HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » BRILLIANT! Reid's propose...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:13 PM

BRILLIANT! Reid's proposed rule would virtually eliminate one of TWO filibusters to which every

bill now is subject--the one Republicans have been abusing almost exclusively--filibustering the motion to proceed to debate.

Until now, everyone's attention has been focused on the more familiar filibuster Republicans have NOT been using so far, the one that can take place after the motion to proceed to debate has been approved.

Now Republicans who want to filibuster will have to go on record in debate against jobs for veterans, against infrastructure repair, etc.

See the GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021837998 .

From pdf page 2 of http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A :

"Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate. Congressional Research Service, February 2011

... Almost every bill... is potentially subject to two filibusters before the Senate votes on whether to pass it: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself."

20 replies, 2599 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 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply BRILLIANT! Reid's proposed rule would virtually eliminate one of TWO filibusters to which every (Original post)
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 OP
northoftheborder Nov 2012 #1
zbdent Nov 2012 #2
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #3
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #4
high density Nov 2012 #12
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #10
global1 Nov 2012 #5
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #6
global1 Nov 2012 #14
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #16
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #19
Nancy Waterman Nov 2012 #7
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #8
davidpdx Nov 2012 #9
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #11
davidpdx Nov 2012 #17
rhett o rick Nov 2012 #18
davidpdx Nov 2012 #20
Change has come Nov 2012 #13
Tx4obama Nov 2012 #15

Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

1. Yes, and so important, the filibuster on the motion to proceed is NOT known or understood by....

....the public at large.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:47 PM

2. but is the key element in the Republican .001th truth

"Hey, why hasn't Reid put it to a vote?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:55 PM

3. IMO Reid is waiting for January

when rules votes will apply to a new session of the Senate, IN and MA go from Red to Blue, reform supporter Angus King of ME replaces an R, and Lieberman is replaced by a Democrat.

Reid needs to be sure of 51 votes for the filibuster rule change, because he gets only one chance at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:12 PM

4. He has over a month to lobby Democrats and Independents

and maybe some moderate Republicans(?) for the change. Should be plenty of time to make it happen with his staff and other Senators working with him on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:22 PM

12. Angus King was campaigning on this issue

I am sure he is eager to vote for fixes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:37 PM

10. I dont think he has a choice. The start of the session is the only time rules can be changed. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:20 PM

5. Is He Lowering The Number To 51 Votes Or Will He Keep It At 60?.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:48 PM

6. As I understand it, he's leaving the cloture minimum at 60 for filibusters of actual bills,

but establishing a minimum of 51 for filibusters of motions to proceed to debate. If a first cloture vote on a filibuster of a motion to proceed to debate gets more than 50 votes but fewer than 60 votes, a second cloture vote can take place after four calls to debate. That second cloture vote passes by simple majority, according to Reid's proposed rule.

See the links in the OP.

Reforming filibusters of actual bills rather than motions to proceed would be very tricky. See the senate.gov link in the OP (cut and paste the whole link into your browser or Acrobat window--DU's software did not like one of the characters in the whole link and truncated it so just clicking will not work).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:01 AM

14. I Seem To Recall When The Repugs Were In Control - They Talked About A Nuclear Option.....

is this what we are talking about here? Is this what Reid is proposing? Why didn't the Repugs go through with the Nuclear Option? What was the Dems reaction to it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:24 AM

16. Please produce a current link for what you're saying. Because the newest news says ...


... it is the Merkley package that they are considering and is still a work in progress.


Here's the newest info: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html

Senator Reid has not yet stated exactly what the new rule will be.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:03 PM

19. Everything I've posted here flows from the 2 links in the OP

True or false?

Maybe the GD link I posted should have said "Udall", "Merkley", or "Senate Democrats". But it said "Reid". Let's not split hairs. The outline of a feasible filibuster reform is clear IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:56 PM

7. What about the independent hold?

That is also abused, sometimes anonymously: one senator holding everything up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nancy Waterman (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 07:24 PM

8. As I understand it, there is no explicit Senate rule authorizing "holds", and Reid's

proposed filibuster reform would effectively end "holds" as well as filibusters of motions to proceed to debate.

From pdf page 23 of http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PLW%3D%22P%20%20%0A :

"Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, Congressional Research Service February 2011

Holds

... The Senate’s standing rules do not address this practice, and the party leaders are not bound by such requests.(26) Fundamentally, however, when a Senator places the hold, he or she is implicitly registering his or her intention to object to any unanimous consent request for consideration of the measure or matter.

In turn, the majority leader and the measure’s prospective floor manager understand that a Senator who objects to allowing a bill or resolution to be called up by unanimous consent may back up his or her objection by filibustering a motion to proceed to its consideration.(27)

Recent majority leaders have accordingly tended to honor holds, both as a courtesy to their colleagues, and in recognition that if they choose not to do so, they may well confront filibusters that they prefer to avoid."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:23 PM

9. This is going to be good if they get it passed

Whether they can get 51 of the 55 member of the D caucus to vote for it who knows. I'm wondering if the Blue Dogs will kill it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:38 PM

11. Who are the Blue Dogs next session (Jan)? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:43 AM

17. Well let's see

Baucas, Manchini, McCaskill, Landrieu. Possibly but less likely Prior, Nelson, and Hagan. There always could be a wild card we don't know about.

We need 51 and with King and Sanders we have 55 in the incoming Senate. If 5 defected we'd have a tie. From what I've read it looks like Biden can cast the tie-breaker on that one (though I'm not 100% sure). Really we'd have to keep the defections to 4 or under.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:04 AM

18. Thank you very much for that analysis. Maybe we should start an email

campaign to those in question. Or specifically Prior, Nelson, and Hagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:03 PM

20. Well I'm not saying I'm 100% right about the list

After thinking about it some more, It also doesn't take into account King. I have no knowledge about his ideology or voting history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:18 AM

15. It is the Merkley package they are considering. See link below


Here's the newest info: here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html

And Senator Reid has NOT stated any details of what the new rules will be yet.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread