Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat killed filibuster reform?
Senators have a disincentive for getting rid of the anti-majoritarian rule: It gives them more power
BY SCOTT LEMIEUX, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator McConnell reached an agreement yesterday that will be called filibuster reform by some reports. But as The Washington Posts Ezra Klein summarizes it, The deal is this: The filibuster will not be reformed. There were some minor changes in the deal that will streamline the confirmation process for nominees to federal district courts (although not appeals courts), but overall the deal is a fizzle for supporters of filibuster reform.
The failure to reform the filibuster is a very bad thing. The question is why so many Democratic senatorsincluding some blue-state representatives like Vermonts Patrick Leahy and California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxershowed so little inclination to act in the interests of progressive values.
One issue is that some senators may not accurately perceive the damage that the filibuster does to Democratic interests. One Senate staffer wrote Talking Points Memo to defend the non-reform:
I have not see anyone show how these rules will help advance the progressive cause and lack of reflection about how rules reforms under the constitutional option could be used to hurt us someday when President Rubio teams up with Speaker Cantor and Leader McConnell. Is the progressive community oblivious about what happens when the minority has no tools to prevent majority excess?
Full article:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/what_killed_filibuster_reform_partner/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1294 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What killed filibuster reform? (Original Post)
DonViejo
Jan 2013
OP
Isn't that pharmaceutical company that received the one-half billion dollar break
Samantha
Jan 2013
#4
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1. The filibuster forces senators to work together across party lines.
The House should have it, too.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)2. What killed filibuster reform?
This:
tblue
(16,350 posts)3. Then I don't wanna hear Reid complaining EVER
that he couldn't get enough votes for cloture. Don't come whining to me.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)4. Isn't that pharmaceutical company that received the one-half billion dollar break
in the f/c agreement in California? If so, that would explain why Feinstein and Boxer are silent on this issue. As for Leahy, who knows, perhaps he owns stock in the Company! I am really upset about that, but I have heard no discussion about it on cable. And that is just as upsetting.
Sam