The filibuster will not be reformed. But the way the Senate moves to consider new legislation and most nominees will be.To some degree. How exciting! Various sorts blaming Harry Reid, like it's all his fault. This is somewhat as stupid (not quite) as calling a majority vote every two years to change, but does not end, the filibuster (unlike a few other things, not a supermajority rule explicitly there), abused of late by Republicans, a "nuclear option." Tad bit more complicated.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
3 comments:
According to Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, Reid said he did not, personally, believe it was time to end the 60 vote requirement. If so, he's an idiot.
He isn't alone then. How's Sen. Durbin there?
Even the two lead 'young' reformers here said they didn't want to end the 60 votes, just demand a talking filibuster.
Klein or Reid might think this will only make the end of the 60 rule a matter of time, but they still didn't say "it was time to end the 60 vote requirement."
I thought what Reid was referring to was the current situation in which 60 votes are required to pass anything as opposed to 60 votes being required to get cloture on a filibuster in circumstances in which everything controversial isn't filibustered. I understand that the technicalities overlap but the thought was that making filibusters more difficult to maintain would cut down on their frequency as opposed to ending them altogether.
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!