Democrats to Initiate Filibuster Reform

[BostonPirate]

http://ivn.us/2012/11/17/democrats-t...-the-new-year/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) told reporters this week,

‘‘I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them…We’re not going to do away with the filibuster, but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place, we’re going to make it so that we can get things done.’

and

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)

“But here’s the honest truth: we’ll never do any of that [work] if we can’t get up-or-down votes in the Senate…[The current filibuster process] is not open debate — that’s paralyzing progress…The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.

I’m joining Senator Jeff Merkley and six other newly elected senators to pledge to lead this reform on Day One, and I hope you’ll be right there with us. Our campaign didn’t end on Election Day — and I’m counting on you to keep on working each and every day to bring real change for working families. This is the first step.”

Tom Udall, responded on behalf of the GOP thus far.....

“I think there should be some support from Republicans on this one. We’re working with them. We’re having private discussions. I can tell you privately many Republicans are not happy with the way we do business in the Senate right now.”

So it looks like the filibuster is about to be broken internally in some way. It looks like it's going to be modified someway, but I can't see how, without getting rid of it, you can change it that won't be abused.

What do you guys think?

Does it need to be reformed? I think it does. you?

Can it be effectively reformed in a way that will matter? I don't think so. You?

[rareboy]

Good luck on this Senators.

We all know that once the bill to reform the fillibuster rules comes up for a vote, both parties will fillibuster it until 2014.

[BostonPirate]

Good luck on this Senators.

We all know that once the bill to reform the fillibuster rules comes up for a vote, both parties will fillibuster it until 2014.

This is a nuclear method. It only requires 51 votes or 50 with the vice president as a tie breaker as president of the senate, to change parliamentary procedure.

The Dems have always had the option of doing this. The problem is that they have never gotten 50 Democratic Senators on board to make the change.

[Seasoned]

The silent filibuster ought to end and the old standing and speaking filibuster be reinstated.

[Kulindahr]

1. What Warren and Merkeley said: make them actually filibuster, holding the floor, talking without yielding, speaking to the topic.

2. Reduce the number required for cloture to fifty-five.

3. Allow a Senator opposed to the filibuster to challenge the one doing it to a duel -- keep boxing gloves handy in case.

4. Keep track of how much the national debt is increasing during each filibuster, and make that information available to any challengers in the next election.

[JayHawk]

I agree with Seasoned... they should at least have to look as ridiculous as the filibuster process makes our system of governance look as the years go past and the partisan divide grows deeper... Social Security passed with something like 53 votes.... it is time to move forward....

The only caution is eventually republicans will own the senate again.... I have no doubt with power int heir eyes that party will change however it needs to just to remain relevant. So understanding that the other side can do as they wish and that the House is gerrymandered toward republican dominance for the next ten years then you have to wonder what it is setting the republicans up to railroad thru onto the american people....

[White Eagle]

I got an email from Senator Elizabeth Warren about this. I'm hoping she is strong enough to get enough sens to go along with it. At least the one stand and actually filibustering. We can see how she works.

[hotatlboi]

This is a nuclear method. It only requires 51 votes or 50 with the vice president as a tie breaker as president of the senate, to change parliamentary procedure.

The Dems have always had the option of doing this. The problem is that they have never gotten 50 Democratic Senators on board to make the change.

Actually I think the nuclear option is referencing something different, it was also referred to as the Constitutional option, and it applied to any bill, not solely a rule change, and it was something that both sides threatened to use at any time, not just the first day.

I think this change is referring to some rule provision that says only a majority vote is needed to change the rules on the first day of the session.

[maxpowr9]

C-SPAN marathons of literal windbags at the podium talking ad nauseum.

[BostonPirate]

Actually I think the nuclear option is referencing something different, it was also referred to as the Constitutional option, and it applied to any bill, not solely a rule change, and it was something that both sides threatened to use at any time, not just the first day.

I think this change is referring to some rule provision that says only a majority vote is needed to change the rules on the first day of the session.

From the article....

Currently, the reform is depending on the constitutional (also called the “nuclear”) option, in which Senate rules can be changed by a majority vote. The Democrats would need at least 51 votes to reform the filibuster but, as of this week, they had not yet achieved those numbers. Despite having majority in the Senate, the Democrat reforms don’t have the full support of their party, with some veteran members still skeptical of the changes.

It seems, however, that there could be Republicans on board with reform as well.

[Kulindahr]

^
Is one reason I say fifty-five votes; it wouldn't kill the filibuster, and thus more would IMO support it.

[BostonPirate]

If they change it to the number they currently have, it will not be a good precedence. IMO... That will set up every majority in the future to make its own number the number needed to close the discussion on a bill.

[Kulindahr]

If they change it to the number they currently have, it will not be a good precedence. IMO... That will set up every majority in the future to make its own number the number needed to close the discussion on a bill.

I thought they have 53.

[BostonPirate]

the indies are caucusing with them, and they probably will swing toward the GOP if they gain the Majority to get the Primo committee seats.

[Kulindahr]

So a 55 rue would actually give the power to the independents.

I like that.

[BostonPirate]

So a 55 rue would actually give the power to the independents.

I like that.

I like it too, but the GOP will use that number as a blocking point because its exactly the number of people they have. I could be wrong.

I wish I could find more articles on what they are proposing.

The Dem old timers are the ones that are blocking this, the article says.

[Kulindahr]

I like it too, but the GOP will use that number as a blocking point because its exactly the number of people they have. I could be wrong.

I wish I could find more articles on what they are proposing.

The Dem old timers are the ones that are blocking this, the article says.

That's something I don't get.

[JayHawk]

I get it... they have the depth of history to know the tide will roll the other way and Republicans will have the ability to pass whatever they please.... imagine if there were no filibuster during the republican Senate of the Bush years... can you privatized Social Security????

[Kulindahr]

Or perhaps they fear that Obama, who's plainly a Republican on business matters, especially small business*, will hand them a series of Republican bills they don't want?





*http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/15/the-gop-cant-fall-for-the-false-center-v-right-debate

[loki81]

I'd love to see something done.

if nothing else, we need an end to the anonymous filibustering (aka: "Secret Holds")

[JayHawk]

Or perhaps they fear that Obama, who's plainly a Republican on business matters, especially small business*, will hand them a series of Republican bills they don't want?





*http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/11/15/the-gop-cant-fall-for-the-false-center-v-right-debate

Yet another reason I voted for the moderate republican Democratic ticket.

[hotatlboi]

From the article....

Well, the article writer may be confused as well. I know previously when the nuclear option has come up, it has not applied solely to rule changes. For example the GOP threatened to use it on judicial nominees during the Bush years, which was where it got its name.

[BostonPirate]

Well, the article writer may be confused as well. I know previously when the nuclear option has come up, it has not applied solely to rule changes. For example the GOP threatened to use it on judicial nominees during the Bush years, which was where it got its name.

Well please explain it further for me. What is the difference between the two. I really do want to know this, because I think that the term "nuclear option" gets used in a few different ways, and I think you seem rather in touch with it's intent.

Explain to me how the nuclear option would work differently as a fix for the filibuster than the other constitutional option. I would like to understand if this is a nuanced difference in approach, a different technicality of the law, or if it's just a different phrase.

[hotatlboi]

The nuclear option is the whole only a majority is needed declaration. Bill Frist was the first to talk about it during the Bush years when he was majority leader. It was what led to the whole "gang of 14" resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

I found this research paper from CRS which seems to indicate that what is being talked about here is indeed the nuclear option, but a different version than the one which was threatened on other occasions (like with the gang of 14).

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/176

The general nuclear option has been threatened at various times during the session on different bills, but this one is founded on different logic apparently dealing only with how the Senate rules apply on the first day. As I'm not a lawyer or politician I don't really know which or if either version is correct or would be the correct interpretation of the rules. I think there is disagreement on that even by people more well informed on it.

[Kulindahr]

Just to spice the discussion, the Senate Majority leader can effectively kill a filibuster by refusing to allow any other legislation to come to the floor, thus in effect shutting down the house. It can be interpreted to mean that the filibustering party must actually continue to hold the floor and speak.

This comes from the fact that the Senate generally has two bills on the floor at once, one being actively debated and the other under consideration. The Majority Leader can schedule time for the bills as he sees fit, which usually means bills are taken in the order in which they came to the house. When a filibuster occurs, that bill takes up one slot, leaving it effectively inactive. By not scheduling time for any new bill, the majority leader can stop the Senate in its tracks until the filibusterers back down.

[MystikWizard]

Almost hate to say it ... but what's the point when you have a Republican controlled House? I can agree something has to be done about the filibuster as it has clearly been abused. And not even in it's state of abuse did the public fault the President for "failed policies" as the GOP wanted to hold the President responsible for their complete lack of cooperation in Congress.

But seeing how the country voted for President and the Senate, my larger concern is why the GOP house is retaining their seats in such numbers. I wouldn't be surprised to see numerous cases of ridiculous amounts of gerrymandering from Republican governors and state legislatures ... which is a whole new can of worms that needs to be addressed.

Same goes for the Dem gerrymandering, as well. They tried that here in MD and I voted against it, as one of our districts is a laughingstock and clearly designed to force the GOP to lose a seat.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The district map, however, wound up eventually passing in my state, though.

However even if the filibuster is addressed, nothing will change in the House if gerrymandering is the cause for why the GOP is holding onto their seats.

EDIT: Just noticed this after I posted:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...election-chart

If this isn't addressed, the Dems can kiss their chances at regaining the House goodbye ... as a result of GOP obstructionism in re-drawing the lines of districts within red states to favor the election of GOP representatives to the House.

[evanrick]

Republicans have abused the filibuster just so they can demonize Democrats legislation, what they cant do at the polls they will abuse our system to do.

[BostonPirate]

The House of Reps will still take two more years to clean up, and the dems will position themselves to have the house in 2020, when the next census occurs.

[Kulindahr]

EDIT: Just noticed this after I posted:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...election-chart

If this isn't addressed, the Dems can kiss their chances at regaining the House goodbye ... as a result of GOP obstructionism in re-drawing the lines of districts within red states to favor the election of GOP representatives to the House.

Drat -- from the title, I was hoping for maps of the worst-drawn one hundred districts.

Like this:




Or this:




Or this:




Ordinary people can look at these and see the stupidity. So why do politicians get away with it?

[BostonPirate]

Too many to list, and they are so fragmented from both parties tampering that I think the only thing we can do is grid it out on a map and start over. The process of redistricting is supposed to insure that racial minority neighborhoods are not always forced to go along with majority rule, and have representation.

But they took that and applied it to redistricting by voter registration party affilliation.

It is an unexpected consequence of trying to "fix" a democratic process whereby the majority always rules, to a system that gives minority neighborhoods the ability to band together and elect someone that they trust to represent their interests.

There are some voting districts that cross an entire state by litterally running along a highway and grabbing the "right" neighborhoods off the path of it.

Completely rigged for easy campaigning even. These guys are brazen, and like the filibuster, there's not much a congressman won't do to take advantage of a technicality while no one is looking.

[JockBoy87]

[evanrick]

If they change it to the number they currently have, it will not be a good precedence. IMO... That will set up every majority in the future to make its own number the number needed to close the discussion on a bill.

we have already had this precedence but in reverse, and republicans stripped it out of the congress.

its called the discharge petition, it required only third of house members to sign onto a bill to bring it for a majority vote.

imagine if the senate was allowed to vote on bills if even 2/3rds were 'filibustering', aka voting against cloture.

you would only need 33 votes to bring a bill to the floor, but it would still need 50 to pass.

but how would you stop a bill? vote against it so it doesn't reach 50 votes, require each senator to vote on each bill.

i think this kind of reform is what is needed, that used to exist in the house until republicans decided to disenfranchise the house by requiring half the congress to sign the discharge petition, then gerrymander it.

that would work in the house, but i think the senate majority leader can already call any bill up at any time.