http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/filibuster-reform-democrats-talking.php?ref=fpa
Senate Democrats who support reforming the filibuster when the new Congress convenes next month insist their ideas are fairly modest. Their farthest-reaching proposal, they say, would be to end the era of silent obstruction, and force filibustering senators to hold the floor and register their objections publicly, and at indeterminate length. The 60-vote supermajority typically required to end the filibuster, they insist, would still stand.But would it really?We spoke with a Senate Democratic aide familiar with how the rule would work in practice. In short, if the majority party wins the test of wills, the super majority requirement would be irrelevant.Currently the minority party can mount “silent” filibusters, so long as the majority can’t muster 60 supportive votes. That means they can block a bill from moving to debate or to a final vote without necessarily occupying the floor and speaking, just like the iconic scene in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. If even a single member of the minority objects quietly to a simple-majority vote on a piece of legislation or a nominee, the majority must muster 60 votes to end debate.
given the unstable characters of some on the right they can have a bad night no nookie and decide to take it out on 'we the people", with no real sense of difference or just because they are republicans.
it's disturbing how the system can be usurped in such a fashion as to deny governing by one voice, not saying it should be stifled but that one voice most assuredly does not speak for the majority.
The Democrats want to alter these incentives by implementing a “talking” filibuster that shifts some of the burden to the filibustering minority. The reforms under consideration would require obstructing senators to occupy the floor and speak ceaselessly until one party or the other loses its will and gives up.
Specifically, here’s what the plan will do: if the minority summons enough votes to block a cloture motion, the Senate would proceed to a period of extended debate. At least one of the 41 filibustering senators would be required to hold the floor and speak without any ability to suspend debate.
if you wanted then work for it no more free lunches on our dime or our time.
