next »

[Brendan]

Ironic that this is so hot button now, when Dems in control. Of course it was a sacred institution when Republicans were in control.

I agree with any change taking place for 2017 or later.

Historically, conservatives have used the filibuster more expansively than liberals in the past couple of decades.  Democrats have filibustered mainly over judicial nominees, while Republicans have filibustered over a much wider spread of legislation.

I believe that elimination of the filibuster would have made the Obamacare debate one with more bipartisan compromise if Republicans weren't able to hang their hopes on blocking things in the Senate.

The time to agree with changes should have been before the current election.  With conservative pundits believing that 2014 should be a favorable mid-term in which they believe they can win control because they expect Obama to govern poorly and cause the loss of seats gained in the 2008 wave, I suggest changes should be agreed to take effect by January 2015.

Here's why Repubs have filibustered more under Reid: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/11/07/it_begins_reid_proposes_changing_filibuster_rules

Second of all the use on Bush's judicial nominees was unprecedented, yet Repubs didn't go nuclear option. No need to change the rules now. Dems had filibuster proof majority, if the people agree, they can send another one in the next election.

[Roy H.]

While the Senate is thinking of way it could improve, perhaps it could pass a budget one of these years.

I find that to be more important than the filibuster.

[Brendan]

While the Senate is thinking of way it could improve, perhaps it could pass a budget one of these years.

I find that to be more important than the filibuster.

And budgets only need 51 vote.

[LooseCannon]

Dems expanded its use under Bush to cover judicial nominees, but whatever.

This statement is incredibly false.  The unprecedented widespread use of the filibuster (and other methods such as outright refusing to hold confirmation hearings) to block judicial appointments really began during the Clinton years, most famously with the filibuster of the nomination of Richard Paez, which took four years to overcome.

[Interceptor]

I believe that elimination of the filibuster would have made the Obamacare debate one with more bipartisan compromise if Republicans weren't able to hang their hopes on blocking things in the Senate.

Cannot be overstated how true this is. Olympia Snowe could have written half the bill herself if she was willing to vote for the ACA. Administration was pretty desperate for Republicans partners on that bill, to the point where they compromised with themselves before they even started.

[nickagneta]

Doubt this reform happens...it will be filibustered to death.

[action781]

Doubt this reform happens...it will be filibustered to death.

Like.

[angryguy77]

Making it easier for the majority to pass legislation sounds like what someone would do if they are intent on compromising.

[Interceptor]

Making it easier for the majority to pass legislation sounds like what someone would do if they are intent on compromising.

So make reform such that it takes place so far into the future, that nobody knows who will be in the majority then. Easy solution to the perceived conflict.

[Bombastic Jones]

To the original question:  I hope the return of the Grand Bargain and sequestration are the first big tests.  I believe that something will get done there sooner rather than later, bu it would be nice if they 'get that one right'.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694

[Brendan]

Doubt this reform happens...it will be filibustered to death.

Like.

Clearly you dont know of what you speak, rules changes only require a 51 vote majority.

Also wasn't Bork filibustered under Regan? Or did old Teddy just demigod him out of conference and block him from being brought to the floor? Lots of ways to obstruct business.

[LooseCannon]

Bork's nomination went to the floor and was defeated 42-58.

[BballTim]

I believe that elimination of the filibuster would have made the Obamacare debate one with more bipartisan compromise if Republicans weren't able to hang their hopes on blocking things in the Senate.

Cannot be overstated how true this is. Olympia Snowe could have written half the bill herself if she was willing to vote for the ACA. Administration was pretty desperate for Republicans partners on that bill, to the point where they compromised with themselves before they even started.

  Obama/Reid/Pelosi had zero interest in bipartisan compromise when they were working on the health care bill.

[Redz]

Doubt this reform happens...it will be filibustered to death.

Like.

It really would be the ultimate statement of legislative inefficiency.

[LooseCannon]

I believe that elimination of the filibuster would have made the Obamacare debate one with more bipartisan compromise if Republicans weren't able to hang their hopes on blocking things in the Senate.

Cannot be overstated how true this is. Olympia Snowe could have written half the bill herself if she was willing to vote for the ACA. Administration was pretty desperate for Republicans partners on that bill, to the point where they compromised with themselves before they even started.

  Obama/Reid/Pelosi had zero interest in bipartisan compromise when they were working on the health care bill.

If Democrats were not interested in bipartisan compromise, the bill would have been more liberal and passed more quickly.  I believe that Republicans could have gotten major concessions on subjects that appeal to social conservatives if some of them had been willing to vote for the bill.