Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:38 AM Nov 2012

Filibuster Reform Now Official – Reid Presents New Filibuster Rule




This is the most important piece of legislation the Senate will debate all year.

If they don’t pass filibuster reform, we will simply have gridlock.

And the American people want governing.
‘To understand what is happening, you first need to understand the issue at hand’.

‘Right now, to pass a cloture measure, that is to close a bill to debate and then vote on it, you need 60 votes’.

‘In the past Senators wishing to block bills had to by debating endlessly. To address this, a rule was put into place in 1975 which allowed a 3/5 majority of senators sworn in to end debate’.

‘It rarely caused issues, until recently when the GOP began invoking the rule of cloture on every single piece of legislation, but then did not stand up to debate’.

‘In other words, they abused the rule intended to stop endless debate without actually debating’.

‘They would force a cloture vote, but there would be no debate for which to invoke cloture at all.

‘In 2011, when the new Senate was convened, Senator Reid met with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and made a deal to limit the abuse of the filibuster in the new session’.

‘The handshake deal lasted for 40 days, with Senator Hutchinson of Texas invoking the rule on February 15?.

‘After that, 108 more cloture motions were filed, and of those 109, 70 had the majority vote. In the end, only 38 passed cloture and the bills voted’.

‘So much for the handshake deal’.

‘After Mitch McConnell lied to Harry Reid’s face, violating the agreement, the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’.





‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5?s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass’.



Some are calling this the Mr. Smith rule, after the classic movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington starring James Stewart. This simple rule change, the tying of cloture to the debate, is one long needed in Washington. As a result, now if a minority party wishes to block a measure, they will have to go on the record as being against it, with footage of it. Now they just can go “no cloture” and can avoid the political fallout of things like blocking the jobs act or stimulus bill.



To remind people what a filibuster properly is, below is an example of a true filibuster, at 8 hours, 34 minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the floor on December 10th, 2010, to filibuster the tax-cut extension deal. This is what a filibuster will mean now, not the farce it has become:



http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SandersF








http://thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/what-congress-does-filibuster-reform-now-official-reid-presents-new-filibuster-rule/
85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Filibuster Reform Now Official – Reid Presents New Filibuster Rule (Original Post) Segami Nov 2012 OP
Good Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #1
Good...will it pass? haikugal Nov 2012 #2
That's an important question struggle4progress Nov 2012 #3
I believe it only takes a simple majority for it to pass... Spazito Nov 2012 #4
But which way will Sen Lieberman vote? Oh yeah, he is gonzo. Yea! nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #6
Yep, he's gone and there are more Democrats in the Senate come January... Spazito Nov 2012 #8
And importantly, more progressive Democrats. nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #31
I assumed Reid would bring this to a vote after Jan 1 when INdemo Nov 2012 #33
I also think that is the case. nm rhett o rick Nov 2012 #40
Yes, the article says he'll do this in January... Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #68
But if debate occurs will simple majority pass it bjobotts Nov 2012 #76
51 Votes Take It... KharmaTrain Nov 2012 #5
" The filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session" Segami Nov 2012 #10
"Under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #24
The debate will hinge on the "Constitutional Option" first argued by ... Spazito Nov 2012 #38
Thanks. Bookmarking for later study - n/t coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #39
marking this for a read theKed Nov 2012 #59
HOW TO END THE FILIBUSTER FOREVER Zorra Nov 2012 #60
We don't want to end it. We want to make it extraordinary. aquart Nov 2012 #78
Here is a current article with some details ... Tx4obama Nov 2012 #80
Watch this 2naSalit Nov 2012 #41
Whip lobodons Nov 2012 #19
If not, it will be the corporatist Third Way GOP allies who prevent it from passing. nt Zorra Nov 2012 #34
Looks Pretty Good, Sir The Magistrate Nov 2012 #7
So even Harry Reid doesn't like being lied to. I have to tip my hat to him for running the Senate byeya Nov 2012 #9
The hag from texas won't be there this time. julian09 Nov 2012 #58
Just know.... AZ Mike Nov 2012 #11
Well, Orange John already *looks* like an ant under a magnifying glass on a sunny day Fumesucker Nov 2012 #20
Well yes and no. eqfan592 Nov 2012 #22
I don't see how it can force boner to do anything. littlewolf Nov 2012 #56
There are things The Senate votes on that The House doesn't: Supreme Court Justices... Tx4obama Nov 2012 #71
I concede your point that "it turns The Speaker into a one-man cloture", Volaris Nov 2012 #84
This is a blog. I see NOTHING in the MSM on Reid actually doing anything (yet). ReallyIAmAnOptimist Nov 2012 #12
Here is Senator Reid's own words on it... Spazito Nov 2012 #16
But nowhere else does it say CitizenPatriot Nov 2012 #21
There will be reform, that is what Senator Reid has stated... Spazito Nov 2012 #27
Again, absolutely nothing specific. former9thward Nov 2012 #44
Ahhh, so saying there will be reform and showcasing the Udall measure.... Spazito Nov 2012 #45
I doubt you do.... former9thward Nov 2012 #47
It is the Merkley package that is being considered. See article link below Tx4obama Nov 2012 #72
Here is a link to the 'newest' news about The Senate filibuster reform Tx4obama Nov 2012 #82
Here is a link with the newest news ... Tx4obama Nov 2012 #81
The newest news is on the link below Tx4obama Nov 2012 #73
Good! This does not end the fillibuster hootinholler Nov 2012 #13
Rec! krispos42 Nov 2012 #14
Sounds great !! kentuck Nov 2012 #15
Just think how different things would have been if Harry'd done this in 2009. smokey nj Nov 2012 #17
Republicans do it since they now just file a paper and don't stand speaking for hours upi402 Nov 2012 #18
Too half-assed. Simple majority vote should be what passes. Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #23
I agree. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #61
And here, from my corner, I am bringing out the pom poms nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #25
We will still have grid lock, mick063 Nov 2012 #26
Did Harry Reid actually say this today or yesterday? graham4anything Nov 2012 #28
The 'newest' info is on the link below Tx4obama Nov 2012 #77
Solidarity with all who FIGHT Congress! patrice Nov 2012 #29
K & R Change has come Nov 2012 #30
So, on Dec 10, 2010, Sen Sanders filibustered the tax-cut extension deal for 8 hrs, 34 minutes. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #32
Yeah, me too. I'll believe it when I see it. barnabas63 Nov 2012 #36
Exellent. Make them stand there and defend their actions. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #35
This is a Better Development Than Invoking the Nuclear Option On the Road Nov 2012 #37
I'll believe it when I see it. Gregorian Nov 2012 #42
I hope it passes, but I wouldn't put money on it. It's the U.S. Congress, after all. nt valerief Nov 2012 #43
So, how are they going to change the rule??...with 60 votes? or a simple majority? Hulk Nov 2012 #46
How is this 'official'? Are you saying that Reid has endorsed this approach? grantcart Nov 2012 #48
It is the Merkley package that is being considered. See article link below Tx4obama Nov 2012 #74
thanks grantcart Nov 2012 #83
There are no real filibusters, just threats The Wizard Nov 2012 #49
great graphic Coyotl Nov 2012 #50
K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #51
It's an excellent start, but I'd like to see the filibuster killed entirely. HopeHoops Nov 2012 #52
"Handshake deal"! With a senator!? rock Nov 2012 #53
As I Recall DallasNE Nov 2012 #54
Very Good! UCmeNdc Nov 2012 #55
There is nothing new here in this blog post, just a rehash of comments/proposals made recently. PoliticAverse Nov 2012 #57
Did you miss the 3rd from last paragraph in the OP? Sounds like a plan to me-- ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #64
Senators have NOT been talking about what is in the OP. See the Merkley package on link below Tx4obama Nov 2012 #75
seems good to me! hrmjustin Nov 2012 #62
BRILLIANT! Reid's proposed rule would virtually eliminate one of TWO filibusters to which every ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2012 #63
BROVO libodem Nov 2012 #65
Some Dems have said "don't do this" . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #66
Seeing is believing. GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #67
Senator Reid has NOT yet released details of the new filibuster reform rule Tx4obama Nov 2012 #69
The 2nd link in the OP and The Addicting Info link end up at yesterday's HuffPo article below link Tx4obama Nov 2012 #70
Probably the best thing to happen to regain a "functioning" government. southerncrone Nov 2012 #79
One can only hope. aandegoons Nov 2012 #85

Spazito

(55,063 posts)
4. I believe it only takes a simple majority for it to pass...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:09 AM
Nov 2012

because it relates to the rules governing the Senate and is debated at the beginning of a new Congress and, if so, yes, it should pass.

Spazito

(55,063 posts)
8. Yep, he's gone and there are more Democrats in the Senate come January...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:18 AM
Nov 2012

it's looking very good for a filibuster reform vote being successful.

INdemo

(7,023 posts)
33. I assumed Reid would bring this to a vote after Jan 1 when
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:12 PM
Nov 2012

the new Senators were installed..?? I think the rule change must be voted on within a certain amount of days after the new Congress starts its session...

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
68. Yes, the article says he'll do this in January...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:03 PM
Nov 2012

"the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’."

 

bjobotts

(9,141 posts)
76. But if debate occurs will simple majority pass it
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:15 AM
Nov 2012

I mean if it is a filibuster and debate occurs... after four calls for debate will the vote finally be taken and passed by a simple majority of 51? or will the filibuster continue. Also will there be limits on how many filibusters are allowed per session?

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
5. 51 Votes Take It...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:12 AM
Nov 2012

...there are 53 Democrats and 2 Independents (who caucus with Democrats). The only Democrats I can see voting against this would be Manchin and maybe Donnelly...but I think even they'll go along with this rule change. I feel confident that after all the abuse of the filibuster by the rushpublicans over the past 6 years, this measure should pass and maybe the Senate can have a real function again...

 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
10. " The filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session"
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:21 AM
Nov 2012
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[44] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[44] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.

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

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
24. "Under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:54 AM
Nov 2012

filibustered" - I don't think a simple majority will cut it.

Spazito

(55,063 posts)
38. The debate will hinge on the "Constitutional Option" first argued by ...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
Nov 2012

Senator Walsh and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in 1917. It is a fascinating read as to the argument based on the Constitution, Article 1, Section 5, which allows each branch of Congress to make it's own rules. Here is a snippet of the argument put forward:

“When the Constitution says that ‘Each House may determine its rules of proceeding,’ it means that
each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum being present, determine its rules.”

Walsh reasoned that just as the House could adopt new rules at any time by a simple majority vote, even in the face of a contrary House rule requiring “‘that two-thirds or any larger number alone shall make changes", under Article I, Section 5, so could the Senate.


Furthermore, Walsh explained, just as the rules of the House expire with the Congress in which they were adopted, so do the rules of the Senate. Walsh noted that at the start of each session the House has no
rules until it, while operating under general parliamentary procedures, adopts new rules or re-adopts the prior rules. Similarly, he concluded, the Senate has no rules until it adopts new rules or re-adopts the prior
rules, whether explicitly by a vote or implicitly by operating under them and thus acquiescing to them.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/353Assignments/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf

The discussion on the "Constitution Option" begins on page 217 (pdf numbering). That whole pdf starts on page 206 so scrolling down to 217 isn't as onerous as it might appear.

It really is fascinating reading, imo.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
60. HOW TO END THE FILIBUSTER FOREVER
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:15 PM
Nov 2012
How To End the Filibuster Forever

The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.
By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary Hart
Posted Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011, at 2:11 PM ET

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.

Let's address the timing question first. Magical things happen to Cinderella when the clock strikes 12. According to the editorial board of the New York Times and other commentators, the moment every other year in January when the old Congress ends and a new one begins is similarly special. The idea is that only at this moment may a simple majority of the Senate lawfully modify the filibuster rules that in recent years have effectively required 60 votes for any important action in the upper house.

The Times and others are right about the power of the simple majority—more about why in a minute—but wrong about the Cinderella power of the Senate's opening day. A simple majority of determined senators may lawfully change the filibuster rules, even if the existing Senate rules say otherwise, at any time.


Good read, there's more.
 

lobodons

(1,290 posts)
19. Whip
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:48 AM
Nov 2012

Reid surely has Whipped this in his Caucus to have made this so public and formal. Don't forget Macaskill and Heidkamp. (only that they are in Red states so could be tough votes to get) They makes 4 possible NO's. Can only have 5. Good thing we picked up 2 seats in election!!

 

byeya

(2,842 posts)
9. So even Harry Reid doesn't like being lied to. I have to tip my hat to him for running the Senate
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:18 AM
Nov 2012

in the face of perfidy from the RepubliKKKans while keeping it to himself. Fitting a Texas Senator had no ethics; I am not surprised at that.

AZ Mike

(468 posts)
11. Just know....
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:23 AM
Nov 2012

That this will enhance Boehner's power immensely. I don't particularly care about that, per se, but we can pass all the bills out of the Senate that we want - they won't pass in the House if they are never brought to the floor for a vote. Boehner is a one-man cloture now.

Of course, the flipside is that it could end up making Boehner feel like an ant under a magnifying glass on a sunny day. It increases his power, but it also increases his pressure....

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
22. Well yes and no.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:52 AM
Nov 2012

Because it will FORCE Boehner and house republicans to both speak out and vote against bills that otherwise would never have made it there (like the vet jobs bill). Basically, they've gotten away with quietly torpedoing a lot of otherwise popular legislation, and this should put a stop to that.

littlewolf

(3,813 posts)
56. I don't see how it can force boner to do anything.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:46 PM
Nov 2012

if the Senate bill never makes it to the floor of the house
meaning it died in committee they house will not vote on it.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
71. There are things The Senate votes on that The House doesn't: Supreme Court Justices...
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:03 AM
Nov 2012

Federal Appellate Court Judges, Federal District Court Judges, Administration Appointments, etc.

If the new filibuster reform rule goes into effect then the GOPers in the senate won't be able to block those anymore like they have been the past few years.

Volaris

(10,737 posts)
84. I concede your point that "it turns The Speaker into a one-man cloture",
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:56 AM
Nov 2012

but the other side of that, is that it's a HELL of a lot easier for the President to threaten a House with a 2-year term limit from that big-ass bully pulpit he has than it would be to do the same to a Senate that serves for 6 years. The GOP-Majority House can be "bribed", essentially, member by member, to get a particular bill passed. It takes more nickle-and-dime-type dealmaking than it ever would in the Senate, but if need be, the House CAN be "legislativley bought", by a President who knows what the hell he's doing--though it well help IMMENSLY if Boehner is on board with a tentative deal in the first place, and as an example of how to DO exactly this kind of thing, see LBJ (who basically said "I'll buy your district whatever you WANT me to buy it, but for that to happen, you have to vote yes on the Bill I want passed. If you don't LIKE the first option, the second is that (in political terms at least) I just come to you house and break your legs with a bat.)

Spazito

(55,063 posts)
16. Here is Senator Reid's own words on it...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:39 AM
Nov 2012

"In his first press conference since the election, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the Senate will be taking up filibuster reform this session.

The Huffington Post reports that although Reid didn’t say he would get rid of the filibuster entirely, he emphasized that new reforms would make it more difficult for Republicans to be as obstructionist as they have been. ”I have said so publicly, and I continue to feel that way … I think the rules have been abused, and we are going to work to change them,” he said. “We will not do away with the filibuster, but we will make the Senate a more meaningful place. We are going to make it so we can get things done.”"

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/harry_reid_senate_will_pursue_filibuster_reform/

CitizenPatriot

(3,783 posts)
21. But nowhere else does it say
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:52 AM
Nov 2012

what his new plan is specifically.

This isn't the first time Addicting Info made up a story. Just days ago they had a story about Obama getting Iran to stop making nuclear weapons that was taken off the front page here after it was shown to be made up news.

Spazito

(55,063 posts)
27. There will be reform, that is what Senator Reid has stated...
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:00 PM
Nov 2012

it has been reported in the mainstream media. Here is more info showing Reid supports the reform mentioned in the OP:

"The devil may be in the details. Reid has said he wouldn’t scrap the filibuster entirely, but would support getting rid of filibusters on the “motion to proceed,” meaning you’d no longer need 60 votes just to debate a bill. Udall and others last year introduced a measure that, among other steps, would have raised the political costs of filibustering by requiring the minority to actually hold the floor and debate, rather than simply notifying the majority of their intention to filibuster.

Reid opposed that measure, but in May, frustrated by the lastest GOP filibuster, he said he’d changed his mind.
“These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate and we didn’t,” Reid said on the Senate floor, referring to Udall and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “They were right. The rest of us were wrong—or most of us, anyway. What a shame.”"

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/13/filibuster-reform-could-actually-happen/

Note that Senator Reid made specific mention of the Udall measure which is the one to actually hold the floor and debate.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
73. The newest news is on the link below
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:07 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)


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

No definite details yet, but they are talking about the package that Merkley has put together.



hootinholler

(26,449 posts)
13. Good! This does not end the fillibuster
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:33 AM
Nov 2012

But requires a commitment to it to invoke it. This is very reasonable and preserves the minority's ability to prevent very bad legislation.

upi402

(16,854 posts)
18. Republicans do it since they now just file a paper and don't stand speaking for hours
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:46 AM
Nov 2012

Reform this abuse that shuts down job creating legislation!

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
61. I agree.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:23 PM
Nov 2012

Even though we risk empowering either party if they control both houses, it is worth the risk. The logjam has gone on long enough.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
26. We will still have grid lock,
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:59 AM
Nov 2012

but this is still very important legislation (perhaps rule change is more accurate?).

It will put the obstructionist label directly on the House instead of all of Congress. The Democratic Senate is too often lumped together with the House when it comes to the "do nothing" label.


We may not get more accomplished than before, but it does change the discussion which is very, very important. Perhaps the approval rating numbers will reflect more accurately when further defined.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
28. Did Harry Reid actually say this today or yesterday?
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:00 PM
Nov 2012

or is this what they want Harry to do?

I read something similiar but it was a what if type.

and what stops the repubs from fillibustering this stop the filibuster rule?
(sounds like an old get smart routine)

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
32. So, on Dec 10, 2010, Sen Sanders filibustered the tax-cut extension deal for 8 hrs, 34 minutes.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
Nov 2012

Let's hope that any filibuster deal will not prevent him from doing so again.

If Sen. Reid cannot obtain filibuster reform or if he will not actually do so (I'll believe filibuster reform when I see it), one or more Democratic Senators should regularly hold daily news conferences to point out that the Republicans are obstructing the business of the Senate.

The so-called filibusters should be front-page news.

For anyone who wants to celebrate filibuster reform, and I am among those who do, let's see it first.

On the Road

(20,783 posts)
37. This is a Better Development Than Invoking the Nuclear Option
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:21 PM
Nov 2012

Tying it to further debate sounds like a great idea.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
42. I'll believe it when I see it.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:43 PM
Nov 2012


They will be thinking about what happens if we aren't in the majority in 2014.

They should pass it under any circumstance. Let's hope they have the sense to do so.
 

Hulk

(6,699 posts)
46. So, how are they going to change the rule??...with 60 votes? or a simple majority?
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:55 PM
Nov 2012

I'm a bit confused. Will they be able to make this change without climbing the repube barrier of a fillibuster? If Ried is able to simply make the change, GREAT! If it is something that has to be voted on by the full Senate, I don't see it passing.

Straighten me out, will ya!?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
48. How is this 'official'? Are you saying that Reid has endorsed this approach?
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:58 PM
Nov 2012

Seems just another blog with their own ideas.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
74. It is the Merkley package that is being considered. See article link below
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:09 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:42 AM - Edit history (1)


Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html

NO final details regarding the new rule have been released yet.

The Wizard

(13,052 posts)
49. There are no real filibusters, just threats
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:58 PM
Nov 2012

Make those who say they'll filibuster actually put on an adult diaper and keep talking until they drop. The real abuse lies in the fact that no on really filibusters as it was intended.
I want to see Lindsey Graham recite the Manhattan phone book on the Senate floor. I want to see John McCain talk until his incontinence can no longer be hidden.
Can anyone name a normal Republican? The Republican Party has become a prevaricating death cult.

DallasNE

(7,679 posts)
54. As I Recall
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:17 PM
Nov 2012

Republicans controlled the Senate leadership in 2001 with a 50-50 tie with Cheney casting the deciding vote yet Republicans used the filibuster? How many times did Democrats filibuster in 2001?

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
57. There is nothing new here in this blog post, just a rehash of comments/proposals made recently.
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:46 PM
Nov 2012

No final official filibuster reform bill.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
64. Did you miss the 3rd from last paragraph in the OP? Sounds like a plan to me--
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 08:03 PM
Nov 2012

"‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5?s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass'".

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
75. Senators have NOT been talking about what is in the OP. See the Merkley package on link below
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:11 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:05 AM - Edit history (2)


Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html

Senator Reid has NOT released any details yet of what the rule change will be.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
63. BRILLIANT! Reid's proposed rule would virtually eliminate one of TWO filibusters to which every
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:15 PM
Nov 2012

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.

I've already turned this post into its own thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251250243 .

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."

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
66. Some Dems have said "don't do this" . . .
Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:59 PM
Nov 2012

Because when we're in the minority again — as Dems inevitably will be some day — we'll wish we still had the ability to prevent the majority from imposing its will.

However, that's faulty thinking, IMO. The abuse of the rule is much worse than the legislative outcomes that might eventuate if it's changed. This is because in the absence of sincere debate, not only are differences never actually hammered out, but also because such a cynical process generates intense contempt for the Senate (and government as a whole) — which makes governance in general that much harder.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
70. The 2nd link in the OP and The Addicting Info link end up at yesterday's HuffPo article below link
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:58 AM
Nov 2012

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)


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

There is NOTHING in the article on the link above that says the stuff that the OP says about the new rule.



southerncrone

(5,510 posts)
79. Probably the best thing to happen to regain a "functioning" government.
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:21 AM
Nov 2012

the Repubs slimy ways are backfiring on them. The American people are watching & seeing WHO were the obstructionists. Serves them right!



But for the life of me, I still don't understand what Harry Reid was thinking in 2008.

aandegoons

(473 posts)
85. One can only hope.
Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:13 AM
Nov 2012

There is so much wrong with out government right now. I think this situation is like taking an aspirin for a heart attack.

The real issue here is getting money out of the government. I believe that we have legalized bribery in our government at that is one of the real issues among many which contribute to this situation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Filibuster Reform Now Off...