Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the superintendent lord and supreme head of the United States Senate, has recently hinted at how he would potentially be willing to reform the obstruction, mainly under the guise of explaining to his constituents how he is really trying to protect it. The. Democrats are currently in control of the Senate, but they are stuck with passing bills in party votes through the budget reconciliation process – thus limiting what their legislation can do – because of the House’s assumption that any bill that does not have the support of 60 senators will be blocked via obstruction. Manchin, a moderate in a dark red state, said he is not in favor of dismissing the obstruction, which would allow Democrats to pursue a range of legislative ambitions, such as voting rights and immigration reform.
On Sunday, however, Manchin suggested that he would be open to bringing back talking obstruction, which would require lawmakers to actually stand up and make speeches if they wanted to prevent the legislation. “If you want to make things a little bit more painful, make him stay there and talk, I’m willing to look at it any way we can. But I’m not willing to take away the minority’s involvement, ”said Manchin at NBC’s Meet the press. He repeated almost the same on Fox News, where he explained that “it really must be painful and we have made it more comfortable over the years”.
Now, in an interview with Politico, Manchin appears to have been even more specific about the changes he would be willing to entertain – and that does not bode well for the Republican Party’s obstruction plans. Specifically, says the article, Manchin “thinks that either the majority needs to reach 60 votes to overcome an obstruction or the minority to reach 41 votes to sustain it”. It is a short paraphrase of an article that is ostensibly about how Democrats don’t have the votes to change the obstruction. But when considered in the context of Manchin’s comments over the weekend, it’s potentially a big deal. The senator now said that in addition to requiring the minority to actually speak during an obstruction, he would be open to requiring them to hold 41 votes in plenary to maintain the blockade. No matter what happens, it would be a huge waste of time for opposition lawmakers, which would make logging more difficult. But once you’ve made the rule change, it also opens up the potential for old-school hard-hitting tactics, like running the Senate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until the opposite side just gives up.
Anyway, all of these are just suggestions and suggestions coming from a man whose colleagues genuinely seem to find him inscrutable. And the effectiveness of any proposed obstruction reform will depend largely on the details. But luckily, Manchin seems to be bending toward reforming the Senate’s most frustrating convention – and, you know, legislating a little more.