Reid Delays Vote on Filibuster Reform

Senate Democrats announced on Tuesday that they are still pushing filibuster reform, but are opting to negotiate with Republicans rather than act alone.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), after months of tough talk on changing filibuster rules to speed up the Senate on everything from legislation to judicial confirmations, said Tuesday that he will hold off on those changes for now.

Instead, Reid announced from the Senate floor that he is delaying the filibuster discussion to work with Republicans over the next 10 days on a solution to the chamber's historic level of gridlock. "I'm confident we'll reach an agreement that allows the Senate to operate more effectively in the coming months," Reid said.

Reid had already delayed a vote on changing the filibuster rules earlier in January. He could have tried to force through changes on Tuesday under a controversial tactic dubbed the "Nuclear Option." In theory, the Constitution would allow him to force through the changes with only 51 votes instead of the usual 67.

Reid did use a procedural maneuver on Tuesday to yet again extend the first day of the 113th Congress and thereby preserve his ability to use that option.

Reid's announcement sent Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), filibuster reformers, to the floor to defend their proposal on Tuesday morning. They say the heart of their reforms is the "talking filibuster," which requires senators to take to the floor and speak to block a vote, rather than through an anonymous "hold."

But the latest proposals floating between Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) do not include the talking filibuster, according to Capitol Hill newspapers The Hill and Politico. Reid and McConnell met on the issue Tuesday morning and briefed their party caucuses over lunch, the papers reported.

McConnell, on the floor Tuesday, acknowledged that the Senate's status quo was "not working" but he put the blame on Democrats. "The Senate isn't functioning as it should, and it has nothing to do with a process that has served us well for a very long time," McConnell said. "But if we work together and strive to avoid some of bad habits that have developed around here, I truly believe that we'll be able to achieve the kinds of solutions that have eluded us for the past four years."

Two years ago, the last time the Senate considered changing the filibuster, Reid abandoned Democratic reformers in favor of a gentleman's agreement with Republicans to eliminate secret holds and reduce the use of the filibuster. The move avoided the nuclear option, Smith noted, but Reid later regretted the deal, and said on the Senate floor later in 2011 that Republicans were not holding up their end of the bargain.

The costs of the Senate gridlock are evident: Judicial nominees waited an average 139 days just to secure a confirmation vote from the full Senate during President Obama's first term, compared with 54 days during George W. Bush's administration and 30 days during Bill Clinton's, according to the Brookings Institution.

And the best-qualified attorneys for the bench, especially those at top law firms, have become increasingly wary of confirmation delays that can harm their business and personal finances, according to some senators.

Comments

[Avon]

Nobody likes the anonymous holds, but at least they're gone. Now, when a Senator "filibusters" by applying a "hold," at least he's known (it's always a male, it seems) and held up to whatever vilification he deserves.
Problem is, the GOP had agreed "to eliminate secret holds AND reduce the use of the filibuster," as the article correctly states. Then they really didn't reduce a thing. If nominees themselves can't stand the heat, as the article explains, then it really is too hot.

The "nuclear option" was awful when Dems staved it off in 2005, it was awful in 2011 when Reid forbore to use it, and it's no good now. (Why, asks Andy L.? - Because supermajorities are a valid concept, avoiding tyranny by bare majorities, in parts of the Constitution as well as in the 60-vote cloture rule.) But a deal to avoid it has gotta be a real deal.

McConnell has little credibility with me. An awful solution is better than the permanent dysfunction he bodes. The GOP had better be the ones to compromise this time, or I for one will back Reid's judgment on going "nuclear."

[JASON BUCKWHEAT]

THE BEST WAY TO GET THE SENATE TO WORK AS IT SUPPOSE TO IS GET RID OF HARRY REID, IN 4YRS WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, BUT THIS OBAMACARE WHICH WAS PASSED BY IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SO REALLY GOOD ACCOMPLISHMENTS STILL AT ZERO UNDER THIS REID.

[Damon]

I will only mention that as bad as Senator Reid, and President Obama paints the Republican opposition, this reform may not be the proper path. As in all things, the Senate will change in the next election. The senate is supposed to debate, and be the calming influence in the government. If these changes are enacted, it will cut both ways. As Rick posted 'When the republicans threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005', this IS the nuclear option. It may well come back to haunt Mr Sen. Reid and the Dems.

[Rick]

When the republicans threatened to use the nuclear option in 2005 to get all of Bush's very far right & radical judicial nominees thru, the Democrats gave in & allowed votes on pretty much ALL nominees excl. Miguel Estrada and one or two others...

Well, now Democrats need to get tough, President Obama has had WAY too many judicial nominees filibustered and/or denied a SJC hearing in some cases in his first term..

Enough is enough..

[Andy Lubershane]

Filibuster reform is absolutely necessary. The "constitutional option" is just basic majority rule applied to parliamentary procedure. How is that controversial?

For more, check out this cartoon: http://www.cartoonomist.com/2012/10/how-filibuster-is-filibucking-up_30.html

[Don Cook]

I remember the 'talking filibuster' and it worked. Today's apparantly 'effortless' filibuster process just gums up the works. I believe we should go back to the 'talking filibuster' but if the leaders believe compromise is necessary on this, then just enforce if for confirmation proceedings!