OK, so you've heard the news about the state of play on filibuster reform. Harry Reid's expressed preference is for a deal, which is to be expected. That's the role he plays in the Senate. He's the guy you send out to see if anything can be done by agreement. And after all, in a sane world, there should be something that can get done by agreement, since even many of those dragging their feet on filibuster reform agree that too much time is wasted post-cloture, filibustering the motion to proceed is a joke, and there really only ought to be one motion necessary to get to a conference with the House on bills you've already passed.
And though we're hearing that the push for the "talking filibuster" may be losing steam, there's another alternative on the table that, although it's not something Republicans are likely to want to agree to, is actually a pretty interesting option: flipping the burden of maintaining a filibuster onto the minority insisting on carrying it out.
But as the endgame approaches, even this basic reform may be in trouble. I'll explain what it would do, and whether we're likely to see it happen, below the fold.
No comments:
Post a Comment