen…
never. gonna. happen.
harry always backs down.
Agree wholeheartedly with you.
Republicans control the House – even if Reid got everything he/we wanted the House would functionally or actually kill any meaningful legislation anyway so why spend political capital on something that won’t achieve your objective? Makes more sense to position yourself for the next discussion when you can achieve your objectives which I believe this does – “Reid bolstered the precedent for using the threat of the nuclear option to force the minority to make significant concessions.”
This.
There is almost no point in reforming the filibuster in the Senate when the Republican majority in the House will simply refuse to vote on anything meaningful that the Dems pass in the Senate.
The time to do this was in January 2009.
As far as nominees go it is worth doing something. House has no say on those.
Doesn’t this depend on whether or not Boehner is still following the Hastert “rule?” Is there not a reasonable possibility that at least some legislation can move with a majority Dem minority Rep vote tally in the House? And let’s not forget presidential appointments.
This matters now.
Not that much of a surprise, really, and just another piece of evidence in favor of the argument that the US is a failed state that simply cannot reform itself. Mitch McConnell’s almost comic abuse of the filibuster and rules of the “Old Senate” should have been just cause for its destruction if there were any actual forces for progress or reform in this country, but there aren’t any—at least not in our government.
So Dems can see once again that they belong to a party of appalling weakness and timidity. They will not actually fight no matter what the provocation, they will not use their majorities even when they can, and their timorous behavior is then dressed up to look like statesmanship and “moderation” in the face of abuse of power. I’m sure we’ll now be told what a wonderful victory has been achieved over McConnell’s abuses, while he dies laughing…
Kind of funny to see so many now seeing the wisdom of doing nothing meaningful given the Repub House. Why were actual reforms proposed in the first place? Everyone certainly knew the (permanent) Repub House existed.
This reform was absolutely necessary as payback for Mitch’s intentional and irresponsible destruction of the senate and for blocking the election of 2008. It also could have allowed some actual popular legislation to have emerged from the senate to be used by Obama as a club and a way to demonstrate the utter uselessness and reactionary nature of Boner’s House of Imbeciles. It also would have permitted nominees to be confirmed and not held in the senate swamp for years of inaction.
But that hope is now gone and the same shit we are used to will continue to be pulled by McConnell’s turds. There will never be a vote on any legislation of consequence, as usual. And as soon as there is a Repub prez and senate, the filibuster is gone. Reid and the craven Dems who shrank from this reform are fools.
On one hand, it’s upsetting that Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership is unwilling or unable to make real progress.
On the other hand, I also think it’s important to recognize that, so long as the GOP controls the House, the filibuster only really matters for confirmations.
It’s very hard to imagine any legislation that would pass the Senate with 50-59 votes that would also have a chance of passing the GOP-led House.
I’m still pissed at Reid, but interested in finding out whether he’s going to get any real concessions when it comes to how the filibuster can be used regarding confirmations.
Two more years of this and who else decides not to waste their time any longer.
Two more years of this, and my partner will be able to get health insurance. My daughter will still have access to birth control. My parents will still have Social Security and Medicare. We’ll be home from Iraq. Those count for something. So frustrating as it is, I’m still in.
I should have been clearer. Which Senator gives up out of pure frustration.
Now that is a good question.
Obama gives a decisively Progressive Inaugeration speech. The Country resoundingly approves. Hillary stands strong under attacks from the likes of Johnson in the Senate in her Benghazi inquiry. People are geared up to fight for a Progressive agenda that has huge national support.
But never mind Americans. No matter your momentum, your spirit, the Filibuster fail will correct your democratic aspirations.
Just can’t wait to see what Republicans do if TWO Supremes need confirming–and one is replacing a conservative justice. Poor Reed–hoocoodanode???
Democrats in Congress want to keep their excuses for accomplishing nothing that the public wants done. And they want to hide their fingerprints so that they are never held accountable. For the Republicans, that is a default state.
Countdown to the narrative that “this is the way President Obama wants it.” Ten…nine…eight…seven…
Harry Reid, Carl Levin…this is your contribution to the failure of the Democratic Party. Just remember Evan Bayh and Kent Conrad. Oh, yes, they resigned and cashed in.
resigned –> retired
We’ll have to see how this works in practice. If the Republicans continue to obstruct everything, then this deal was a failure. If things open up, then it was worth something.
I’m not optimistic, but we’ll see.
We need to see which Democrats agree to this. Where is Merkley and his 51 votes?