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)
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.
