Dems reaping what they sowed with (patheticly) weak filibuster reform

[Bill USA]

this is what comes of trying to ingratiate yourself with those of criminal mentalities, sociopaths and terrorists gets you. Thanks so much, Harry Reid.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/06/dems-reaping-what-they-sowed-with-weak-filibuster-reform/

Here’s why: If reformers like Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall had gotten their way, today’s GOP filibuster of Halligan would likely have failed.

As you may recall, one of the provisions the reformers were pushing would have transferred the burden from the party trying to break the filibuster to the party trying to sustain it. That is, the provision would have required the filibustering party to muster 41 votes to keep the filibuster going, rather than requiring the majority party to muster 60 votes to end it.

Today’s Senate vote on Halligan was 51-41, falling well short of the 60 needed to break the GOP filibuster. Harry Reid switched his vote to No for procedural reasons. In other words, Republicans mustered only 40 votes against the nomination, partly due to absences from the Senate today. (Four GOP Senators didn’t vote.)

Under the provision sought by Merkley and Udall, this would have fallen short of the 41 votes needed to sustain the filibuster, and it would have ended.
(more)

[The Magistrate]

1. Indeed, Sir: It was a Very Bad Mistake Not To Put the Onus On The Minority

And that itself was only a minimal reform....