General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFilibuster Reform Now Official – Reid Presents New Filibuster Rule

If they dont 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 Reids 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/

Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)struggle4progress
(121,353 posts)Spazito
(55,063 posts)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.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Spazito
(55,063 posts)it's looking very good for a filibuster reform vote being successful.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)INdemo
(7,023 posts)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...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)"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)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)...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)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)filibustered" - I don't think a simple majority will cut it.
Spazito
(55,063 posts)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.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)theKed
(1,235 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)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 Cinderelladoes 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 majoritymore about why in a minutebut 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.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)2naSalit
(95,233 posts)Ms. Maddow does it again with top notch journalism:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#49862782
Should 'splain it real good.
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!!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)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.
julian09
(1,435 posts)AZ Mike
(468 posts)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....
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So there's that.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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)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)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)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.)
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Spazito
(55,063 posts)"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 didnt 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)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)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 wouldnt scrap the filibuster entirely, but would support getting rid of filibusters on the motion to proceed, meaning youd 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 hed changed his mind.
These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate and we didnt, Reid said on the Senate floor, referring to Udall and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. They were right. The rest of us were wrongor 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.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Mentioning someone else is not proposal.
Spazito
(55,063 posts)means nothing, got it.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)
here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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)But requires a commitment to it to invoke it. This is very reasonable and preserves the minority's ability to prevent very bad legislation.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)n/t
kentuck
(113,195 posts)That is a big step forward.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)upi402
(16,854 posts)Reform this abuse that shuts down job creating legislation!
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)No matter the party in power.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Even though we risk empowering either party if they control both houses, it is worth the risk. The logjam has gone on long enough.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)mick063
(2,424 posts)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)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)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Here's the newest info: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html
Senator Reid has not yet stated with the new rule will be.

patrice
(47,992 posts)Change has come
(2,372 posts)
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)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.
barnabas63
(1,214 posts)Hopeful but not giddy yet.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)On the record.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Tying it to further debate sounds like a great idea.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)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.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Hulk
(6,699 posts)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)Seems just another blog with their own ideas.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The Wizard
(13,052 posts)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.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,165 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Don't make me guffaw! (Too late )
DallasNE
(7,679 posts)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?
UCmeNdc
(9,651 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)No final official filibuster reform bill.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)"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)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.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)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 bills consideration; and second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself."
libodem
(19,288 posts)
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)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.
GeorgeGist
(25,477 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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)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)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.