Is there any chance that, instead of "eliminating" the filibuster, we could "modify" it and

[Atticus]

return it to the "Jimmy Stewart" version in which one Senator could "hold the floor"---and delay a pending bill--only for as long as they alone could speak? Perhaps with a 24 or 36 hour maximum?

This would permit a minority Senator to voice their opposition and publicize what they see as their reasons, but would constitute only a "speed bump" to action, not a "roadblock".

Could that win the support of Manchin and Sinema?

Thoughts?

[snowybirdie]

1. Great idea!

Lets make them have to actually work to promote their ideas. Will make our Senators think before. imposing a filibuster

[dansolo]

2. This is exactly what I have been advocating

Don't get rid of it, but make it much more of a pain to do. Requiring a 60 vote threshold to pass any legislation was obviously not the framers intent.

[Fullduplexxx]

3. Ask joe. Maybe he will let you and maybe he'll say "HELL NO YOU CANT"

Just like johnny boner

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. The "old style" doesn't delay a pending bill, it delays everything.

But it will boost sales of adult diapers. Sales are way down since there was no audience at the New Years Eve ball drop in Times Square.

[FM123]

5. I would rather just do away with it altogether! Unfortunately, it's not up to me.....

BUT there are some modifications that might help, according to this Vox article.

There are four broad ways that senators can weaken the filibuster without eliminating it altogether.

Make fewer bills subject to the filibuster: The Senate can create carveouts and exempt certain matters from the filibuster altogether, as it does with bills subject to the reconciliation process.


Reduce the power of individual rogue senators: The Senate could make it harder to initiate a filibuster. Right now, unanimous consent is required to hold a vote without invoking the time-consuming cloture process. But the rules could be changed to allow an immediate vote unless a larger bloc of senators — perhaps two or five or 10 — objected to such a vote, instead of just one.

Make it easier to break a filibuster: The Senate could reduce the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture. This could be done as an across-the-board reform, like the 1975 change to the filibuster rule that reduced the cloture threshold from 67 to 60. Or it could be done by creating a carveout for certain matters, such as the 2013 and 2017 reforms that allowed presidential nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

Reduce or eliminate the time it takes to invoke cloture: The Senate could reduce the amount of time necessary to invoke cloture and conduct a final vote. This could be done by allowing a swifter vote on a cloture petition, by reducing or eliminating the time devoted to post-closure debate, or both.

https://www.vox.com/22260164/filibuster-senate-fix-reform-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-cloture-mitch-mcconnell

[hvn_nbr_2]

6. Filibuster 1000 bills concurrently and pay no public perception price

With the old filibuster, anyone using it had to weigh what they did against the public perception of them reading from the phone book to prevent government from happening. Now they can "filibuster" 1000 bills at once and pay no public perception price.

Some people say going back to that would be a problem because it "stops everything" for as long as it lasts. The current system stops everything forever.