HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Harry Reid Nuking Filibus...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:09 PM

Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules

Source: Fox News



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he plans to "change" the filibuster rules because they have been "abused" in the Senate.

REPORTER: Do you have any plans to change the filibuster?

HARRY REID: Yes, I do. I've said so publicly and I continue to feel that way. I think that the rules have been abused and we're going to work to change them.

We're not going to do away with the filibuster but we're going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/harry-reid/2012/11/07/harry-reid-nuking-filibuster-rules



linked to fox because they had the video link.... however, if you don't want to visit the fox site.... here is a link to a politico article (lesser of two evils ) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83514.html

MODS, this is from today.... I posted another story last night that led up to this, but this statement from Reid today is 'new' news - thank you

99 replies, 16537 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 99 replies Author Time Post
Reply Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules (Original post)
trailmonkee Nov 2012 OP
BellaKos Nov 2012 #1
LibGranny Nov 2012 #2
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #3
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #28
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #40
railsback Nov 2012 #59
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #67
ieoeja Nov 2012 #45
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #48
ieoeja Nov 2012 #53
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #58
jeff47 Nov 2012 #78
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #83
jeff47 Nov 2012 #89
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #90
LineReply .
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #4
barnabas63 Nov 2012 #5
sally5050 Nov 2012 #8
caseymoz Nov 2012 #24
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #30
caseymoz Nov 2012 #68
Dragonfli Nov 2012 #91
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #34
caseymoz Nov 2012 #69
gkhouston Nov 2012 #85
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #88
RobinA Nov 2012 #31
Wait Wut Nov 2012 #44
ancianita Nov 2012 #66
awoke_in_2003 Nov 2012 #46
Codeine Nov 2012 #75
FailureToCommunicate Nov 2012 #10
AllyCat Nov 2012 #84
xxqqqzme Nov 2012 #14
caseymoz Nov 2012 #22
Cosmocat Nov 2012 #61
caseymoz Nov 2012 #70
Ashened Nov 2012 #94
caseymoz Nov 2012 #99
dflprincess Nov 2012 #92
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #6
Art_from_Ark Nov 2012 #37
caveat_imperator Nov 2012 #43
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #47
JanT Nov 2012 #7
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #9
Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #12
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #18
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #20
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #29
Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #73
kurt_cagle Nov 2012 #26
global1 Nov 2012 #11
cosmicone Nov 2012 #15
global1 Nov 2012 #32
cosmicone Nov 2012 #64
Cleita Nov 2012 #51
K8-EEE Nov 2012 #17
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #21
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #25
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #35
99th_Monkey Nov 2012 #52
pam4water Nov 2012 #42
Blue Idaho Nov 2012 #13
Mr. Sparkle Nov 2012 #16
Hotler Nov 2012 #71
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #19
CanonRay Nov 2012 #23
kestrel91316 Nov 2012 #27
and-justice-for-all Nov 2012 #33
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #36
harun Nov 2012 #96
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #97
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #38
freedom fighter jh Nov 2012 #39
tclambert Nov 2012 #49
pam4water Nov 2012 #41
jpak Nov 2012 #50
Beacool Nov 2012 #54
yardwork Nov 2012 #56
jeff47 Nov 2012 #79
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #81
yardwork Nov 2012 #55
Kablooie Nov 2012 #57
DividedWeAre Nov 2012 #60
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #62
silverweb Nov 2012 #63
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #65
gkhouston Nov 2012 #86
lonestarnot Nov 2012 #72
Nika Nov 2012 #74
wordpix Nov 2012 #76
D23MIURG23 Nov 2012 #77
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #80
Angleae Nov 2012 #82
yurbud Nov 2012 #87
sarcasmo Nov 2012 #93
sarcasmo Nov 2012 #95
ManiacJoe Nov 2012 #98

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:10 PM

1. More good news. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:11 PM

2. Reid adheres to that "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy!

Love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

3. This time it will really, really happen

No really. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:57 PM

28. This is the first time I recall Reid actually supporting the idea

He let Udall and others run with it before, but I don't recall Harry actually taking a position. This statement seems really clear cut. Obviously the details are important. IMHO, there are three simple changes that will make a big difference.

1) Eliminate all one-Senator holds, secret or otherwise

2) Make filibusters be real. The Senate shuts down and you actually have to hold the floor before the cameras to sustain your filibuster. If you have a good argument, the public will press the other side to compromise. If you have a weal argument, your filibuster will quickly wither under the public ridicule.

3) Make cloture a number smaller than 60. Something like 55-57 would be OK

Of all these, #2 is the one that would make the big difference, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:34 PM

40. 2010: Reid promises filibuster reform

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/reid_promises_filibuster_refor.html

I believe that he had the chance in 2011. I also suspect that Reid wants to make these changes, but his boss doesn't want it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:52 PM

59. No, he needs to make sure there are enough votes

 

Obviously now he believes he has them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:19 PM

67. 2010: "And we're going to make some changes in it.

He committed to change, but there were no changes.

He's again committing to changes. We all hope that they happen this time, but my point is that there have been previous commitments that haven't been honored, so we shouldn't assume it's a done deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

45. 4) Require 2/5th opposition to closure.


Republicans would not have had enough votes to filibuster until Scott Brown was sworn in. They would have needed Lieberman or a Blue Dog Democrat to filibuster under the 2/5 Nay rule.

But the current rule is 3/5th Yay which Democrats and Independants never had under Obama. Yes, officially they had 60 for 49 days in 2009. However, one of those was on his death bed and last voted in the Senate months prior to that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:12 PM

48. I don't see how that would work.

You're saying that you could cut off a filibuster with 40 votes, but the bill itself would take 50 votes to pass? There would be no point in a filibuster rule at all in that case.

The point of the filibuster is to deliberately slow things down so that emotions don't get carried away, passing really bad legislation. it serves a useful purpose.

Simply taking it back to the rule that you actually have to debate continuously to sustain the filibuster would fix about 95% of the problem, I think. Each filibuster would become its own shiny object that the media couldn't help but cover. If the public agrees with the party doing the filibuster, they can force a compromise, and that is as it should be. if the public doesn't agree with the party filibustering, then they pay a real price by having to argue their unpopular position in front of the cameras.

Today with the virtual filibuster, there is absolutely no price to pay if a party filibusters for no good reason. That has to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #48)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:34 PM

53. You understood me backwards. Not 40 to cut off a filibuster. 40 to maintain a filibuster.


Vote to closure, e.g. end filibuster:

59 Yay
1 Nay

Under current filibuster rules closure fails and the filibuster continues. Under the 4th option I suggest the filibuster would end as there were not 40 votes to continue it.

That is actually more difficult than an actual filibuster. Heck, the Mr Smith filibuster was a filibuster by just one Senator! Even when Republics had 40 Senators, if just one of them leaves the room, Democrats can call for closure and get it. You don't need somebody talking, but you do have to keep enough bodies in the vicinity.

Not saying it is a better idea. Just adding one to your list.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #53)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:46 PM

58. That's what we have today -- 60 votes required to cut off debate

That's the same as saying 41 to continue the filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:18 PM

78. Not at all.

Because they don't need 41 to continue today. They need zero. A 59-0 vote to end debate means the filibuster continues.

Here's how it works today: The majority puts in a motion to end the debate. 1 - yes ONE senator objects. The majority now must gather 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. And if a senator is out sick, or otherwise not available, that hurts the majority's attempt to end the filibuster.

There are no votes to maintain the filibuster. There are only votes to break it.

Most of the proposals involve reversing that. So that there must be 41 votes to continue the filibuster, and you need zero votes to end it - make it require those filibustering to keep it going, instead of up to the majority to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:30 AM

83. You are making a distinction without a difference

60 to invoke cloture is exactly the same thing as 41 to not have cloture. It doesn't matter which side has to cast the vote. It works out exactly the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:07 AM

89. No, you are not paying attention to the subtle difference.

Currently, to break a filibuster 60 senators have to stay on Capitol Hill to vote to break it. The people filibustering can go home, campaign, fundraise and generally go about their lives. And if Senator Byrd is dying and thus not available, that makes it easier to maintain the filibuster - there's one less vote to break it. If the vote is 59-0 the filibuster continues, even though 0 senators voted to keep it going. And if that vote is at 3am, the 59 senators had to get to the chamber and vote to end the filibuster.

The proposals are to flip that around - At any time, one senator could call to end debate and 41 Senators have to vote to keep it going. That means the filibustering senators have to stay on Capitol Hill. The senators trying to break the filibuster can go home, campaign, fundraise and generally go about their life. If one of the filibustering senators goes home, the filibuster ends. If one of them is hospitalized, the filibuster ends. If the vote is 0-40, the filibuster ends even though 0 senators voted to end it. And if that vote is at 3am, the 40 senators had to get to the chamber and vote to keep the filibuster going. So you call votes at 3am, 3:01, 3:05, 3:08, 3:12 and so on.

Short version: Currently the 60 have to work hard to end a filibuster and the 40 have it very easy. Post reform: 40 have to work hard to maintain a filibuster and the 60 have it very easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:07 AM

90. So how would that work?

Let's say I want to stop the filibuster. Can I demand a vote at any time? How long does the opposition have to gather their forces to cast their 40 votes? And if they get the 40 votes, can I call for another vote as soon as I see one of them go to the bathroom? Can I call for a vote at 2AM? Can I call for a vote in the middle of a hurricane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

4. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

5. But the House will still be intransigent. Is there anything that can be done about that??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barnabas63 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:16 PM

8. Senate Holds the Purse Strings...

 

Harry Reid... please grow a backbone..

why not nuke the filibuster? it's gone in the house.. what real value does it serve?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sally5050 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:33 PM

24. House never had a fillibuster.


The Senate was set up to be a completely type of deliberative body. Sort of like a club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:13 PM

30. Incorrect

But very few know common history these days, the knowledge of the past has suffered from the societal ADD that has allowed the nation to forget most things before last year.

You can look it up however, before correcting someone.
Hint- 1842

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:47 PM

68. However, I was told this by a source I implicitly trust . . .

Dad.

My apology. It seems I fell for it . . . again. I always do, or rather already have. I don't know when another "everybody knows" factoid is going to rear its head and embarrass me.

I can't sit down and identify all the things I have always faithfully believed with him, or my siblings, as the ultimate sources-- if I thought about it-- until it happens that I'm called out. I should just fact check every single goddam thing he ever told me, but if I could only think of them.

No wonder he's conservative. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #68)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:16 PM

91. We are a culture ridden with faux-axioms; influenced by a non-objective profit driven media.

Your father was likely honest but misinformed, you trust him because he is an honest man. I only knew it was incorrect because I had need to look up some congressional history recently and happened to remember that factoid. Also, even history can mislead by omission, were it not for Howard Zinn I would be completely ignorant of many of the labor struggles within our own fairly recent history.

Trust your fathers common sense while checking for yourself what the facts are as best you can.
Nothing is in itself an ultimate source. Multiple sources are best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:23 PM

34. The House did have a filibuster until the mid-19th century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:51 PM

69. As I've now been corrected.

Sorry. See the "source I implicitly trust" post. I'm not in the habit of just making them up. Unfortunately, I've been in the habit of absorbing "facts" somebody else is making up. As far as I know, family is the only one that does this to me (that's to say, my siblings, too) and who will have whole conversations around imaginary facts as though they're true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #34)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:01 AM

85. So, if the House hasn't had a filibuster in over a century, does the Senate need one? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 03:10 AM

88. Nope. Not IMO. Nuke it.

I've been saying it for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sally5050 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:17 PM

31. Why Not Nuke It?

We could need it some day. I'm conflicted on this. It's easy to hate it now. A bunch of years ago it wasn't so horrible-seeming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:58 PM

44. Yep.

I think Harry's got it right. Reform it, make it tougher, and force them to follow the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:04 PM

66. Each new session can totally re-instate any rules that previous sessions "nuked."

On the very first day only. If the filibuster is gone, that doesn't mean it's gone forever. I'm for totally ending it on the first day of the 113th Congressional session. If there is a simple majority, it could be reinstated in the 114th Congressional session in two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sally5050 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:02 PM

46. Nope, that would be the House. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sally5050 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:06 PM

75. The House holds those, actually.

Article 1, Section 8 (I think. Been a while since high school civics.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barnabas63 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:17 PM

10. Pass these around in the first session...

and suggest they all wake up as progressives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:31 AM

84. We need bulk pricing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barnabas63 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:21 PM

14. It could get worse.

Boner could be dumped and replaced w/ cantor. Then in '14 the house goes Democratic cuz the people are fed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barnabas63 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

22. The Senate is key to appointments.


They have been holding up so many of the President's appointments. The government will be much better if Obama were allowed to staff the agencies he's running.

About the House, it's intransigence is going crack because a lot of hardline conservatives either got their asses kicked this election, or made it by the skin of their teeth even in heavily gerrymandered districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:03 PM

61. I wish

the house could crack, but this election simply did not do enough damage.

I was HOPING it would turn over mid teen seats, that would have cut the margin to 20 or so, enough to let them know the were not golden.

We are only going to see a half dozen or so flip, and they will have a 40 seat edge.

I think in their crazed minds that makes them thing they are kings, and you already are hearing the consolodated talking point that even though this president won reelection and they ds picked up seats in both the senate and house, and hold the senate, the election actually is saying he has to do whatever the House wants because it was not taken.

THEY convince themselves of whatever they are spewing, and they believe this.

They are going to be absolute jack asses to deal with, and odds are MUCH better that they find a way to bring up charges for impeachment than actually make any meaningful compromises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #61)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:02 PM

70. We'll see.

If they dig in their heels while we run over this "fiscal cliff," they're going to hasten GOP's demise quite a bit. At least some members must know this. And they no longer have or are confident in the goal that they can unseat Obama. Without that, they might calculate that further fighting isn't worth it.

There's a lot of indication that the GOP will become demoralized and incohesive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:01 AM

94. can't Obama make recess appointments?

I think I heard somewhere that if an executive position isn't filled that would normally have to be approved by Congress, the president can appoint someone during a Congressional recess if the position has not been filled.

Or am I way off base here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashened (Reply #94)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:36 AM

99. Recess appointments are constitutionally limited.


The Constitutional stipulation is that they can only be made for vacancies that occur during recess of the Senate, and that they expire at the end of the Senate term.

Article II, section 2

"The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barnabas63 (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:50 PM

92. The obstruction by Republicans in the Senate was not always clear to people who don't pay close

attention.

Doing away with the filibuster will make it clear that the Republicans in the House are the biggest reason nothing gets done. Maybe it will help the Democrats take back the House in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:14 PM

6. Now can we confirm Goodwin Liu to Supreme Court or at least the 9th circuit?

 

If we nuke the filibuster then majority will rule. GOODWIN LIU FOR Supreme Court. USE YOUR MANDATE, OBAMA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:29 PM

37. And when the Republicans gain control of the Senate

and they will, some day...
Would you want the majority to rule then??

It was bad enough when the Senate was controlled by the Republicans back in the Reagan days. I would never want to see a repeat performance of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:54 PM

43. If these rethugs do ever win the Senate

the very first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caveat_imperator (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:07 PM

47. BINGO

 

So we might as well be the first to do it. Demographics are on our side. If we firm up our bases (Latino-Americans, African-Americans, white women, Asian-Americans, etc), we will solidify our lock on the White House for quite some time.

Goodwin Liu would be the first ever Asian-American justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:15 PM

7. glad to here it spoken out loud

then the voting process needs to be fixed as well. so glad to wake up with Obama at the helm again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:16 PM

9. Can't the Republicans just, well, filibuster this? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:19 PM

12. No...

A change of the Senate operating rules only requires a simple majority - 51 votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:24 PM

18. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:26 PM

20. Ah! Okay.

I'd thought that everything had to be 60 or 2/3s or whatever it was these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Idaho (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:59 PM

29. But can only be done that way at the START of a new Senate term -- i.e. this January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:59 PM

73. Thank you - I forgot to add that part. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

26. Possibly

Procedural rules are not legislation, and the filibuster is a procedural rule. From Wikipedia:

The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which in recent years has meant that most major legislation (apart from budgets and confirmations) requires a 60% majority to head off a filibuster. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed. Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate."
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.


Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, can put a vote for filibuster on the agenda on the 1st day of the session, requiring only a 50% vote. Most likely he will not elect to remove it, but instead will recommend returning it back to its original requirement - in order to call a filibuster, a senator or group of senators must remain on the floor while the Senate is in session and defend it by talking until either the Session is adjourned or a motion is made to table the motion by the speaking Senator, or a cloture vote of 2/3 of the Senate (sixty seven senators) becomes necessary to pass legislation. This provides an endurance test requirement of sorts - if you are passionate enough to try to defend it for potentially days, then it is worth tabling the motion for consideration at some later point. Otherwise (and as it stands now) this becomes simply a way for the minority party to force up the threshold of votes required for any legislation to 67, giving it effectively a veto.

I'd defend the old filibuster rule - sometimes you need an ethical safeguard - but as it stands now the current filibuster is an abuse of power and is simply a mechanism for obstructing all legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:19 PM

11. What Does He Mean By - "We're Not Going To Do Away With The Filibuster But We're Going To Make....

the Senate a more meaningful place"?

That sounds like weasel words to me. Why wouldn't you want to do away with the filibuster? Why even give the Repugs an inch of space to abuse it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:22 PM

15. He will change the rule so

only 55 Senators can kill a filibuster instead of 60.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:18 PM

32. Why Not A Simple Majority Of 51?.....

Why even give them and inch? Is he worried that he can't keep some of the Dems in line to vote? If you're going to do it - you might as well do it all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:32 PM

64. Without a filibuster, Bork would have been on SCOTUS. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:26 PM

51. I don't know why he is so fond of the filibuster but he is. He has said so.

However, why not do it like they did back in the forties ala Mr. Smith goes to Washington? That cooled the heels of many a would be obstructionist when they realized they might have to stand there reading cookbooks for hours on end. It was also entertaining to watch from the sidelines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:23 PM

17. Remember when the Repukes were in charge they whined about any filibuster

UPPER DOWN UPPER DOWN VOTE!

There is a place for the filibuster but they are abusing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:27 PM

21. I'd be fine with them if they actually had to stand up and speak in order to do one. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:33 PM

25. Or make filibuster like it was in Mr. Smith goes to Washington

Where they needed to stand there and give read the phone book, or recite poems,
or some such for 24/7 LITERALLY, in order to maintain a filibuster. In other words,
it'd damn inconvenient and takes some real commitment and effort.

"The right to talk you head off"


...as opposed to just picking up the phone and telling Harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:25 PM

35. Yes, not only is it inconvenient -- it's also highly VISIBLE.

People can see the obstruction when someone has to stand and talk for hours, as opposed to simply making some parliamentary motions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:34 PM

52. Great point! yes. that too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:37 PM

42. Yeah a real filibuster would be great!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:21 PM

13. If you want this to happen - contact Harry Reid ASAP!

We the People need to weigh in on this - to give Harry cover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:23 PM

16. imho, the filibuster rules should be suspended until the republicans decide to plan nice

and use the filibuster as it should be used, in extreme and rare circumstances.

in the meantime, they can take the next four years to think about it...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. Sparkle (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:27 PM

71. Leave the rules alone. Make the repugs stand there and read the fucking phone book....

non-stop with no piss breaks. Stop playing nice Harry. Make those fuckers eat shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:25 PM

19. Bout time.. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:32 PM

23. This is as good news as the Obama victory

At long last!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:49 PM

27. Don't just flap your lips about it, Harry. DO IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:22 PM

33. Fuck yeah!!! now lets pass that jobs bill please!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:25 PM

36. I will believe it when I see it. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:56 PM

96. I am sorry to say I share your pessimism whole heartily.

They aint changing a damn thing. Blue Dog Dem's love to hide behind GOP filibusters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #96)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:29 PM

97. I am afraid that's what I believe. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:30 PM

38. I think that is an excelent decision.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:31 PM

39. Bout time! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:24 PM

49. Four years late.

Apparently sometime in the last year, Harry Reid received a spine transplant. Looks like it took.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:36 PM

41. Gets hopes up so they can dashed once again XD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:25 PM

50. Fuck Mitch McConnell and the Turtle he rode in on

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:36 PM

54. Reid better be careful.

The proposed changes would favor the Democrats, but it may be a detriment if the Republicans become a majority some time in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:37 PM

56. Not a problem. The Democrats never use these things to our advantage anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:25 PM

79. Why do you think a Republican majority would keep the filibuster?

They'll remove it completely the next time they have a majority.

Reid has two options:
1) Go ahead and get rid of it now - might as well have Democrats benefit from it going away instead of waiting for a Republican majority
2) Reform it to put the effort back on those filibustering instead of on those trying to break the filibuster.

There's a slim chance the Republicans would leave #2 intact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:36 PM

81. I wouldn't have a problem with this

Granted it would be better if we had proportional representation and the two-party system died a swift death but getting rid of rules that keep us stuck in two-party gridlock would be a step in the right direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:37 PM

55. Give em hell, Harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:41 PM

57. The filibuster is supposed to allow senators to remain talking on the floor to make their point.

It was never meant to allow anyone to arbitrarily decide a supermajority is needed to pass a proposal.

At worst it would just delay majority decisions and would never prevent them from being passed.

It needs to be for someone who holds the floor to talk with no trading off to others, no breaks.
If someone wants extra time they can take it unless a supermajority votes for them to shut up.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:55 PM

60. I hope so, Harry Reid has been WAY too soft.

I hope so. Harry Reid is WAY too soft. I was disappointed that Obama didn't work him out of the picture 4 years ago. The ONLY thing I dislike about the Democrat(ic) leadership is that they let the Republicans push them around while knowing that the Republicans would never be so cooperative if they were in charge. STAND UP people. Seriously, stand up. Now's the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:06 PM

62. I hope he follows through.....

The problem now with our divided nation is that in the Senate, any one Senator can threaten a filibuster and cripple the entire chamber. They don't have to exert themselves (e.g. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with Gregory Peck) or anything. They just scratch their nuts and "poof" the Senate is at a stalemate.

This cannot continue. I appreciate the value of the filibuster to give the minority party some influence over the upper chamber's affairs but the pukes have been using it do defeat what used to be accepted as majority party "rights". They won the majority they have some rights.

With the current filibuster rules the ONLY thing the majority party controls is the agenda. Otherwise the minority can sabotage any meaningful legislation. We call this democracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:08 PM

63. YES!

It's way past time, Harry. Do it!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:37 PM

65. Can we get rid of the ridiculous invisible hold rule as well?

Too many Senators are allowed to prevent a bill from hitting the floor and being able to be anonymous while doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:03 AM

86. ^^ This. You wanna hold something up, you should be able to defend it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:28 PM

72. Well you better get busy! You have lots to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:04 PM

74. We need to change the rules to allow Democrats to keep the Repugs from gridlocking us into ...

... stagnation the next two years. Hopefully in 2018 we can get a Democratic Majority in the House to really get things moving they way they should go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:09 PM

76. DO IT, Harry and secure your legacy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:22 PM

77. No need to try and save it.

If the current mode of operation continues, the Repigs will just end the filibuster next time they gain a majority anyway. May as well do it now and save them the trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:30 PM

80. if he leaves them a way to use it- they WILL.

 

no matter how many procedural hurdles are put in their way.

now's the time to brass the balls and steel the spine, harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:37 PM

82. I'll believe it when it actually happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:06 AM

87. It's about fucking time, but I'll believe it when I see it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 11:34 PM

93. Good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:42 PM

95. Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:30 PM

98. They need to remove the fake filibuster.

Get rid of this fake filibuster where a filibuster is declared and folks move on to other business. They need to go back to the requirement where someone needs to actually be up and talking for the filibuster to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread