tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post3235654868807366430..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: On The Filibuster Reform That Isn't, Really.Neil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-77939433004549171582013-01-24T19:34:16.981-08:002013-01-24T19:34:16.981-08:00"I think all you'd have to do is force a ..."I think all you'd have to do is force a talking filibuster once, wait it out, and then everyone would realize that the only reason for a talking filibuster is to let your members engage in a "primal scream" for their primary voters. But people disagree."<br /><br />No, the reason for a talking filibuster is to exact some cost for gumming up the works via filibuster. The problem is that the cost is too low.<br /><br />If the minority only needs one person on the floor at any given time, then 2-3 minority Senators can easily take turns gumming up the works until the majority decides to stop wasting time, even if (if I understand correctly) the majority doesn't need to maintain a quorum while the minority filibusters, but can maintain a similarly trivial floor contingent. <br /><br />If it turned into a battle of wills, it could go on for weeks without anyone being close to winning.<br /><br />The earlier Merkley proposals that involved both sides maintaining a substantial floor presence would have worked: if you can take 20 members of the minority at a time away from their fundraising calls and schmooze sessions, that would have been a serious cost to be taken into account in a filibuster try. The two sides would only go to the mats when it mattered enough to both sides that it was worth giving up a bunch of fundraising hours.<br /><br />But as you imply, the Senate's a confusing mix of a norms-driven and a rules-driven body. It's been more norms-driven, historically, because it functions on unanimous consent, and as you say, it only takes one Senator to mess things up real good.<br /><br />But now we have one party that doesn't give a flying fuck about the norms, just about blocking anything that can be blocked. And the rules are there to do it, filibuster or no filibuster.<br /><br />The only way you truly fix things, as best as I can tell, is to get rid of all the unanimous-consent crap.<br /><br />Within that context, the deal isn't too bad, other than that it's still possible to filibuster motions to proceed, which is an abomination before the Lord. <br /><br />I don't think even David Broder could have justified what is in effect a demand to debate at length whether or not you want to debate a particular bill. That should be way too meta for any human being.<br /><br />But at least the post-cloture debate has been drastically reduced, and there's a time limit on debate of non-Cabinet Executive branch appointments, and ditto District Court nominees. So Obama can finally appoint enough people to the District Courts to fill all of the seats on those courts, and he can get his next ATF director through the Senate on a party-line vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com