Bipartisan Senators Propose Curbing Filibusters.

[elleng]

Source: nyt/ap

A bipartisan group of senators is proposing to put modest limits on filibusters, the procedural delays that minority parties often use to grind the Senate's work to a halt.

Led by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the group's proposal is aimed at heading off a bitter partisan fight over the issue when the new Congress convenes next week. The proposal would make it harder to filibuster at the start of debate and impose other curbs.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans filibuster too frequently. He has threatened to impose even stricter filibuster limits with a simple majority vote — in effect ramming them through over GOP objections.

Republicans say they filibuster because Reid often blocks them from offering amendments.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/28/us/politics/ap-us-senate-filibuster-fight.html?hp

[BlueStreak]

1. The ONE thing that Dems can actually fix, and they even wimp out on that

Worthless people.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Modest reforms are good

The Founding Father vigorously supported limits on the majority
because they knew it would lead to tyranny. So curbing the
minority must be done slowly, incrementally. I do think both
parties will come to regret severe restrictions. Democrats can
slip into the minority, remember?

And curbing filibuster at the beginning of debate is a great idea.
At least debate the issues. Right now we're only having grandstanding
by Mitch McConnell with an occasional barb from Harry Reid.

[grantcart]

7. There is nothing in the constitution or even the Senate rules about a filibuster.

Its not about 'curbing the minority' but about using standard parlimentary rules to bring and end to a debate so
a vote can be taken.

For over a hundred years it wasn't necessary to even have a cloture vote because mutual respect allowed people
to have an opportunity to speak without actually stoping the vote from being taken.

The Senate is not a democratic body at all.

It already requires a huge super majority to pass a legislation. The 20 smallest states have a combined population smaller than that of California. Those citizens have a 20:1 advantage in the Senate.

That is the constitutional protection for smaller states. Filibuster only exaggerates that by requiring a supermajority in a body that already requires a supermajority.

[DJ13]

3. With a Dem majority in the Senate, a compromise is a sellout

The Republicans involved are only looking out for themselves, which will mean they will make the change weak enough to allow filibusters as an option whenever they want.

Dont be stupid Democrats, dont compromise on this.

[ladjf]

4. The simple majority vote is the thing to do. Anything less is a terrible mistake, AGAIN! nt

[Laurian]

5. If McCain's fingerprints are on this, I'm against it.

That creep hasn't had a good idea in 30 years.

[elleng]

6. 'FUNNY' that the 5 or so comments so far appear to express reasons for failure of filib reform

so far, no agreement on taking affirmative action, suggesting DU is quite representative of 'professional' Dems (and leaving us nowhere.)