<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reforming the Filibuster</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/reforming-the-filibuster.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/reforming-the-filibuster.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:59:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/reforming-the-filibuster.html/comment-page-1#comment-67763</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=25189#comment-67763</guid>
		<description>I am dismayed by the abuse of the word &quot;filibuster.&quot;

In my youth, if Senator Morse wanted to filibuster he had to get up and speak.  And keep speaking.  On and on.  And perhaps recruit a fellow objector to yield to, while he went to the potty.

Forget all this b.s. about pseudo filibusters (see notes 10 thru 13). Nowadays there is no cost--personal or political--to saying &quot;I&#039;m filibustering; table that legislation indefinitely.&quot;  Simply make them go back to *real* filibusters to block the legislative process. 

&quot;Two tracks?&quot;  B.S.  Make some senator, or group of senators, stand at the podium and bring Congress to a screeching halt, stopping the *entire* legislative process, not just shuffling the bill they don&#039;t like off to the &quot;idle track.&quot; Then we will see who has the heart, the cojones, and the political will to become known as the one(s) who brought the whole country to a standstill to get their way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am dismayed by the abuse of the word &#8220;filibuster.&#8221;</p>
<p>In my youth, if Senator Morse wanted to filibuster he had to get up and speak.  And keep speaking.  On and on.  And perhaps recruit a fellow objector to yield to, while he went to the potty.</p>
<p>Forget all this b.s. about pseudo filibusters (see notes 10 thru 13). Nowadays there is no cost&#8211;personal or political&#8211;to saying &#8220;I&#8217;m filibustering; table that legislation indefinitely.&#8221;  Simply make them go back to *real* filibusters to block the legislative process. </p>
<p>&#8220;Two tracks?&#8221;  B.S.  Make some senator, or group of senators, stand at the podium and bring Congress to a screeching halt, stopping the *entire* legislative process, not just shuffling the bill they don&#8217;t like off to the &#8220;idle track.&#8221; Then we will see who has the heart, the cojones, and the political will to become known as the one(s) who brought the whole country to a standstill to get their way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerard Magliocca</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/reforming-the-filibuster.html/comment-page-1#comment-67753</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerard Magliocca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=25189#comment-67753</guid>
		<description>Steve,

It&#039;s a fair point.  One alternative would be to have a graduated reduction in the cloture requirement that would reach a majority after one year.  So maybe in 4-6 months the threshold should be 55.  There is an argument for letting a minority block a bill that reaches the floor at the end of a Congress, so it depends how you want to define &quot;The End.&quot;  In the Parliament Act of 1911, the Lords were able to block legislation for two years, which is roughly 1/2 of a Parliament given that it took time to pass the bill in the first place.  So this proposal would be similar to that, even though now the Lords can only stop a bill for one year.  I would suspect that if a filibustering minority could only delay bills for one year, though, that power would be used far less often.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a fair point.  One alternative would be to have a graduated reduction in the cloture requirement that would reach a majority after one year.  So maybe in 4-6 months the threshold should be 55.  There is an argument for letting a minority block a bill that reaches the floor at the end of a Congress, so it depends how you want to define &#8220;The End.&#8221;  In the Parliament Act of 1911, the Lords were able to block legislation for two years, which is roughly 1/2 of a Parliament given that it took time to pass the bill in the first place.  So this proposal would be similar to that, even though now the Lords can only stop a bill for one year.  I would suspect that if a filibustering minority could only delay bills for one year, though, that power would be used far less often.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Zorn</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/reforming-the-filibuster.html/comment-page-1#comment-67751</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Zorn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=25189#comment-67751</guid>
		<description>Interesting idea, but wouldn&#039;t the practical effect of a one-year suspension be just about the same as an absolute veto? In the UK, Parliaments last for up to five years, so a one-year hold still leaves considerable time for legislative action.  In the US, with a new Congress every two years, serious legislation often doesn&#039;t reach the floor until the second half of the opening year of the Congress. A one-year hold would put the bill over until after the summer break in the second year, a period when most members are far more focussed on reelection than on legislating.  I would think a four-to-six month period, which would be proportional to the difference in time frames for the UK and US legislatures, would make more sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting idea, but wouldn&#8217;t the practical effect of a one-year suspension be just about the same as an absolute veto? In the UK, Parliaments last for up to five years, so a one-year hold still leaves considerable time for legislative action.  In the US, with a new Congress every two years, serious legislation often doesn&#8217;t reach the floor until the second half of the opening year of the Congress. A one-year hold would put the bill over until after the summer break in the second year, a period when most members are far more focussed on reelection than on legislating.  I would think a four-to-six month period, which would be proportional to the difference in time frames for the UK and US legislatures, would make more sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

