HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Read...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:31 PM

Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Ready…To Get Rid Of The 60-Vote Threshold’



Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Ready…To Get Rid Of The 60-Vote Threshold’

Reid isn’t ready for filibuster reform and told Ezra Klein why.

“With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.”

What will be reformed is how the Senate moves to consider new legislation, the process by which all nominees — except Cabinet-level appointments and Supreme Court nominations — are considered, and the number of times the filibuster can be used against a conference report.

…the deal Reid struck with McConnell doesn’t end the filibuster against the motion to proceed. Rather, it creates two new pathways for moving to a new bill. In one, the majority leader can, with the agreement of the minority leader and seven senators from each party, sidestep the filibuster when moving to a new bill. In the other, the majority leader can short-circuit the filibuster against moving to a new bill so long as he allows the minority party to offer two germane amendment that also can’t be filibustered. Note that in all cases, the minority can still filibuster the bill itself.


http://www.alan.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-im-not-ready-to-get-rid-of-the-60-vote-threshold/


Full Ezra Klein Washington Post article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/24/harry-reid-explains-why-he-killed-filibuster-reform/


=====================================




Also...

Two of the things that Reid has been fighting will be eliminated by the new rules.

I think even though these are modest changes they are going to be a big improvement
I've been following the judicial nominations for several years and the new change is going to be a HUGE help in getting them confirmed faster.

"... post cloture time for non appellate judges will be cut from 30 hours to 2 ... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251280012



Also there will be NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections


-snip-

Under the agreement, the minority party will be able to offer two amendments on each bill, a major concession to Republicans. This change is made only as a standing order, not a rules change, and expires at the end of the term.

The new rules will also make it easier for the majority to appoint conferees once a bill has passed, but leaves in place the minority's ability to filibuster that motion once -- meaning that even after the Senate and House have passed a bill, the minority can still mount a filibuster one more time.

Reid won concessions on district court nominations as well. Under the old rules, after a filibuster had been beaten, 30 more hours were required to pass before a nominee could finally be confirmed. That delay threatened to tie the chamber in knots. The new rules will only allow two hours to pass after cloture is invoked before a nominee is confirmed.

The two leaders agreed that they will make some changes in how the Senate carries out filibusters under the existing rules, reminiscent of the handshake agreement last term, which quickly fell apart. First, senators who wish to object or threaten a filibuster must actually come to the floor to do so. And second, the two leaders will make sure that debate time post-cloture is actually used in debate. If senators seeking to slow down business simply put in quorum calls to delay action, the Senate will go live, force votes to produce a quorum, and otherwise work to make sure senators actually show up and debate.

The arrangement between Reid and McConnell means that the majority leader will not resort to his controversial threat, known as the "nuclear option," to change the rules via 51 votes on the first day of the congressional session. Reid may have been able to achieve greater reforms that way, but several members of his own party were uncomfortable with the precedent it would have set. And Reid himself, an institutionalist, wanted a bipartisan deal for the long-term health of the institution. Reid presented McConnell with two offers -- one bipartisan accord consisting of weaker reforms, and a stronger package Reid was willing to ram through on a partisan vote. McConnell chose the bipartisan route.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/harry-reid-mitch-mcconnell-filibuster_n_2541356.html



39 replies, 2587 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 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Harry Reid: ‘I’m Not Ready…To Get Rid Of The 60-Vote Threshold’ (Original post)
Tx4obama Jan 2013 OP
high density Jan 2013 #1
DCBob Jan 2013 #2
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #5
budkin Jan 2013 #20
cascadiance Jan 2013 #36
Isoldeblue Jan 2013 #3
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #7
Isoldeblue Jan 2013 #12
roguevalley Jan 2013 #17
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #4
earthside Jan 2013 #6
ancianita Jan 2013 #8
Zen Democrat Jan 2013 #9
Jester Messiah Jan 2013 #10
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #11
jeff47 Jan 2013 #13
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #14
totodeinhere Jan 2013 #38
pkdu Jan 2013 #15
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #16
ncteechur Jan 2013 #22
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2013 #30
Creideiki Jan 2013 #34
totodeinhere Jan 2013 #39
freshwest Jan 2013 #18
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #19
freshwest Jan 2013 #23
Creideiki Jan 2013 #35
ncteechur Jan 2013 #21
blkmusclmachine Jan 2013 #24
blkmusclmachine Jan 2013 #25
CincyDem Jan 2013 #26
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #27
Kablooie Jan 2013 #28
oldandhappy Jan 2013 #29
trueblue2007 Jan 2013 #31
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #32
UCmeNdc Jan 2013 #33
LeFleur1 Jan 2013 #37

Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:35 PM

1. The 41 vote idea at least made the blockers put in the effort instead of the Democrats

Instead it sounds like little has changed, other than gaining a single sacrificial lamb which must put his name on the filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to high density (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:37 PM

2. Not sure why the 41 vote idea died.

That made total sense to me and still preserved the concept of the minority filibuester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:48 PM

5. It died because it would have made it too hard to continue to filibuster.

And Republicans didn't want that nor apparently did Sen. Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:48 PM

20. Don't know why they bothered with anything then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:45 AM

36. It seemed to die not long after I posited that we might monitor those situations here yesterday...

... to see when Republicans didn't have their 40 votes, and note that at those times, which Democrats aren't present and make those absences VERY pubic to their constituents.

I believe that even the 41 vote minimum was a "reform" that was going to be abused by the blue dogs and corporatist senators by them coordinating with Republicans when they couldn't have 40 votes to make sure that the blue dogs and other corrupt and corporatist Dems are not present then so that there aren't 51 votes then to pass a bill when the filibuster can't block it.

Perhaps earlier they thought that this was a way to "silently" filibuster like they do now with different auspices that it is a "better" rule, but one that could be just as abused. By my noting that we could in effect figure out and monitor in these cases which Dems were "caving" to help conspire with the filibusterers, perhaps they saw that this was a "bad idea" if they wanted their manipulation of the Kabucki theater to be kept private from the public.

Part of me hopes that wasn't the case that they saw my comments here, and they figured it out on their own, because I wonder if I'd kept that thought private if they'd have gone through with the 41 vote thing, and then we could have had our means of in effect do some effects of what a talking filibuster would do in terms of putting senators on record of obstructionism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:45 PM

3. I should tweet Reid...

That I expect to get screwed over by the neo-cons.... But when will you do right by us? This is a huge disappointment.

When the hell will the rethug party begin to lose it's power with crap like this, closing women's clinics down, allowing SA guns to be legal, and their secret gerrymandering, to name only a few major moves in the last few months??!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Isoldeblue (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

7. Closing women's clinics down and gerrymandering is going on at the STATE level.


Those two things have nothing to do with the U.S. Senate or Harry Reid.

And did you even read everything in the OP up above. Senator Reid got everything that he has wanted in the past four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:11 PM

12. Well, excuse me.........

I was just venting on the rethug party as a whole, both state and federal. They are destroying our country and I don't feel that's an exaggeration or an extreme way to think.

"If it were used, if it had to be used, it would have turned a gridlock into a meltdown,"

Instead, the Republicans have maneuvered to keep the Senate frozen, allowing their obstruction to continue unabated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Isoldeblue (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:07 PM

17. fuck harry reid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:46 PM

4. NO more 'anonymous' holds/objections

Works for me. I think there will be fewer people willing to filibuster if their name is attached to it. Could be wrong, but time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:50 PM

6. That doesn't make me feel any better.

Looks to me like just about any bill will still ultimately have to get 60 votes to move to a final vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:56 PM

8. After four years of voting abuses, this 'leader' will never be ready. Ridiculous institutionalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:58 PM

9. What's wrong with majority rule, Harry? The filibuster is NOT even in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:02 PM

10. Oh, so they'll have to take credit for gridlocking the senate?

It's not like Repubs have trouble being brazen. Hell, they'll be lining up for the chance to show their base that they're gridlocking, obstructionist bastards. Reid dropped the ball on this one. He either got duped, or he sold us out. Either way, any time the Repubs gridlock us in the future, he owns it. Thanks a bunch, Harry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:04 PM

11. Reid got the majority of what he wanted. Please take time to read all of the OP :)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:22 PM

13. That's the problem.

Reid wanted crap. He got crap. That doesn't suddenly make it not crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:25 PM

14. The problem it seems to me is that what he appears to want is to allow obstruction

Just because both party leaders "want" all things senate to require 60 votes, requiring only a virtual filibuster (no actual filibustering needed) doesn't mean it is right, it is a rather new and extreme position,
a very new thing to "want"
that is not wanted by a large majority of the Senates constituency.
In fact, no one "wanted it" until Mitch McConnell became the minority leader and first abused the rules to make it that way.

It has only been like this since 2009 or so.
He doesn't appear to "want" to require that the obstructionists even vote to prove they can obstruct.
Why does he "want" this abuse of Senate rules to continue by changing nothing that could stop the abuse?

I "want" to end the new and extreme Senate rule that effectively means that nothing can pass with less than 60 votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:08 PM

38. OK fine, but he should have wanted more and fought for more. He only had to change two votes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:28 PM

15. Ezra Klein....last para says it all for me...

But for now, Republicans have little to fear. The filibuster is safe. Even filibusters against the motion to proceed are safe. And filibuster reformers have lost once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:53 PM

16. The Democrats will likely be in the minority in 2014. Harry Reid knows this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:53 PM

22. That's what everybody said last time. Wrong!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncteechur (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:19 PM

30. Too many Dems up for reelection in RED states. Prove me wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:42 AM

34. And here Reid ensures it.

Truman's quote applies: “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”

It's actually a bit more nuanced than that, to my mind. "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, the Democratic and progressive bases won't be motivated to give a crap so it appears that the 'people' are voting for the real Republican, when in fact, the people just aren't going to bother to go out on cold November days to vote for Democrats who act like Republicans anyway."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:11 PM

39. If they are in the minority, which I doubt, the GOP can go ahead and eliminate the filibuster

then. Then where will Milk Toast Harry be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:33 PM

18. Eliminating the cowardly anonymous holds is a huge improvement! GOP did it too mcuh under Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:36 PM

19. Thank YOU. You're the first person that I've seen (other than me) that has said anything good...


about the new rules change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:56 PM

23. The sudden interest in arcane procedural drama by those who wanted Obama to assume the powers of a

dictator despite not having a majority in the House and having had 60 million voters oppose everything Obama ran on escapes the notice of some.

I grant the name calling and cursing of sunshine patriots and fair weather friends who never worked in a political milieu all the attention they merit. The noisome abuse and gutter snipes say more about the ones offering the abuse than it does Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:44 AM

35. If there are so few people who can look at crap

and call it the most wonderful thing ever, then maybe you're deluding yourself? Just a suggestion.

I understand you're in Texas from the screen name. Maybe a bit of Stockholm Syndrome has set in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:52 PM

21. Thanks for the most minimal piece of fucking shit you could possibly fucking do Harry!!

You fucking screwed the pooch. You are not the minority leader cause you obviously can't lead shit to stink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:04 PM

24. 4 More Years Of The Last 4 Years.

"That's the way (uh huh, uh huh) I like it (uh huh, uh huh)..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 PM

25. 1 Party, 2 Faces

It all makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:10 PM

26. Sen. Harry Reid (R-NV) for all practical purposes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:17 PM

27. lol... coockoo, coockoo...



Isn't my cute emoticon so convincing? Come on now... just look at it a little longer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:24 PM

28. Wow. That sounds convoluted and ineffectual.

So we can expect 2 more years of a stone dead Senate.

And watch, if the GOP ever gets a majority, first thing on the agenda will be to eliminate the filibuster completely.

Reid, you have disgraced your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:17 PM

29. Glad a name

gets attached to the hold/filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:03 AM

31. get rid of him. HE IS A USED UP OLD MAN. NO GOOD TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:13 AM

32. History will show that Harry’s stunt will be recorded as the day

 

He flushed all hope down the toilet and destroyed President Obama’s chance of being a transformative President instead opting for continued gridlock.

President Obama’s legacy will be nothing more than the first non-white male to be POTUS but he did give a good speech.

Good Job Harry you just F-ed over America or perhaps it was your real goal, why let the black dude get any credit for real change.

No point in even bothering to open the Senate or House forthat matter for the next 2 years, they all might as well fund raise because that is all they will be able to do thanks to Harry.

Just think of all the poison pills, 2 per piece of legislation that will get inserted in to every bill in the Senate now.
The Democrats will lose the Senate because of Harry in 14.

The GOP will go with the 51 vote majority rule and ram though every piece of garbage they can get away with.

Most of us know exactly how this is going to play out and some will just remain in
denial and spin like tops and cheerlead for the next 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:27 AM

33. Harry Reid you are an OLD FOOL!

Nothing else can describe this.

Foolish man, Foolish idiot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #33)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:57 AM

37. Very Very Disappointed


We've come to expect too little as Democrats.
They don't mind asking for money every day to fund Democrats, then when they get to the Senate they act like old time Republicans. Which means saner than today's Republicans, but still...Republicans.

As for "OLD fool" comment. I see much elder disrespect on this forum, and quite frankly, it's an easy scapegoat to blame age. BUT It isn't age that determines these decisions. Harry was never an in your face politican. That attitude has resulted in a few good Senate actions and many bad Senate actions. There is a time to stand and fight and this was it.
As for those Democrats who wouldn't support true filibuster reform?...shove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread