Bipartisan Support Building Around Three Changes To Senate Rules In New Congress

[Tx4obama]

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats met for their second caucus meeting about reforming chamber rules Friday, beginning to converge on three changes that supporters hope will increase transparency and prevent a small minority from blocking an up-or-down vote on measures.

"This is a two-step process," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the leaders of the effort, told The Huffington Post in an interview after the caucus meeting. "The first step is that we need to recognize that under the Constitution, we can...adopt rules with 51 votes and also cut off debate on rules that we want to adopt with 51 votes. ... The second step is building the consensus with 51 senators on what they want to actually be in the rules. ... And that's the tough business we're in right now."

According to Udall, bipartisan support is beginning to build around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed and instead allow a set amount of time for debate, 2) ending secret holds, and 3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill.

Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/changes-senate-rules-filibuster-transparency_n_798523.html

[Laelth]

1. Those sound like good changes. Thanks for the post. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[leveymg]

2. The timing of this is odd. We'll probably only have a majority for 2 more years - and no longer

have the House. This is similar to the "nuclear option" at a time that we're about to become the minority.

This should have been done 2 years ago, when there was still a super-majority. WTF are they thinking - are they trying to create the conditions to enable a GOOP dictatorship?

[freshwest]

3. I hate to say it

But it feels that way, doesn't it?

And I'm having a hard time sustaining any interest in what any of them do right now.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Tx4obama]

4. Look at it this way...

All it takes is 51 votes to change the rules in the Senate on the first day of each new congressional session.
If WE do it in January then we will have two years to get things done easier - such as getting Obama's judicial & administration nominees confirmed, etc.
If we DO NOT change the rules, then IF the republicans take the senate in 2012 then THEY can change the senate rules the first day of the new congressional session in 2013.
So, there no reason to worry about what the republicans will do in the future, we just need to do what is best for the dems that have to get stuff done during the next two years.

[leveymg]

5. You can pretty much forget about any decent legislation passing the House in the next 2 yrs

Not sure this precedent is worth some appointments. But, thanks. Any other links where I can read more?

[Tx4obama]

6. Here ya go

Here's another link regarding the filibuster reform that has some good info on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_786255.html

p.s. I know that the House isn't going to do much in the next two years,
but like I said before there are things that the senate votes on and does that the House doesn't get to vote on - so it would be wonderful to get rid of the 'secret holds' and the 60 vote rule.
And also like I said before, even if we don't change the rules this January - the republicans can change the rules themselves if they take over the senate in the next election.

[DLnyc]

8. Yes, leave it to the Democrats to end the filibuster right before they need it.

Didn't use it when they were it the minority.

Let the mere threat stop them from doing anything while they have the majority.

Now they'll get rid of it before they go back into the minority.

To quote the famous sage "with friends like that, who needs enemas?"

[leveymg]

9. Some of them like enemas. BOHICA.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. SOMETHING certainly needs to be done

The last 2-4 years have demonstrated beyond a doubt how dysfunctional the minority party (in this case the Republicans) can make government and how they can bring absolutely everything to a screeching halt if they abuse the rules the way they did. Although I wish that the Democrats had made things a little more miserable for the Buschco-enabling Republicans, I would rather that government be allowed to function the way it was intended to and that filibustering be used for extreme situations only and not have it become a near-permanent state.

[leveymg]

10. Then, you're going to love the coming full-frontal GOOP agenda.

Picture deleted to spare the naive and the self-blinded.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. "the naive and the self-blinded"?

:wtf:

What was it about what I said that suggests that I'm "naive" and/or "self-blinded"? :shrug: I don't really appreciate it.

[leveymg]

12. Wasn't meant to be directed at you. More a general comment on those who've

bought into the narrative that the Raw Deal is some great Democratic victory and progressive stim in disguise, because it isn't. I've seen posts that line up the bar graphs that show the raid on the S.S. Trust Fund as a "Democratic" part of the deal, and it just makes me sick to my stomach.

Never thought it would be the Dems who touched the Third Rail first. This is political suicide.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Oh o.k.

I didn't know what (or to whom) you were referring as I thought that we were discussing filibuster reform in the Senate- though I suppose I would have to be included with those whom supported, albeit reluctantly, the recent tax cut deal.

I'll not take the comments personally however.

[leveymg]

16. My apology for the misimpression.

We can disagree without being disagreeable. I try to observe that, but I am just so damn disappointed in the elected officials I worked so hard over so many electoral cycles to get into office, who are now doing the unthinkable - voting to raid the SS Trust Fund and to extend the Bush tax breaks.

The news that some Democrats now want to give up the filibuster in the Senate at a time when it looks like we're going to be needing it just blows my mind.

It greatly saddens me to see so many here trying to rationalize and defend this.

[lonestarnot]

13. Waiting and watching. What we have now appears to be crap.

[knitter4democracy]

14. Sooooo, they're finally going to follow the Constitution?

Is that what I'm reading? If so, it would be a pleasant change.