Might Manchin and Sinema be ok with a "modification" of the current version of the filibuster?

[Atticus]

I'm thinking of a return to the "Jimmy Stewart" version whereby the filibuster could last only so long as one senator could continuously hold the floor and there was no 60 vote requirement. I am sure we'd see some who were catheterized after a fast, but nature would put a reasonable time limit on minority obstruction while still providing an opportunity to voice their opposition.

Could this or some other "modification" be a way for these two to flex without abandoning their public support for keeping "the filibuster"?

[Walleye]

1. I like that idea. Not written in stone.

McConnell happily made up the rules as he went along whenever it suited him

[drray23]

2. This is one of the options Schumer is considering.

He made it clear there are more than just out right removing the fillibuster that he could do. If you read the wiki page on the fillibuster you will see it has been tweaked many times to deal with abuses of it. He could embark on something like that to make it harder for the GOP to obstruct.

[Moostache]

3. Any idea short of capitulation to McConnell's power grab would be better...

Moscow Mitch has only ONE concern, and it ain't fairness or the 'need' for a legislative filibuster in its current form...he intends to simply block everything and it is transparent to anyone still able to fog a mirror.

The intent was never to allow people to break into teams and refuse to allow the game to go on even when they are in the minority of the total.

[Jeebo]

4. Another option would be to allocate a limited number of filibusters.

Like time-outs in a football game. This would force a return to the days when the filibuster was used only sparingly, to stop something that the minority party finds particularly objectionable. It would stop either party from relentlessly filibustering EVERYTHING, like the Republicans under McTurtle like to do when they're out of power.

-- Ron

[genxlib]

9. I had an OP about this over the weekend

Except I used the analogy of "coaches challenges" for instant replay. Time outs work too and is probably easier for non-sport fans to understand.

[servermsh]

5. I hope they are open to reform

There have been plenty of reform ideas tossed around. Most reforms have the goal of putting the burden on the minority. One example is requiring 41 votes to sustain the filibuster instead of requiring of 60 to break it. This would require the minority to stay in town to keep voting.

[StClone]

6. Schumer, maybe, will also offer

I think he will induce them to work with the regular Dems by offering them plum roles and somehow, within the rules, allow more donations to go their way to work-around the coal lobby (Manchin) and banking industry donations (Sinema). Also, Schemer may take inconsideration of pet projects and get the public to apply pressure. Stick and carrot?

[Celerity]

7. Manchin wouldn't even go along w/ the micro nuclear option to simply overcome McTurtle's filibuster

of the Organizing Resolution

I so doubt he wavers on anything to do with it.

The Organizing Resolution is normally passed via a Unanimous Consent Agreement, BUT McTurtle was filibustering it and Manchin (not sure on Sinema) said he would not even use a micro nuclear option (only applying to the OR) to break that filibuster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/25/senate-mini-nuclear-option-mcconnell/

But it turns out there’s a mini-nuclear option that Democrats could exercise against McConnell, if they so choose.

This option would not do away with the legislative filibuster. Instead, it would do away only with the blockade that McConnell is imposing right at this moment — the one that is preventing the Senate from organizing and starting to get down to business.

Here’s how this would work. Right now, McConnell is filibustering the organizing resolution, which is the power-sharing agreement that would structure the Senate, given that each party has 50 senators (with Vice President Harris breaking ties). McConnell is demanding that Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democrats agree in advance to never nix the legislative filibuster. In essence, he’s filibustering the very first step toward allowing Democrats to take over the majority, to force them to keep the legislative filibuster, no matter how extensively he uses it to stymie Biden’s agenda.

Democrats are refusing to make that commitment. While they likely won’t actually do away with the filibuster — moderates Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) are opposed — they want to preserve the option of doing so, as leverage against McConnell abusing it with abandon. McConnell’s position is utterly ludicrous, and Democrats should not cave.

But Democrats could end McConnell’s blockade now. Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution, says Democrats could devise a procedural motion to create a new precedent that would apply only to organizing resolutions.

In this scenario, Binder says, Democrats would end the filibuster on organizing resolutions in a targeted way, just as Democrats previously ended filibusters only on executive and judicial nominations but not on Supreme Court nominations, and similar to how McConnell and Republicans expanded that move to end filibusters only on Supreme Court nominations.

“Technically, yes, Democrats could with 50 votes and the vice president detonate a small nuke that only hits organizing resolutions,” Binder told me.

However, Binder added, this would in effect push the Senate further into procedural warfare.

“Each time a majority denotes a nuclear device, it greases the skids for future nukes,” Binder said. For this reason, she noted, Manchin, Sinema and other moderates might be reluctant even to detonate this mini-nuke, meaning Democrats might not have 50 votes for it.

Indeed, Manchin said in an interview that he would not support doing this.

“I will not vote to bust the filibuster under any condition, on anything that you can think of,” Manchin told me. “If you can’t sit down and work with your colleagues on the other side and find a pathway forward, then you shouldn’t be in the Senate.”

“Why would I ... vote on something that would divide us further when Joe Biden is coming in trying to unite the country?” Manchin asked.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Origins_OrganizingResolution.htm




https://time.com/5932616/why-mitch-mcconnell-is-filibustering-to-protect-the-filibuster/

So that means Democrats now get to set the agenda, chair the committees and get the little perks that come with being the controlling party, like added staff and better room reservations, right? In normal times, sure. But these are not normal times. Even though Republicans don’t have a majority in the Senate any longer, under the body’s rules, the GOP still chairs some committees, the three new Senators who took their oaths this week can’t be assigned committees and McConnell can still block progress going into this two-year congressional session. Until the two parties’ leaders — or all 100 Senators on a separate track — agree to how the Upper Chamber will work for the next two years, the old rules still hold.

[sweetloukillbot]

8. There has to be cards that aren't being shown WRT them

I can't believe Sinema would go to McConnell and offer assurances without Schumer's knowledge.

[The Wizard]

10. I'm thinking

filibusters must be bipartisan and they actually have to stand on the Senate floor and read telephone books.

[Demsrule86]

11. Anything can happen...all is on the table. We are in a good position.

[BComplex]

12. One thing we could do is bombard their offices with calls about how much damage the

filibuster is to our democracy.

They're probably not getting 2 or 3 hundred phone calls per hour, that they really should be getting.

[dansolo]

13. This is what I hope will happen

The senate was never intended for requiring a supermajority to conduct any business.