Let's understand the gamesmanship behind NOT reforming filibuster

[BlueStreak]

Today's vote in the Senate (54-46 in favor, so it LOSES) has raised discussion about the wisdom of killing the filibuster reform. Reid did that for a reason, a very good reason. Here's how I see it.

Anything the Senate could pass with less than 60 votes would be blocked in the House. 100% of it.

So then it simply becomes a tactical question. Are you better off forcing Democrats to cast tough votes, knowing that no legislation will get passed anyway? Or are you better off enticing McConnell to continue his pattern of filibustering?

Reid and Obama decided it was better for the GOP to be the focal point. And that was the right choice. If you think it through, it is practically a no-brainer.

But that all assumed that you make a hard drive at the House in 2014. Today is the first time we have seen the hint of that from Obama. If we learned one thing from his two successful campaigns, it is that he is very disciplined. He doesn't make his move too early.

With the exception of the "grand bargain" which he genuinely believes is possible if he gives enough away, I believe Obama understands he'll get very little else accomplished as long as the GOP holds the House. So basically there is one chance for progress remaining, and that is the 2014 elections. That being the case, it is best to consider all these daily skirmishes as steps toward 2014.

And if we do take the house in 2014 (and hold the Senate), Obama and Reid will change the filibuster rule for the last 2 years.

So basically, there was no upside to doing reforming filibuster while we didn't control the House, and there was a huge downside if we lose the Senate in 2014.

[graham4anything]

1. K&R +1

[geek tragedy]

2. Better argument--57 votes for the god awful Cornyn amendment today, including 14 Dems

SA 719. Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. VITTER, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2013.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013''.

(b) Reciprocity for the Carrying of Certain Concealed Firearms.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``§926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--

``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statue that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and

``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) Conditions and Limitations.--The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

``(c) Unrestricted License or Permit.--In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.

(3) SEVERABILITY.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00100

Grouped By Vote PositionYEAs ---57
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

[BlueStreak]

3. If Reid didn't want that to pass he could have used his position

to either block it altogether or to strong-arm enough Dems so that it wouldn't pass the lower, reformed filibuster threshold.

[geek tragedy]

4. They have to allow votes on amendments.

A version of this bill got 59 votes in 2009.

[BlueStreak]

5. As I understand it, the 60-vote threshold on amendments

was a negotiated agreement -- a gentleman's agreement -- and not actually part of the filibuster rule.

[onenote]

15. essentially a distinction without a difference in this case

In this instance, the cloture motion that passed was not a motion to end debate and allow a vote on S.649. It was a motion to end debate on a motion to begin consideration of S.649. In other words, without cloture on the "motion to proceed to consideration" of S.649, the process ends without anyone even being able offer amendments because the bill is never taken up.

Once debate started there were two ways it could go: take up amendments under the regular order and face the need to obtain cloture on each separate amendment (which would have included the Manchin/Toomey amendment) -- a process that would have taken a considerable amount of time. Or enter into an agreement under which amendments to the bill had to get 60 votes, basically combining two steps into one. in the end, it still means that 60 votes would've been needed.

Finally, it should be noted that the underlying legislation (as amended by two amendments that did get 60 votes) is still "under consideration" -- it has not been voted on.

But to be clear: I agree with you on the calculus involved in Reid's decision (supported by a number of senior Democratic senators) not to push for major filibuster reform this session of Congress.

[s-cubed]

6. If the Senate turns over, the first act will kill the filibuster to take power from the DEMS.nt

[BlueStreak]

7. That may be true, but you may see the GOP go through the same calculus

Let's say that in 2014, the GOP takes the Senate but loses the House. In that scenario, they probably would sit pat with the current rules or small modifications. There would be little to gain by being able to pass bills that won't come up in the House and would not be signed by the President. And they may not want to open the door.

OTOH, if the GOP wins the WH in 2016, and also controls both houses, then we are screwed, and they will eliminate (or mostly defang) the filibuster rule.

I guarantee they go through all these scenarios before deciding what they do on rules.

[bemildred]

8. Both parties a very fond of the filibuster, it makes them little tin gods. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Appointments aren't subject to confirmation by the House

The Republicans see fit to filibuster agency directors for any agency they feel ought not to exist. The ATF, for example, has not had a permanent director in over 6 years.

[BlueStreak]

10. That's the way Reid wanted it

His deal with McConnell includes speeding up the appointment process. It hasn't completely eliminated the problem, as you noted with regard to ATF. But that just means that neither Obama nor Reid care that much about filling the ATF vacancy.

The gamesmanship is a 2-way street. Evidently they concluded that it was better to have the Republicans accountable for blocking that position than it is to fill the position. After all, the Republicans will do everything possible to neuter the ATF chief. If something bad happens in that area, Obama figures it is a stronger argument to be able to say "How do you expect us to prevent {situation x} when the Republicans haven't even done their duty of confirming the Chief.?"

The point is, Reid had the cards in his hand. What you see is his CONSCIOUS tactical decision. I'm just trying to explain why his decisions make perfect sense when you look at it from a certain angle. I'm not asking to to agree with Reid's decisions.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. No, they want the power when they're in the minority

And frankly it doesn't do them a whole hell of a lot of good, but I digress. But Senators just love the fact that one person can grind the entire legislative business of the United States to a halt. It makes them feel powerful.

[BlueStreak]

12. So are you saying Reid didn't go through the thought process I described?

Are you saying he just got tricked because he doesn't understand how the Senate rules work?

[Hippo_Tron]

16. What I'm saying is that there's no point in winning elections if you don't get to govern...

I don't believe that Reid decided to let the Republican minority grind the government to a halt so he could blame them for it, win the next election, and then subsequently let the Republican minority grind the government to a halt again in the next congress. That defeats the whole purpose of winning.

[BlueStreak]

17. We didn't win the election. The GOP controls the House.

In more normal times you might assume that split houses would result in a lot of horse trading. But by now everybody should understand that the House is controlled by hostage-takers. That's just the reality. Passing bills through the Senate is pointless. Until we can take the House, there is no reason to even try to pass anything through the Senate, except as it sends a message that is helpful in the 2014 elections.

It really isn't that complicated.

[Lil Missy]

13. ......

[4dsc]

14. BS

The Party had a chance to kick the GOP when they were down and didn't do it because they are afraid.

I do not support weak leadership.