Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Deadline Approaching for D.C.-Area In-House Legal Departments Contest | Main | D.C. Bar Board Eliminates Nomination-By-Petition for President-Elect »

January 22, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017c3625fb72970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reid Delays Vote on Filibuster Reform:

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!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements