HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » New UPDATE on the Filibus...

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:48 AM

New UPDATE on the Filibuster Reform - Just 2 More Votes Needed [Updated]



01/03/2013 7:36 pm EST

On Filibuster Reform, Advocates Claim Momentum

WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.

During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.

-snip-

I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change, Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie.

-snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/filibuster-reform-senate_n_2405008.html



Woo hoo !!!



Edited to add..

UPDATE

January 4, 2013

The Senate is now in recess until January 21st,
so nothing will be happening for the next two weeks

http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/1/

27 replies, 2560 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 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply New UPDATE on the Filibuster Reform - Just 2 More Votes Needed [Updated] (Original post)
Tx4obama Jan 2013 OP
UCmeNdc Jan 2013 #1
Loudly Jan 2013 #2
merrily Jan 2013 #4
Loudly Jan 2013 #5
merrily Jan 2013 #10
SEMOVoter Jan 2013 #23
merrily Jan 2013 #3
Cosmocat Jan 2013 #7
merrily Jan 2013 #9
daybranch Jan 2013 #14
merrily Jan 2013 #24
pnwmom Jan 2013 #6
Ligyron Jan 2013 #11
66 dmhlt Jan 2013 #8
davidpdx Jan 2013 #12
pnwmom Jan 2013 #15
merrily Jan 2013 #25
davidpdx Jan 2013 #26
PoliticalBiker Jan 2013 #13
Filibuster Harry Jan 2013 #16
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #17
great white snark Jan 2013 #18
davidpdx Jan 2013 #27
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #19
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #20
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #21
xxxsdesdexxx Jan 2013 #22

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:14 AM

1. just call for the up or down vote and get over with it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 05:13 AM

2. What would Robert Byrd say about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:27 AM

4. Dunno. Tell us.

I am dying to know his imaginary zombie remarks on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:39 AM

5. That seems rather disrespectful of me AND Senator Byrd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:50 AM

10. What a coincidence: I thought your post disrespected Byrd.

My post did not disrespect Senator Byrd at all.

I notice that you did not tell us, though, what you think Senator Byrd would have said and why you think it.

Why be so cryptic? Why not tell us what you imagine he would have said about if he were still alive and why you think you have some insight into that?

And maybe then you can also explain how my comment was disrespectful to Senator Byrd. Or, for that matter, to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:17 AM

23. Probably a lot about Greek Mythology

While many can flame him as former KKK, something he felt a great deal of regret over, he did bring it home for his constituents. Also, could stand and talk for days about Greek Mythology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:24 AM

3. Returning to the rule in effect from 1789 to 1975 is "reform?"

Eliminating super majorities would be reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:45 AM

7. eliminating super MINORITIES

sadly would be a big gain ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:39 AM

9. Requiring super majorities creates minorities with super powers.

As i understand it, though, this "reform' does not eliminate super majorities (or super minorities).

It only goes back, as my prior post states, to the former requirement that filibusters involve actual filibusters, as oppposed to the 1975 rule that let a "fake" filibuster suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 09:36 AM

14. so little

now republicans have to lstand for many hours to tell us how crazy they are as if we did not know already. It would seem that fiullibuste talk will become the major activity of the republican party. I have no problem if Harry tries to bring up many bills and each speaker must be fillibustering by speaking only on one at a time. In thi way we can keep the whole republican Senate membership more gainfully employed than they are now. What if Harry introduces more than 45 measures, where will we find another republican to fillibuster it? Maybe that is the way to break the fillibuster . Introduce enough legislation to make the republicans choose which ones they can vocally fillibuster and let the others go because they do not have enough members to fillibuster everything that the democrats can propose. We may need another 45 or so arenas for this to take place. But heck, let the repubs go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:52 AM

24. Because I am not an angel, I look forward to everyone being able to read

the insane things they are sure to say when they have to real filibuster, as opposed to fake filibuster.

But the way to end the filibuster is to vote to that effect. However, imo, the filibuster serves the re-election chances of incumbents very well. So well, that they are not likely to get rid of it unless voters somehow get them up against a wall.

And I don't know how we would do that. They don't seem to listen to us much anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 06:42 AM

6. Why aren't Leahy and Boxer already on board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:24 AM

11. Yet? ...that's what I'm wondering. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:39 AM

8. Fingers are crossed for the Merkley-Udall proposal (& FORGET the Levin-McCain one)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:32 AM

12. Crap the same ones are still on the fence

In my opinion, fuck Pryor, Baucus, and Levin. We need to try to get Reed, Boxer, and Feinstein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 11:43 AM

15. We only need 2, since Biden can break a tie. But why hasn't Leahy signed yet? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 01:53 AM

25. Good point.

Maybe the administration would rather Biden not be involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:00 AM

26. I would think it would be better to pass it with 51 and have it go through clean

Then have Biden break the tie. Biden is going to have to work more as a go between and use his relationship with people in Congress. I would think preserving that would be good for future negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:34 AM

13. I can't believe...

... that with what the republicons have done to the fillibuster, that every single democrat and independant wouldn't be clamoring to get their name on that bill. It's discusting. Just goes to show common sense is an endangered species on both sides of the isle. Proof positive as to why the public opinion of congress is or near single digits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:34 PM

16. C'mon democrats -- unite on this one. We the people want to see the bag of air these Rs have

when they filibuster. Make them earn it !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 03:37 PM

17. I hope we can get this done...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 07:25 PM

18. Kick kick kick. I want your Senators sick of hearing from you regarding this issue.

Call, mail, shout, pigeon, semaphore. Be heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:02 AM

27. Both of mine are on board

And one them is the ringleader, Merkley. It's Californians we need to be screaming at to call since both of their senators are sitting on the fence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:03 AM

19. What exactly is going on with this so-called "Filibuster reform"?

I thought it had to be done on the first day of the new congress. How are they getting around that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:07 AM

20. See the bolded last sentence in the OP on the link below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:08 AM

21. Also...


The Senate is now in recess until January 21st.
So, nothing will be voted on until then when they come back.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:14 AM

22. Thank you very much. I now understand :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread