Many are not so happy with this. Huffingtonpost wasn't too coy about how they felt about the deal with a headline of "Failbuster" with a beaming Mitch McConnell and a Harry Reid smiling much more faintly.
" Progressive senators working to dramatically alter Senate rules were defeated on Thursday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), set to announce a series of compromise reforms on the Senate floor that fall far short of the demands. The language of the deal was obtained by HuffPost and can be read here and here."
"The pressure from the liberal senators, led by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley and backed by a major coalition of progressive groups, created the political space for Reid to cut the deal with McConnell, which does include changes to how the Senate operates, but leaves a fundamental feature, the silent filibuster, in place."
"The deal would address the filibuster on the motion to proceed, which had regularly prevented the Senate from even considering legislation and was a major frustration for Reid. The new procedure will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time."
"Reid won concessions on judicial nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours after cloture is invoked."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html
Certainly many are disappointed about the absence of the "talking filibuster." However, there has been a lot of back and forth on that as to whether or not it would be so effective or not. I personally question more why Reid gave way on moving from 60 votes to proceed to 41 to oppose proceeding.
Yet here is the case for the deal that they have agreed on as giving by Dems themselves:
"Supporters of the deal insist that, even without going down that route, Reid was able to secure tangible changes on the pace and conduct of Senate business."
"The deal, said one top Democratic aide, is "not everything Reid wanted but there are significant changes. Everybody was so focused on the filibuster, but as you know there were a lot of Dems who really felt uncomfortable going there. Let's face it, if not for 60 then Roe v. Wade might be dead and Social Security would be private accounts. But, Reid gets the power to get on bills without having to file cloture. That's a big deal. Also, post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2. That's huge because now Reid can stack nominations, which forces the Repubs' hands."
Added another supportive Democratic Senate aide: "We are now a more efficient Senate; we'll be able to get on bills without having 60 votes and without having to spend a week to do it. We are getting the ability to confirm certain nominees who have objections against them. Instead of taking a week to confirm them, it'll take a few hours. That's all Reid ever really wanted."
To be honest, I don't know how much of thumbs up or thumbs down to give it. This stuff is very hard to predict. I do think the 41 vote threshold would have been a good one. Yet it's hard to deny that historically-Roe v. Wade, et. al. the filibuster has been a force for good as well.
I'll take a wait and see attitude. This may have more impact than some might think. I do think that some of the vanity that Senators have for the Senate protocol-of being on a more rarefied level than the House is overdone. The Senate was in many ways constructed to be a less democratic institution-right to the fact that at one time you didn't even get to directly vote for Senators.
So many of it's "August" practices deserve to be reformed. Still, the Roe v. Wade and private Social Security accounts show that there is good reason for caution as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment