If Obama wins and We dont regain the house but hold the senate.

[Egnever]

Harry needs to step up and change the filibuster rule.

Don't ya think?

[Tumbulu]

1. Yes!!!!!!! nt

[gateley]

2. Yes!!!!

[Honeycombe8]

3. Absolutely. Can he really do that? nt

[BlueStreak]

6. Yes. Each new Senate (every 2 years) can set its own rules.

This is just a rule. It isn't a law or anything in the Constitution.

[Egnever]

9. +1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. What's sad is Democrats who say he shouldn't because they may need it when Republicans are in power.

The first thing they'll do is eliminate it.

[BlueStreak]

25. Which is exactly why they should get out ahead of the issue

Today's Republicans have no respect for tradition, and tradition was the only thing that kept this ridiculous rule in place.

There are some merits to a process that forces more deliberate action in the Senate so that people can't easily go off half cocked. But what the Republicans have done with the filibuster has essentially made a situation where the Senate can't do ANYTHING.

Rather than scrap the filibuster altogether, it is probably wise to reform it, greatly limiting its use and adding a cost for using this tactic.

Sen. Tom Udall and some colleagues offered such a set of reforms the last time and the Senate leadership, unwisely IMHO, defeated him. Hopefully it will get more of a hearing this time assuming the Democrats still hold the Senate. See
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/01/05/read_sen_tom_udall_s_filibuster_reform_resolution.html

That reform eliminates secret holds, which was always an asinine rule. And in the case of filibuster, it goes back to the days of a real filibuster. If something is so important that it cannot go to a vote without extended debate, this new rule simply says, "OK, then, you MUST debate. and the Senate will stop all other business until that debate is concluded."

The Udall rule still allows 40 Senators to call a filibuster (I would prefer something more like 45) and it allows any number of filibusters on any bill (I would prefer to see more limitations of when it can be used.)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Another winner is "unanimous consent" to set aside a rule....

.....like THAT is ever going to happen when doing nothing is considered to be the goal.

[Smickey]

4. What they said. n/t

[still_one]

5. If Obama wins and we regain both the house and senate, there will be NO EXCUSES from the DEMOCRATS

this time why they don't have single payer, why they don't have financial regulation, why they don't reverse citizen's united

[Grown2Hate]

7. Well, from what I understand, changing Citizen's United will take a constitutional

amendment (since it is established law by the Supreme Court). But other than that, I agree across the board. We need to get some shit DONE if we control Senate, House & Presidency. Hell, if we do that, we might control the Supreme Court within a few years!!!

[still_one]

8. Even citizen's united because an ammedment can be done through Congress without going through the

states

[AndyTiedye]

10. No. An Amendment Must Also be Approved by 3/4 of the States

[still_one]

20. thanks /nt

[longship]

12. Ho hum!

First, it's spelled amendment. Second, read your constitution. Amendments ratification takes 3/4 of states.

The only way to avoid going through the state legislatures is for a constitutional convention. That's nothing we would want with the theocratic and idiot tea baggers so prominent.

[still_one]

19. Thanks. So repeal must be through an Amendment. I guess it isn't going to happen.

[enlightenment]

27. I've seen this argument a couple of times on DU and

don't understand it.

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the land, but they do not make law. They rule on the Constitutionality of law - laws are made by Congress.

I have never heard the argument that it would take a Constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade; rather, what is being done is a gradual erosion of the law by the passage of other laws - including federal law (for example, the Hyde Amendment, which is not a Constitutional amendment but simply an addendum to an existing law but has managed to have an extremely chilling effect on the right of women to choose).

Given that, it seems reasonable that Citizen's United could be substantively neutered by the passage of subsequent law; traditionally that is what we do in this country. I do not understand why, in the case of this law, the SC decision is treated as sacrosanct.

[ieoeja]

30. If we win the House, and the Senate, both will retain a Conservative majority.

A significant percentage of elected Democrats are staunch Rightists.

Not a majority. But enough that Democrats would need something like a 70% majority in both chambers to have a Liberal/Progressive majority.

So even had Democrats had a 60 member majority in the Senate during Obama's first two years - Kennedy was unable to attend a single session during the brief time he lived after Franken joined the Senate - it would have required members of the Conservative majority to join their fellow Democrats to end any filibusters.

[Kablooie]

11. I hear he has to do it within the first two weeks.

[tavalon]

13. He'll need to check with his corporate overlords

He'll get back to you on that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. Make em actually do it.

[img][/img]

Even if they stand there and read the New York Phone Book.

The longest filibuster on record was teams of Senators in 1957 going for 57 days against Civil Rights, which PASSED.

I think we can bet Republicans won't hold up for any time at all.

Look at the House. They take TONS of time off because, let's face it,...they're lazy...

[pdxDemocrat]

17. What Spitfire said!

Make 'em do it instead of backing down at the hint of a filibuster threat.

[brooklynite]

18. I've spoken about this to two US Senators in the past two days...

...and they both agree that he will.

[SWTORFanatic]

21. I'm ok with the filibuster, as long as they have to actually stand there and talk

No way there would nearly as many filibusters if the rule had been set that way.

[lonestarnot]

22. Certainly needs to do something. We can't go on like this fighting the obstructionists. They've

nearly ruined the U.S.

[1-Old-Man]

23. Two or three months ago Harry said he would do exactly that, but he's been silent since

Back in July or so Harry said that during the brief return to session after the election that the window would open up for amending the Rules of the Senate and he would address the filibuster at that time. But he hasn't said anything about it I've seen published since.

[hfojvt]

24. not seeing the point, and it smells like hypocrisy

The hypocrisy is that we went nuclear over Republican threats to "go nuclear" when they had control of the Senate.

Second, because it has been said many times that the option exists to actually make them fillibuster which would draw media attention and public pressure to end the fillibuster. Instead now they just try for cloture, fail, and then move on.

But more to the point, if the House is in Republican control, then the Senate is not gonna be the problem. It's not like the Republican controlled House will be passing a lot of really great bills that all the conservatives in the Senate are killing with the fillibuster. No, it is far more likely that, again, just like the last two years, that the House is passing a lot of excrement that very much SHOULD be killed by the Senate.

In fact, at that point, ending the fillibuster would just allow the 48 or 49 Republicans to pass some excrement with just the support of two or three conservadem Senators from really red states.

[Egnever]

31. Well I dont know about that

The house has been able to stand up and say we passed blah blah blah and the senate has blocked it. While the senate has not had that option because they have be blocked in almost everything they have tried to pass by filibuster alone.

If nothing else it would be a way to display the differences in the parties quite clearly and could be used to hammer the house into complying.

Hard to say the house is blocking things when you aren't passing anything.

And quite honestly we need things to move standing still is becoming less and less of an option going forward.

If we repeat the last 2 years we will make it that much easier for the pukes to say dems cant get anything done.

[lapfog_1]

26. If the premise as stated...

repukes hold the house...

Changing the filibuster rule will not help because the repukes will simply shift all obstruction to the House.

If we take the House and hold the Senate... we need to have the Senate repeal the rule on 60 vote margins.

[99Forever]

29. No doubt.

But will he? I'll believe it when I see it.

It makes a VERY convenient excuse for not doing the right things. We'll see.

[JDStone]

32. Harry is THE major part of Dem problems today

He should have done it in Jan 2011.

I blame him for much of the problem we now have because he DID NOT change the cloture rules after the 2010 teabag revolution. It embolded the teabagers. Plus they don't even have to filibuster -- only the threat and Harry caves.

Harry Reid needs to go -- we need a Progressive, not an old DINO