Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) happy to propose tiny reforms (photo: CAP)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told a crowd in Northbrook that he would like to see the Senate rules changed so that if a minority wanted to filibuster to prevent a vote on the bill, they would need to actually continuously talk on the Senate floor. From the Wilmette-Kenilworth Patch:

Frustrated with Senate Republicans blocking a Democratic majority of 51 senators from passingPresident Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act,Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) said he’s willing to change the filibuster rule to require dissenting legislators to speak continually against a bill.

[…]

“If the Republicans are willing to interrupt the business of the Senate and bring it to a halt, they should be willing to interrupt their dinner plans,” said Durbin, the Senate majority whip.

Forcing senators to actually do something to continuously maintain a filibuster would give us a slightly less idiotic system than our currently one.  The current rules allows a handful of senators to easily bring Congress to a crawl with a few motions.  But making important national decisions based on who can stand and speak longer is still an insanely stupid way to govern a nation.

I can’t believe that collective insanity so dominates Washington that changing the — so  that the passage of a bill depends on whether or not a few senators are willing to actually spend the time reading cookbooks all day on the Senate floor — is considered a “reform effort” to make the government more efficient.

Here is an idea. Instead of having a government based on how long some old men can go without peeing, have the rules provide that after a bill gets sufficient time for debate and amendments, it is either passed or rejected by a majority vote, just as the Constitution prescribes.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) happy to propose tiny reforms (photo: CAP)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told a crowd in Northbrook that he would like to see the Senate rules changed so that if a minority wanted to filibuster to prevent a vote on the bill, they would need to actually continuously talk on the Senate floor. From the Wilmette-Kenilworth Patch:

Frustrated with Senate Republicans blocking a Democratic majority of 51 senators from passingPresident Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act,Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) said he’s willing to change the filibuster rule to require dissenting legislators to speak continually against a bill.

[…]

“If the Republicans are willing to interrupt the business of the Senate and bring it to a halt, they should be willing to interrupt their dinner plans,” said Durbin, the Senate majority whip.

Forcing senators to actually do something to continuously maintain a filibuster would give us a slightly less idiotic system than our currently one.  The current rules allows a handful of senators to easily bring Congress to a crawl with a few motions.  But making important national decisions based on who can stand and speak longer is still an insanely stupid way to govern a nation.

I can’t believe that collective insanity so dominates Washington that changing the rules, so that the passage of a bill depends on whether or not a few senators are willing to actually spend the time reading cookbooks all day on the Senate floor, is considered a “reform effort” to make the government more efficient.

Here is an idea. Instead of having a government based on how long some old men can go without peeing, have the rules provide that after a bill gets sufficient time for debate and amendments, it is either passed or rejected by a majority vote, just as the Constitution prescribes.

Jon Walker

Jon Walker

Jonathan Walker grew up in New Jersey. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 2006. He is an expert on politics, health care and drug policy. He is also the author of After Legalization and Cobalt Slave, and a Futurist writer at http://pendinghorizon.com