Question about the filibuster-

[Laurian]

Can the rule be changed with a simple majority (which the Democrats have) or will 60 votes for change be required.

I think this rule has been the biggest impediment to progress.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Only in a small time frame when the new Congress convenes in January

do Senators get the opportunity to change or rescind the filibuster rule with a simple 51 majority. Anything beyond that would take 60, I believe.

[Swede Atlanta]

2. I believe each chamber's rules are voted at the beginning of each Congress

using a simple majority rule. That is why so many people were encouraging Reid to modify the filibuster rules when the Republicans refused to let anything come to the floor for a vote. I don't know why he didn't do it. I think some were of the view if you change it to simple majority then when the Democrats are in the minority again this would work against them and their ability to influence Senate results. My thought is, if the Democrats were in the minority and were causing the same level of obstructionism as the Republics did in the last Congress, the pukes would meet in a bar and change the rules like that. They have absolutely no respect for the Senate.

[PoliticAverse]

3. Yes, a simple majority is all that is required to change the Senate rules during the first session

of the Senate (note that the first 'session' may extend to more than one actual day).

[global1]

4. We Need To Show PBO & Harry Reid That We Have Their Back So They Can.....

change the filibuster rule without having to worry that it will fall into the hands of the Repugs in 2016. I have to believe that if we can take the filibuster threat away from the Repugs - that we'll move this country to great heights over the next 4 years. If we don't - we'll be faced with gridlock and assure the Repugs a chance in 2016 -which if they win - they will move to remove the filibuster anyway.

[unblock]

5. here's the deal:

at the beginning of each new congress, they set the rules by simple majority. so a rule change could happen at that point by simple majority.

any time after that, the minority can filibuster, insisting on 60 votes, unless the "nuclear option" is used.

the "nuclear option" is a slimy but apparently kosher set of parliamentary steps that bypass a filibuster. the process is that someone in the majority claims that a filibuster is against the rules. he's wrong, of course, but there are rules to handle such a complaint. those rules enable the president of the senate (aka the vice president of the united states) to rule that the objection is correct. he's also wrong, of course, but again, there are rules to handle this. the minority objects to that ruling. they're right, of course, but the rules say when that happens, the matter is resolved by a simple majority. so the majority simply upholds the ruling an viola, filibuster bypassed by simple majority.

it's clearly a slimy move because it involves the entire majority blatantly taking actions contrary to the clearly stated rules, and that's why even republicans, who originally laid out this plan, never actually invoked it (they just threatened to, and the threats worked). but apparently it's all completely legit.



all that said, the filibuster matters far more when one party holds both houses of congress and particularly the white house as well, though without enough votes to overcome the filibuster. in this case, with republicans still in control of the house, the filibuster is considerably less relevant. republicans in the senate can and have simply not bothered to filibuster bills they don't like in the knowledge that the house would kill it for them.