So the Senate's actually contemplating filibuster reform.

Interesting.

So that brings up the question: What would be the ideal in filibuster reform?

My suggestion: Make filibusters public and loud. And make them more difficult to maintain - right now, they're trivially easy.

For that, I recommend two rule changes.

1. No more one-man filibusters. Right now, the rule is that one senator files a hold, it can be anonymous, and if anyone challenges the hold, then they have to hold a cloture vote, and if the cloture votes aren't there, then the filibustering douchebag just says the magic words "I suggest the absence of a quorum", forcing a quorum call, and if there are not at least 51 senators in the chamber, the session is adjourned. Which means most or all of the folks fighting against a filibuster all have to be there, answering quorum calls, while only one senator supporting the filibuster has to be there, saying "I suggest the absence of a quorum" over and over, while the other 39+ senators sit at home. My recommendation is to require all senators supporting a filibuster to be in the chambers, and the filibuster ends if there are not 40 senators in the chambers maintaining the filibuster.

2. Bring back reading from the dictionary. No more secret holds. No more virtual filibusters that don't require actually holding the floor, which amount to giving a 40 vote minority effective veto power. You want to filibuster, then you do it the old fashioned way - by holding the floor and speaking 24/7. Read the phone book, read recipes, read the tax code, read license plate numbers. But you cannot stop talking if you want the filibuster to continue. Stop talking and the filibuster is over. It's time to bring back Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

The general idea is not to abolish the filibuster, but make them hard, and make them public. That means that if you're going to filibuster, you'd better have a good reason, be able to articulate it in front of the press and to the American people, and have the will to maintain it.

Let's follow the Constitution.

IT allows the Senate to create it's own rules.

Just a point of order there.

The reason the filibuster is possible at all is because of the rules that the Senate chose for themselves. They make their own rules, and exploit their own rules.

The filibuster was a way to game the system by exploiting the Senate's unanimous consent system with no limits to debates. Those rules were originally put in place to prevent midnight votes when opponents of a bill were stuck in a blizzard, and most other legislative bodies deal with that problem differently, say with the Mason's Rules three-reading system.

Now the filibuster has evolved from a cheezy way for a minority to game the system into an effective veto given to an obstructionist minority.

Time to change the rules.

:-)

You aren't allowed to talk about it unless you have some.

:thumbsup:

you stand there and TALK... it is over once you cannot continue...

There was a time that was the case.

So if you had support you had people doing it as well. You did not... well you stopped talking, it's over...

If they want to stick to votes... lower it from 60 to 54... slightly over simple majority, but doable.

every minute the filibuster was reading. No one leaves. Bring in slop buckets to carry out the body wastes. (Well, I suppose with 66 votes they could have a 15 minute bathroom break.)

Classic filibusters demanded oratory and were political tools to make a point. It gave people a short period of time to speak passionately and change minds.

Modern filibusters are simply a Senate Veto.

Now.

It's time to put the Rethugs into pasture for the time being.

Until they learn to represent their own constitutents, not their corporate fatcats, I have no confidence in any of the Rethugs doing anything for the people. They are nothing but a greedy grubby a-holes who have no business in politics. If they wanted money, go be a CEO and rip off people.

Hawkeye-X

When the next session of the Senate convenes in January of next year, tradition is that they can change the Senate chamber rules with a straight majority vote. Granted, the GOP will raise a point of order at that vote, then the Dems, assuming they've decided to do this, will move to table that point of order, which again, only requires a 51-vote majority, or 50+Biden. They'll complain to Biden, but there's already precedent from three previous Vice Presidents that say that the Senate can change the rules with only 51 votes.

Yeah, it is similar to the nuclear option.