Barbara Mikulski Demands End To The Filibuster

[dtotire]

Barbara Mikulski Demands End To The Filibuster As Pressure To Reform The Senate Mounts

Lucia Graves

During the extended debate over unemployment benefits on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) called for an end to the filibuster rule that for months has kept the Senate in a state of maddening gridlock. Discontent over the arcane Senate procedure swelled in recent months as a bill to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless languished in the Senate and 2.5 million Americans watched their benefits lapse.

"It's time we not only get the country moving, it's time we get the Senate moving," said Mikulski in a speech on the House floor. "We have to first look at reform for ourselves, and I want everyone here to know, I'm on the side and definitely part of the reform movement in this institution to get rid of out-of-date procedures that belong to another century whose only job is not to slow us down so that we... don't do anything at all."

First elected to the Senate in 1986, Mikulski is one of the most senior members of the
Democratic caucus and her 24 years in the Senate lend weight to her thoughts on the iinstitution


more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/barbara-mikulski-demands_n_653390.html

[Taverner]

1. Bad Idea

We will need the filibuster if the GOP wins

[tkmorris]

4. Filibuster helps them more than us overall

They use it on EVERY bill, the Dems don't. Usually the Dems have a dozen or more Senators who declare that while they intend to vote against a bill, they feel it deserves an up or down vote, thus they vote for cloture. It's cowardice of the worst kind.

Get rid of the damned thing.

[toadzilla]

9. The dems are too spineless to use it anyways. It will help us more than them to get rid of it.

[dtexdem]

15. But if the Dems retain control of the Senate this year, ...

they could eliminate the filibuster -- they have to wait for the new congress anyway.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. What would it take to change that? Is there even the remotest chance it might happen?

[kirby]

5. Typically 2/3 vote to change the rules...

There is a so called 'nuclear option' that could be used to accomplish it with 51 votes, but I doubt they would do that. Once done, they could never use that 'nuclear option' again.

[Better Believe It]

10. "they could never use that 'nuclear option' again." Who couldn't and why not?

It's certainly not unconstitutional!

The "Constitutional Option" can be used more than once by the President of the Senate.

And the Democratic majority leader can end his "two track" Senate debate "rule" at anytime and force Republicans to engage in a real "on-the-Senate-floor" filibuster under Senate Rule 22.

[kirby]

16. Why not, because...

Because the 'nuclear option' relies on getting the parliamentarian to make a specific ruling. Once that ruling is made (which has never been made before), it becomes precedent. Future parliamentarians would be bound to that precedent.

[Better Believe It]

17. The Senate Parliamentarian may only advise the Presiding Officer of the Senate and not make rulings.

The Parliamentarian of the United States Senate is the official advisor to the United States Senate on the interpretation of Standing Rules of the United States Senate and parliamentary procedure.

As the Presiding Officer of the Senate may not be fully aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, staff from the Senate Parliamentarian's office sit on the Senate dais to advise the Presiding Officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from Senators. The role of the parliamentary staff is strictly advisory; the Presiding Officer is in no way required to follow their advice ....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate


The Presiding Officer of the Senate is not required to follow the Parliamentarian's advice. End of story.

Senator Reid also has the power to replace the Republican appointed Senate Parliamentarian at any time and for any reason!

The current Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was hired by Republicans when they were in the majority, but only after Republicans had fired a previous Parliamentarian for not ruling in their favor.

Robert Dove, was Frumin's predecessor as Senate parliamentarian. Dove was fired in 2001 (Frumin replaced him) after Republican senators, then in the majority, disputed several of his rulings. Dove was dismissed by the Majority Leader, Mississippi Republican Trent Lott.

And the President of the Senate, Vice-President Joe Biden, can easily implement the Constitutional Option.

Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can rule that 51 Senate votes can end filibusters.

If Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above options whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing these options.


---------------------------------------------

During the filibuster, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as President of the Senate, ruled that the debate over a rule change could be ended with a simple majority. Mansfield opposed Rockefeller's ruling and introduced a motion that was quickly tabled, 51-42, thus endorsing the majoritarian decision of Rockefeller. Conservatives were outraged and Mansfield, Byrd, and Minority Leader Robert Griffin attempted to overturn the precedent. Ultimately a proposal by Sen. Russell Long to change the cloture limit to 3/5 for two years and then revert back to the original 2/3 limit led to a compromise between the two factions to overcome Rockefeller's ruling.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

----------------------------------------------



The Case for Busting the Filibuster
By Thomas Geoghegan
This article appeared in the August 31, 2009 edition of The Nation.

In 1975 Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that just fifty-one senators could vote to get rid of the filibuster entirely. A simple majority of liberals could now force change on a frightened old guard. But instead of dumping the filibuster once and for all, the liberals, unsure of their support, agreed to a "reformed" Rule 22. It was this reform that, by accident, turned the once-in-a-blue-moon filibuster into something that happens all the time. The idea was to reduce the votes needed to cut off debate from sixty-seven, which on the Hill is a big hill to climb, to just sixty. Liberals like Walter Mondale wanted to make it easier to push through civil rights and other progressive legislation. What's the harm in that?

The only problem is that, because the filibuster had rendered the chamber so laughable, with renegade members pulling all-nighters and blocking all the Senate's business, the "reformers" came up with a new procedural filibuster--the polite filibuster, the Bob Dole filibuster--to replace the cruder old-fashioned filibuster of Senate pirates like Strom Thurmond ("filibuster" comes from the Dutch word for freebooter, or pirate). The liberals of 1975 thought they could banish the dark Furies of American history, but they wound up spawning more demons than we'd ever seen before. Because the senators did not want to be laughed at by stand-up comedians, they ended their own stand-up acts with a rule that says, essentially:

"We aren't going to let the Senate pirates hold up business anymore. From now on, if those people want to filibuster, they can do it offstage. They can just file a motion that they want debate to continue on this measure indefinitely. We will then put the measure aside, and go back to it only if we get the sixty votes to cut off this not-really-happening debate."

In other words, the opposing senators don't have the stomach to stand up and read the chicken soup recipes. We call it the "procedural" filibuster, but what we really mean is the "pretend" filibuster.

http://www.thenation.com/article/case-busting-filibuster

[bluestateguy]

3. Careful what you wish for people...you just might get it

Does anyone here actually think the Democrats will control the Senate forever and ever?

W/out the F-buster, the Alaska Wildlife Refuge would be a playground for BP right now.

[Better Believe It]

11. The Republicans will force real Democratic filibusters or just prohibit them when they gain control.

They play hardball and are not afraid to use the Constititional Option.

Remember what they did in 2005.

[Skink]

6. California needs 2/3rds. Imagine if we put that in place.

I think we should limit the scope of the filibuster. Or widen the scope of reconciliation.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

7. I'd like to see some political big-brains do some research.......

into how the abuse of the filibuster could be limited, rather than scrapping the whole thing. Losing the filibuster completely will bite us in the ass when the R's get back into power.

[DCBob]

8. Maybe just a modification to lessen the impact..

maybe just reduce it 55 instead of 60.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

12. My only qualm is that there seems to be a workaround.........

for every parliamentary procedure. I read an article on MotherJones.com that someone suggested limiting the amount of cloture votes a party could use, say 20. Sounds like a good idea initially, but someone in the comments section pointed out that what would stop a party from submitting 20 different versions of the same bill forcing a side to use up their cloture limit on one item?

We need something substantive, fair and hard to abuse.

[DCBob]

14. yeah. good point. If they do make a change for sure they will have to consider those "workarounds"..

no doubt the evil sneeky GOPers will figure them all out.

[metapunditedgy]

13. The filibuster gives winning parties an excuse not to govern until they have

an overwhelming majority.

I don't expect it's going anywhere soon.