The New York Times calls it “Bipartisan” in their headline, which is predictably a harbinger of miniscule change:
The changes will surely disappoint reformers who were pushing for more sweeping revisions to rein in the filibuster, once a rarely used legislative tool. It will not include, for instance, a requirement that senators be present on the Senate floor when they want to block a bill from coming to a vote, continuing the practice of allowing them to filibuster in absentia. And opponents would still have the opportunity to filibuster a final vote on any legislation, thwarting its passage without 60 votes.
There are three major points to the “reform”:
Sahil Kapur at TPM gets to the meat of the deal’s outcome:
The emerging accord is a major step away from the Merkley-Udall “talking filibuster” plan which would have required a filibustering minority to occupy the floor and speak ceaselessly until one side gives in. It’s also more modest than Reid’s middle-path proposal to McConnell, which would have shifted the burden from a majority seeking to advance legislation and nominations to a minority seeking to block them.
The major proponents of reform believe the Reid-McConnell deal under discussion would not make it easier to pass legislation, and believe the only meaningful upside is that it may speed up the confirmation of some judicial nominations.
Blogger BooMan is not impressed:
The filibuster deal that Jeremy Peters is reporting in the New York Times looks wholly inadequate. … What we need are rules that make it possible to filibuster, but so painful that it would only be done a few times a year, at most. It should be reserved for really big things, not be part of the everyday procedure of the Senate.
This deal doesn’t even come close to doing that. And it’s going to haunt Harry Reid for the next two years. just like his decision not to punish McConnell in 2011 has haunted him for the last years.