Skip to main content

View Diary: Dick Durbin speaks of toothless, watered down filibuster reform (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This isn't right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, mightymouse
    They'll just get rid of it completely as they've already threatened to do once before.
    Or, at least it needs the modifier that the Republicans will end the filibuster if they need to to get something they want done that Democrats are actually blocking, but they won't just do it for the sake of it.

    They know it is valuable to them, and will only kill it if necessary.  Even when they were going to go nuclear over judicial nominees in 2005, they creatively invented a fake distinction between "legislative" filibusters and "judicial" ones and were proposing only to declare filibusters of judicial nominees unconstitutional.  They were going to leave most of the filibuster still in place.  

    They also won't kill it if they take the chamber in 2014.  No point with obama still in office.  

    I also wonder if the hubris of 2005 is gone with the thoughts of the "Permanent Republican Majority" - it was easy to kill the filibuster when you're convinced you have decades in the majority.  When your party can't win hispanic votes and they're the fastest growing group, you may think twice.

    The other thing to remember is Republicans don't impose the fake requirement of only changing the rules on the first legislative day.  They know they can kill the filibuster any time they want to, so they would wait for a real situation to arise in order to exercise that power.

    Democrats choose to tie their own hands for reasons that I prefer not to ponder too much.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site