HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Democratic Solution To Th...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:40 AM

Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk (details regarding new filibuster reform pkg)



Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk

WASHINGTON -- The next time a minority of senators find something the majority supports to be objectionable, they may be required to take the Senate floor and explain just why they object. And when they're done with that, they'll have to keep talking, and talking, and talking.

The most persistent advice that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he gets from liberals he meets across the country is as simple as it is frustrating: "Make them actually filibuster!"

The advice grew loud enough in 2009 that Reid's office leaked a memo to HuffPost explaining why exactly Senate Democratic leaders can't force Republicans to talk out their filibuster, Mr. Smith-style. In 2011, Reid flirted with filibuster reform, but backed off at the last minute, striking a handshake deal with Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) instead. That agreement -- that the two would cooperate to make sure the chamber ran smoothly -- lasted as long as one might expect.

Now, Reid is ready to pull the trigger on a change. "I was wrong," Reid said recently about his unwillingness to back a handful of junior senators who were pushing for reform.

With Reid's backing, the reform caucus stands a good chance of enacting rules changes. The plan they're putting forward is still taking shape as the reformers work to gather support, but its central tenets were laid out by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in an interview with The Huffington Post.

-snip-

FULL article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html





48 replies, 5495 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 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk (details regarding new filibuster reform pkg) (Original post)
Tx4obama Nov 2012 OP
Indpndnt Nov 2012 #1
Kablooie Nov 2012 #3
merrily Nov 2012 #6
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #8
FailureToCommunicate Nov 2012 #15
merrily Nov 2012 #45
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #46
merrily Nov 2012 #48
bjobotts Nov 2012 #42
Kablooie Nov 2012 #2
Volaris Nov 2012 #13
Kablooie Nov 2012 #18
Volaris Nov 2012 #29
MustBeTheBooz Nov 2012 #4
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #5
merrily Nov 2012 #7
LineLineReply I
John2 Nov 2012 #27
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #28
merrily Nov 2012 #9
SleeplessinSoCal Nov 2012 #14
Ray Beckerman Nov 2012 #36
Up2Late Nov 2012 #10
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #11
Up2Late Nov 2012 #12
yellowcanine Nov 2012 #16
great white snark Nov 2012 #19
HockeyTown4Ever Nov 2012 #17
beac Nov 2012 #40
Milliesmom Nov 2012 #20
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #23
Milliesmom Nov 2012 #34
bupkus Nov 2012 #21
HopeHoops Nov 2012 #22
Colorado Liberal Nov 2012 #24
Filibuster Harry Nov 2012 #25
TalkingDog Nov 2012 #26
mcgarry50 Nov 2012 #30
Ray Beckerman Nov 2012 #37
bvar22 Nov 2012 #31
Change has come Nov 2012 #32
treestar Nov 2012 #33
Ray Beckerman Nov 2012 #35
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #38
Coyotl Nov 2012 #47
Myrina Nov 2012 #39
x2 vancouverite Nov 2012 #41
toby jo Nov 2012 #43
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #44

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 12:51 AM

1. Yes! Make them talk. Make them own their objections in public.

Let's make this change asap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:19 AM

3. It has to be ASAP. Only on the first day of session can this be changed by a simple majority.

After that the rule change itself will need a super majority which it will never get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:20 AM

6. The Senate claims it is always in session.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:33 AM

8. The first day of the new 113th Congress will be around January 3rd

that is the day that The Senate will be able to vote on 'new senate rules' with only having to have 51 yes votes for the new rules to be adopted.

The reason The Senate is 'always in session' is because the GOPers in The House always refuse to pass the adjournment resolution - which both chambers of Congress have to pass in order for The Senate to go into an official recess. The GOPers have been doing that for a very long time so that President Obama is unable to make any recess appointments. The Senate left today for the holidays and once again The House refused to pass the joint resolution, so The Senate will be forced to have a pro-forma session every three days until everyone comes back after Thanksgiving.

But on January 3rd (or a day close to that day) The Senate will start the new 113th Congressional session and rules can be changed on that day



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:31 AM

15. Perhaps every DUer should remind their Senator, and Reid, before that date?

Oh please...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:50 AM

45. I know, but that is exactly what the debate is about.

If a meeting is never adjourned, is it a new meeting because some folks left and some new folks walked in.

Ergo, a new Congress does not immediate equate to a new session. Besides, the entire House is up for election every two years. The Senate is not like that.

I am not agreeing that there is a valid reason for debate. I am just saying that the debate exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #45)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:58 AM

46. Well, I don't really know what you're trying to say... BUT


When the NEW 113th Congress starts on January 3rd (?) it will be a brand NEW session (it DOES equate to a new session) because the old 112th Congress will no longer be in session.

January 3rd (?), 2013 is the day when they start from scratch. That is why the 'senate rules' can be changed on that day.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:59 PM

48. I understood your first post. I am saying not everyone agrees that a new Senate session

starts every two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indpndnt (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:45 AM

42. Grandstanding for months...sure

I agree with 'make 'em talk', but make sure they have to talk about the issue or nomination they are filibustering otherwise they will just stand there spouting campaign rhetoric for months using the senate to tell their lies and ideology to the public with the free publicity the senate floor provides.

Make 'em talk but limit talking to 3days and then lower the threshold for number of votes to break the filibuster...maybe to 54 instead of 60. If they don't have the votes then do it again and lower the threshold even more...but by all means let the minority talk till every detail of their objection is heard...but do not allow the minority to dominate the majority like it is now.
Also suggest the number of filibusters be limited per session to prevent abuse. There is no excuse to have over 300 filibusters in one term when in fact Senator majority leader(president Johnson) only presided over one filibuster in his 6yr period. That is tyranny by the minority and by limiting the number of filibusters per session this rule will not be used casually or lightly but only when there is strong opposition.

We are at this point because of the childish un-serious republican minority holding the senate hostage against America's best interest. Statemen would never have done or allowed this behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 01:17 AM

2. This way they can delay a majority vote but can't prevent it.

They'd better make it clear that the filibuster can't be handed off to anyone else.
It has to be one senator holding the floor himself.

It can be disruptive but not destructive and the one senator who enacts the filibuster will have to take full responsibility for his actions on the floor and in the press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:56 AM

13. I would say no to that first part...

Let them run that fucker in shifts...the more of them stand up there, and take turns obstructing the Public's Interest, the more of them will have to pay the price come election day (or Government Shut-down, whichever comes first lol). let the whole Party OWN it, IN PUBLIC, so they can be appropriatley PUNISHED for that ownership by We The People. Saying " Well SUUUUUUREEEEEE I support so-and-so's Filibuster of Great Idea X" without actually HELPING that process along, is cheap and cowardly IMHO. Make them ALL own it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:42 AM

18. They'll all claim to be Jimmy Stewart fighting for the rights of the little guy.

They'll certainly try to make themselves into heros for filibustering.

Only thing is the Jimmy Stewart character only did it once.
If they do it every day it'll be hard to defend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:22 AM

29. and that's the point. If they have to own what the rest of us think is stupid policy,

it will destroy them. That they are too dumb to know that, is mostly THEIR problem lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 02:52 AM

4. I'll believe it when I see it.

As pessimistic as it sounds... if the last 30 years have taught me anything about federal politics, it has shown me the majority will make threats at its leisure, but it will never give up the "procedures/traditions" put in place to ensure the minority doesn't get ramroded (please pardon the expression). Both parties BTW. I don't agree with it, and I think we can agree there's no Rep/Dem equivalence as evidenced by congressional action, but still it is a fact. I would be plesently surprised, and take my helping of crow with a shot of good , if I wind up wrong come late January.

Prove me wrong, Harry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:17 AM

5. What's good about this solution is the Repubs don't have any reasonable objection.

If they got rid of the filibuster entirely (something I wouldn't mind), Repubs could start crying about "oppression of the minority". Of course it would be bullshit but you know the media would carry water for them.

This way, we're simply returning to the way it used to be for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:27 AM

7. The Constitution certainly contemplates suppression of the minority.

It also contemplates super majorities, but for certain, specified unusual actions, not for every bill and appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:30 PM

27. I

 

agree with Senator Warren to eliminate the filibuster unless for specific issues, like amending the Constitution. I hear all the new Democratic senators may be on board and some already in the Senate. I think this is the best course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:59 AM

28. I'd support that. There should be a time limit too.

The purpose of a filibuster is to allow more time for debate. Given that, there's NO reason why a filibuster should be allowed to continue indefinitely. There should be something like a 48 hour limit. That is plenty of time for a little more debate. Cloture can be invoked before then (if the votes are there), but after 48 hours, the debate ends and the vote is taken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:33 AM

9. It's no solution at all. Abolish the 60 vote cloture rule.

The notion that every single bill and appointment is subject to a super majority was absurd from the start. Originally, the purpose was to ensure that a Senator could speak freely and however long he wished. But, that was soon perverted to obstructionism and job security.

The rule prevents voters from holding specific Senators or either major political party accountable for their votes. It needs to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:58 AM

14. I agree that the bill should be at least debated. Nobody seems to understand the word "cloture",

I don't know why they're abandoning this effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:39 PM

36. Agreed, there is no reason to preserve the filibuster. Period.

The proposed reform is milk toast. It will still permit obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:40 AM

10. Best news I've heard in a LONG time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:44 AM

11. There was some really really good news about nine days ago :)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:48 AM

12. Well, 9 days is a long time when you have ADD

Which I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:36 AM

16. Also need to abolish the practice of "holds" on nominees.

where one senator can singlehandedly hold up a nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:51 AM

19. Great point.

It's been long enough that Repub f%@kers invoke it to hold or threaten it for essentially blackmail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 11:10 AM

17. Use the NFL Red Flag Rule

I say that the Senate should adopt the NFL Ref Flag Rule that allows coaches to challenge certain plays. The limitation is they only get THREE challenges.
I say let the Republicans use the Senate tradition of the filibuster but don't allow them (or the Democrats) to over use the rule. Give each side only 3 filibusters to use during each term. If one side filibusters a vote, they use up one of their challenges. Once all 3 challenges are used up, no more monkey business!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyTown4Ever (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:46 PM

40. Hi, HockeyTown4Ever!



I was going to "welcome" you, but I see you've been here since 2001. One post every eleven years must be a DU record.

I like your "red flag" idea. But what would pissypants Republicans do if their main purpose-- throwing temper tantrums-- was reduced so severely?? Surely, you don't expect them to actually legislate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 03:07 PM

20. We will see!

The Republicans will filibuster the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Milliesmom (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:32 PM

23. It's not a bill. It is a rule change vote at the being of the session which takes only 51 yes votes


The GOP can't filibuster it.
Cloture is not needed before the vote is taken.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:09 PM

34. Thank You

I did not know that, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:02 PM

22. THAT'S WHAT I KEEP SAYING! Make them talk or trash it entirely.

 



This "I'll filibuster" threat making it an automatic 60 votes is beyond stupid. Shit or GET OFF THE POT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 04:59 PM

24. My pet proposal

Curious what others might think of this - it preserves the ability to use the "filibuster", but makes it harder to abuse:

1st time the rule is invoked (in the Congress): 60 votes needed to move the bill to a vote
2nd time: 59 votes
3rd time: 58 votes
4th time: 57 votes

...and so forth, until after the 9th time they've used it (which by current Republican standards, should take us to mid-February), you're left with a majority vote for every remaining piece of legislation, nominee to confirm, etc.) Maybe the Repubs would even need to worry about "keeping their powder dry" for when they REALLY need to derail something....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Colorado Liberal (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 05:04 PM

25. Like your idea. Want a real filibuster too. Have signed a petition on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 07:11 PM

26. I've said that all along. If their principals are that strong, let them show it.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:50 AM

30. end the filibuster

 

first of all the obstructionists have no problem lying and second of all the media will not cover the proceedings. that is why i think we need to end the filibuster, lets get shit done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcgarry50 (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:41 PM

37. Right.

That's the reform that's truly needed. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It has no place in the Constitution or anywhere else in the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:50 AM

31. Gosh! That is such a good idea...

..you think it would have been suggested on DU before now!



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:59 PM

32. Great news!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:02 PM

33. Wow I hope this works

What entertainment will it be to see the R Senators talking on and on and getting further and further into the Crazy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:38 PM

35. Suggested reform too weak. Why not simply drop the filibuster?

The suggested reform is too weak. Yes it would be pleasant if they had to actually filibuster, and it was an outrage that that requirement was ever dispensed with.

But if they have to "debate", then they will "debate".

So they'll look like fools to us; they'll look like heroes to their brain-dead Fox news fans.

I wish Senate Dems had some guts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ray Beckerman (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:49 PM

38. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ray Beckerman (Reply #35)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 10:46 AM

47. They are trying to assemble the votes and need to make it palatable to 50 senators

So, it is a good thing to take the reform as far as the votes allow, that I do support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:43 PM

39. What happens in the future if/when Dems want to

Filibuster? We're not going to be the majority forever ...

I think abolishing it is too short-sighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:24 PM

41. Old Men Talking

 

Make 'em do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:51 AM

43. Righties love that short spit no think rhetoric

The thought of them having to actually think and talk for extended periods of time is pretty amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:46 PM

44. Sounds Like a Great Strategy

Senator Elizabeth Brown is leading the charge, as well, which is great to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread