Filibuster question ...

[Ian_rd]

My understanding of the filibuster is that currently, a senator can just literally phone in a filibuster without actually speaking or even being present in the chamber.

Is that right? If so, could Reid have instead changed the rules to require filibusters to actually be filibusters? In the style of Jeff Smith and Wendy Davis?

[Scuba]

1. Could have, but that just encourages asshats like Cruz.

[DetlefK]

4. But on the plus-side, it would have encouraged asshats like Cruz.

Just imagine a republican talking filibuster every week. Imagine them droning on about conspiracy-theories, empty platitudes about freedom and tyranny, Green Eggs&Ham, Star Wars, Benghazi, birth-certificates, Roger Ailes, how Democrats are really the ones responsible for grid-lock by forcing the Republicans to filibuster ...

[Scuba]

5. When you own the media you don't have to worry about public opinion.

[madokie]

2. Reid did this the right way

Democrats pretty much always give the puke president the benefit of the doubt. Of course if who they want isn't someone like john bolton or robert bork.

[okaawhatever]

3. Yes, it is true that Senate filibusters are currently filibusters in name only. They are not

required to hold the floor and speak, the so-called "talking filibuster" State filibusters have different rules by legislature. For Wendy Davis in Texas, the rules were quite strict. Her entire speech had to be only about the bill being filibustered. She was not allowed to place her hands on the desk, prop herself up against anything, or have another Senator take over for her. The filibuster ended because the Republicans called three strikes on rule violations for going off topic. Conveniently, the did that about 20 minutes before midnight when the special session would have ended. The third violation (you get three) was for mentioning the cost of ultrasounds, which was actually brought up during the first debate on the bill by the senate leader! That is why the crowd burst out in anger and booed the Republicans, they could see if was a crap call just to get a vote in before midnight.
For the US Senate, they merely need to "phone it in" as you said. To end the imaginary filibuster, you must have a vote of cloture which requires 60 votes, now of course 50.
Yes, Reid may have been able to switch it back to the "talking filibuster" but I don't think that was really at issue. Plus, why punish all Americans by giving us thirty hours of Ted Cruz? Since the US Senate rules don't mention staying on topic, you could end up with something like the infamous reading of the phone book.

[Ian_rd]

6. I'm not so sure that saving America from Cruz's droning ...

... is enough of a reason to go "nuclear." I think the more minor change to require talking filibusters might have been adequate to break this insane amount of obstruction, while also protecting the minority's right to resist the majority in some cases - a right I think they should have even if some of them are conspiracy-minded attention whores.

If Reid had required talking filibusters, then a filibuster would have been returned to something that requires effort. And that effort would have required some courage-of-your convictions energy to produce.

So what if Shutdown Cruz had used the talking filibusters to air the Ted Cruz Show to the media? I expect the obvious - that it would have been a horrible embarrassment for the GOP, and they would have eventually shut his stupid ass up.

Considering how pretty much all of these filibusters had nothing to do with the nominees, imagine the seventh or eighth talking filibuster with some ass clown droning on about Benghazzi. The GOP would be humiliated as America lets out a collective, "Oh for Chrissake, shut the hell up, idiots!"

[okaawhatever]

7. Filibuster reform will probably happen soon. There isn't/wasn't time now to debate what needs to

stay or go. Fact is, the filibusters for nominations have nothing to do with their opposing the nominations on merit in the first place. That's part of the problem. They can't find anything wrong with these people to take before the American people.
If they're going to overhaul the filibuster, they also need to force everyone to vote. With the last nomination the problem was that 9 Senators didn't vote. They wanted to play both sides against the middle for the benefit of their election. I say too bad, no filibuster while Senators are refusing to do their job which would remove the need for the filibuster in the first place.