Filibuster Reform Proposal released.

[SirNitram]

Link to the full thing

In short: You can't filibuster starting debate. You can't obect for another senator without naming them.(AKA, secret holds) If a filibuster is voted for, it will run until no one is seeking recignition to speak or speaking. YOu shut up, it moves to a vote. After the normal amendment pile, each leader may offer three germane amendments. If a filibuster is used on a nominee, once broken, the nominee may be voted on in 2 hours, not 30 hours of working time.

In short, 'stand up and talk', and 'You can't run the entire calender out for nominees'. In return, the Minority Leader may always offer three amendments which are related to the bill directly.

[Thanas]

Well, it is about time something is done. However, I doubt the GOP will go for it. They lose too much for little gain.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

On the first day of a Senate session they can vote for the rules that will govern that session by a simple majority. Until the rules of order are voted in the 60 Senator clause has no power.

[SirNitram]

And the first day lasts indefinitely until 'adjourned'. They're going to be Recessing only to extend it as long as possible to get this.

[Knife]

I'd feel better if they just did it and didn't 'adjourn'. The more they do that, the less faith I'll have they pass it.

[SCRawl]

They still have to get the rules all their votes on side. Remember, this is the Democrats we're talking about.

[Koolaidkirby]

they only need 50 though (they have Biden as well) to pass this as far as I'm aware, and getting 50 was never the problem for the dems, it was 60

[SCRawl]

they only need 50 though (they have Biden as well) to pass this as far as I'm aware, and getting 50 was never the problem for the dems, it was 60

Yes, but they only have, what, 51+2 in the Senate? There's bound to be a few stragglers, and getting 50 Democrats to agree to anything can be a struggle. Here's a case in point:

Stalling on filibuster reform
By Jennifer Rubin

For ever-hopeful liberal bloggers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's introduction of a filibuster reform measure yesterday was a sure sign, yes indeed, that the Democrats are serious about filibuster reform. But are they?

Reid could have staged a vote, but instead, as I predicted, that will have to wait until after the Senate returns on January 24. (Only in Congress do you show up for the first day of work and then go on vacation for three weeks). A senior Senate adviser scoffed that if Reid had the votes, there'd be no delay. The only reason to put this off is to come up with an alternative that will allow the Democrats to withdraw the "nuclear option" gracefully.

It seems some Democrats have figured out the downside of lessening the rights of the minority. The Hill reports:

A senior Senate Democratic aide said some of the younger Democratic senators are having second thoughts about filibuster reform because they expect to be in the minority at some point in their careers.

"Believe me, when you're in the minority, you want the filibuster," said the aide.

And guess what? That might be as soon as 2012. In fact, it might be even sooner. In an interview yesterday, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) indicated that she'd like to reconsider the individual mandate. Maybe there are a few others. Well, presto, there is a majority. Surely Democrats would want and deploy every rule in the book to slow down that train, no?

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals fail to grasp the concept of "unintended consequences," be they the result of their own procedural rules or their legislative output. I suppose when you are convinced that you are very smart (with an Ivy League diploma to prove it!) you imagine that all the angles are covered. More often than not, that's wrong. And rushing decision-making only makes it more likely that you'll miss something. Democrats can mull all that over for the next few weeks.

To call this a "nuclear option" is just silly, though...there's nothing remotely incendiary about this rules change. Nevertheless, lest there be "buyer's remorse", there is some dotting of i's and crossing of t's (and possibly twisting of arms) to be done, to make sure they have a package that can pass with a majority.

I also wonder why people keep talking about how the Dems are just shooting themselves in the foot over these reforms, saying that when they next find themselves in the minority, they'll wish they'd never enacted them. Well, you know, there's nothing stopping the incoming majority from doing the same thing.

[RThurmont]

Isn't this a tad dangerous for the Democrats to pursue? If it is established that changing the rules of the senate is possible on the first day with a mere 51 votes, the next time Republicans have power in the upper house it seems to me that they could potentially implement a number of policies that are equally onerous.

Consider the Democrats themselves utilized the filibuster or threats of filibuster during the periods of maximal GOP power during 2002-2006. If filibustering should be unavailable to Democrats in the future, in the probable event of another period of Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, the Republicans could potentially exploit the lack of filibuster to implement any desired policies without impediment. Likewise, the Republicans could adopt rules in the Senate that many Democrats would find objectionable, on the same basis.

It seems to me that this is a shortsighted move that will result in the Senate becoming a much more partisan chamber than it is presently. Now, whichever party has a majority will simply have carte blanche to do whatever is desired. I think upper houses of parliaments function best when they become a forum where cooler heads prevail, with raging, passionate, partisan debate left to the lower house.

[SCRawl]

Isn't this a tad dangerous for the Democrats to pursue? If it is established that changing the rules of the senate is possible on the first day with a mere 51 votes, the next time Republicans have power in the upper house it seems to me that they could potentially implement a number of policies that are equally onerous.

Consider the Democrats themselves utilized the filibuster or threats of filibuster during the periods of maximal GOP power during 2002-2006. If filibustering should be unavailable to Democrats in the future, in the probable event of another period of Republican control of both houses and the Presidency, the Republicans could potentially exploit the lack of filibuster to implement any desired policies without impediment. Likewise, the Republicans could adopt rules in the Senate that many Democrats would find objectionable, on the same basis.

It seems to me that this is a shortsighted move that will result in the Senate becoming a much more partisan chamber than it is presently. Now, whichever party has a majority will simply have carte blanche to do whatever is desired. I think upper houses of parliaments function best when they become a forum where cooler heads prevail, with raging, passionate, partisan debate left to the lower house.

The filibuster is not prohibited -- it is just not going to be the "push filibuster button" option that it is now. It will require the party in the minority (or at least the senators who do not wish a vote to proceed) to hold the floor (and presumably explain their problems with the bill under consideration), and will therefore only be used for the most egregious abuses of power. And isn't that what a filibuster should be?

[Bernkastel]

While my understanding of the American political system in not good, this seems like quite a good thing and something that really should be passed through. However,as things are at the present, the chance of that happening are very low.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Exactly. A filibuster SHOULD be difficult to do, and should require conviction and passion on the part of whoever's using it.

[D.Turtle]

Since even very conservative Democrats have come out in favor of doing rules reform (even without Republican support if necessary), it is a foregone conclusion that some form of it will be passed. At this point the question is just exactly what will be changed.

One interesting question is how likely it is that at least some Republicans will go along with the rules reform. If some of the more moderate Republicans signal some willingness to be open for some compromise, it might result in a more conservative (as in less changes) reform than if they were entirely against it, as I'd expect the Democrats to be willing to weaken any reform in order to be able to point out at least some bipartisan support for rules reform.

I'd expect the final changes to look something like this: Removal of secret holds. No removal of filibuster, or changing the 60 vote threshold, but make it slightly harder to uphold a filibuster and remove some of the delay after a filibuster has been broken.

The best proposal I've seen, which I think is very unlikely to be implemented, would be to change the requirement of breaking the filibuster with 60 votes, to making it have to be sustained with 40 votes, putting the pressure on the people trying to filibuster, instead of on the people trying to break the filibuster.

Definitely will be interesting to follow how this goes.

[StarshipTitanic]

Since even very conservative Democrats have come out in favor of doing rules reform (even without Republican support if necessary), it is a foregone conclusion that some form of it will be passed. At this point the question is just exactly what will be changed.

Exactly, I don't see why even conservative Democrats would want to stop this from happening. I'd think Ben Nelson (DINO-NE) would love a chance to go on for hours about why the Democratic majority is deeply wrong about some issue now that he's up in 2012, for example.