tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post3746349091857670944..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: Senate Elections And Filibuster ReformNeil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-29739427606023189502011-06-23T03:33:04.274-07:002011-06-23T03:33:04.274-07:00This makes sense to me, cyclist.This makes sense to me, cyclist.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-25215103264448545222011-06-22T06:19:24.305-07:002011-06-22T06:19:24.305-07:00There is filibuster reform, and there is filibuste...There is filibuster reform, and there is filibuster reform. Not all of it is simply a gimme to whichever party controls the Senate, and it's also worth taking into account which tools of obstruction the Dems would have used more than occasionally.<br /><br />Two things in particular:<br /><br /><b>1) The motion to proceed should have been made non-filibusterable.</b> <br /><br />Look, we <i>want</i> the public to know what is being debated in Congress. That's to our advantage, year in and year out. The more that debate takes place <i>on the Senate floor</i>, rather than in backroom talks to line up 60 votes to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed, the better it is for our side.<br /><br /><b>2) The clause that allows the minority to require 30 hours of debate after a cloture motion is passed should have been eliminated. </b><br /><br />Nowadays, if you've got 60 votes for cloture, the debate's over and there's no need for another 30 hours. And it's not the sort of thing the Dems would make good use of as a tool for obstruction. <br /><br />I can understand why the Dems didn't eliminate the filibuster, or make it easier to invoke cloture on passage of a bill itself. But they should have gotten rid of this other stuff.<br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong and the Dems will use these two rules to their advantage if they find themselves in the minority in 2013 or 2015. But I'd be willing to bet non-trivial amounts of money that they'll rarely if ever use these rules to their advantage in ways that wouldn't have been satisfied by simply filibustering bills.<br /><br />And it would have also re-established the precedent that a majority <i>can</i> change the goddamned Senate rules once every two years, if not more often.low-tech cyclistnoreply@blogger.com