Export thread

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029816-503544.html

Ok. my reading comprehension must be broken and need a new modules.

Basically, they are doing a "verbal" agreement that they won't filibuster each other? no formal rules? and you can still use aids to filibuster? (i.e. the senate doesn't have to be on the floor to filibuster)

I don't understand the "secret block" either.

They agreed to limit filibusters on whether a bill can proceed to the floor or not - so more bills will get to the floor. They did not change anything about filibustering the actual vote.

Previously, it was possible for senators to vote anonymously for certain things, such as whether an appointee should be appointed, or even if the senate should vote on the appointee. They removed the anonymous vote so while senators can still block appointees, they much now do so publicly and on the record. It should speed things up significantly.

The filibuster hasn't changed, but they've agreed to use it differently to help speed things through the process. Either side can, in fact, continue to use it as they always have, but of course the other side will complain long and loud about breaking the agreement if they stray too far from what they've agreed.

The filibuster hasn't changed significantly for quite some time, and is unlikely to truly change anytime soon. The democrats are afraid that if they remove it, and the republicans gain control next election, they will be in a bad position without the filibuster. The Republicans only have the filibuster right now as a means of directing whether bills are passed or not.

So they just agree that they will not use it as much? but if the Dems decides to pass a bill and the Republican decides to use it (i.e. lets say the 1st bill after this agreement) then Dems would cry foul? then what? just noise?

I don't think this will have much of an impact. What a waste of time.

Yeah, this seems kinda pointless. The first side to use a filibuster is going to be accused of violating the agreement, no matter the reason for performing the filibuster, which will give the other side a blank ticket to filibuster as much as they want.

AshburnerX said:

Yeah, this seems kinda pointless. The first side to use a filibuster is going to be accused of violating the agreement, no matter the reason for performing the filibuster, which will give the other side a blank ticket to filibuster as much as they want.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think a good change would be the Senator doing the filibuster should be there the WHOLE time.

I would agree that the definition of filibuster should be adhered to as it was originally intended - you STAND and you talk (but about what doesn't matter), and you can cede the floor to another Senator/Congressman but you can't have staffers taking turns for you.