Harry Reid: The Filibuster Is Suffocating the Will of the American People. Democrats Must Abolish It

[dalton99a]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/opinion/harry-reid-filibuster.html

Harry Reid: The Filibuster Is Suffocating the Will of the American People
To save our country’s future, Democrats must abolish this arcane Senate rule.
By Harry Reid
Mr. Reid is a former Senate majority leader from Nevada.
Aug. 12, 2019

...

Republicans over the past decade — knowing their policies are unpopular and that obstruction benefits them politically — perfected and increased the gratuitous use of the filibuster. Even routine Senate business is now subject to the filibuster and Republicans’ seeming obsession with gridlock and obstruction.

Something must change. That is why I am now calling on the Senate to abolish the filibuster in all its forms. And I am calling on candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president to do the same.

If a Democratic president wants to tackle the most important issues facing our country, then he or she must have the ability to do so — and that means curtailing Republicans’ ability to stifle the will of the American people. It’s time to allow a simple majority vote instead of the 60-vote threshold now required for legislation. When the American people demand change and elect a new Senate, a new majority leader must be able to respond to that call and pass legislation.

People ask how it is possible that America is failing to lead on climate change, even as we rapidly approach a catastrophic transformation of our planet that will wreak irreversible havoc on millions of Americans. The answer: the filibuster.

People ask how America — a country that used to set the example for the world on human rights — could tear families apart at the border and put children in cells so overcrowded they cannot lie down. They ask how our country can allow those children to be lost in a labyrinthine system, possibly never reunited with family again. The answer remains the same: the filibuster.

People ask why the federal government hasn’t lifted a finger to stop the growing epidemic of gun violence, despite Americans’ demands for action and overwhelming support for common-sense reforms like universal background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines. They ask how we can stand by as the country suffers tragedy after tragedy and averages more than one mass shooting every single day. The answer once again: the filibuster.

If not for abuse of the filibuster, we would have passed major legislation addressing some of our country’s most pressing issues under President Obama: Millions of undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children would have a pathway to citizenship through the Dream Act; millions of Americans would have a government-run public option as part of health care reform; and the American Jobs Act and the “Buffet Rule” requiring the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes would be law, further strengthening the economy and helping to address the issue of income inequality.

...

[SunSeeker]

1. In hindsight, should have gotten rid of the filibuster in 2009. nt

[MurrayDelph]

8. I remember when my Senator Merkley

tried to reform the filibuster, and his efforts were slapped down by the then-current Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, who preferred to take the word of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that he would only use it sparingly.

I didn't see an apology or acknowledgement of his mistake in his editorial.

https://m.

[RDANGELO]

2. agree

The people can't find out what will work or not work because it is never passed in the first place. This is part of the reason that other countries are so far ahead of us in health care.

The filibuster is not in the constitution; it is not a law; all it is, is a Senate rule that can be overridden by the majority.

[philf99]

3. It would be a big mistake

The senate and the electoral college are all ready rigged in favor of the small states that will vote republican no matter what.

You put a small majority republican senate and a republican president and our democracy as we know it could be dead in two years.

There is a huge downside to this idea. Be careful what you wish for.

[philf99]

4. In the United States Senate

Wyoming has the same representation as California

[standingtall]

11. Make the U.S. Virgin Islands a State

and it would have the same representation as Wyoming. We could do these things once we have the Presidency,Senate and the house. As long as we have the will and solidarity to carry it out. If the U.S. territories were states they would overwhelming vote Democratic and would be a great counter balance to the electoral college.

[DVRacer]

5. Oh yeah how is that working out?

This is playing with fire and I thought we got burned enough already. He did that with judicial nominations and see what that has brought us.

[philf99]

6. Exactly

[UniteFightBack]

7. Elizabeth Warren says the same thing. How is this going to work out when pukes are in charge? NO!nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. +1

I agree. Too risky. Whatever helps us in the majority will hurt us in the minority and the Republicans aren't going to be completely wiped out in the near future and even if they were, something else would replace them. That being said, I think that we can figure out some reasonable way to reform it that doesn't involve completely abolishing it. I think that it has to be harder to use (think having to actually DO something as part of the filibuster) and there has to be some way to eventually overcome it- so that it can be used to grind things to a halt for at least some time but not so powerful that it won't completely destroy the ability of the majority to pass something. I'm not sure how the mechanics of this would work but that's what I think that we should be aiming for IMHO.

[jimmy the one]

9. filibusteristic compromise, 56 - 44

ex sen maj leader harry reid: It’s time to allow a simple majority vote instead of the 60-vote threshold now required for legislation.

Why the drop from 60% to 51% simple majority - isn't compromise a viable alternative?

The supreme court has a majority decision/opinion when it is 5 - 4, which is, percentage wise, 55.55% to 44.44%.
Rounding up for US senate purposes, would be 56% vs 44% for a 'supreme court majority' in the senate.
In other words, rather than 41 senators needed as now to block passage of a bill, and/or 60 senators to pass the very bill, the rules would change so that 45 senators would be needed to block, and 56 senators needed to pass.
This would increase by 4 the number of senators needed to block, increasing value of fence sitting moderate senators, while decreasing by 4 the high 60 senator threshold to pass, down to 56.
It's a compromise, 'filibusteristic' in nature, which retains a modicum of what was written in constitution, while altering it for our politically divisive times.
It would enable the filibuster to remain something for a minority to battle with rather than be reduced to insignificance in a strongly held opposing senate, and concurrently truncate a minority being elevated to 41 tail hairs wagging the dog.

Even reducing the filibuster threshold to 52 - 48 would retain a smaller modicum (??!) of the filibuster.

[standingtall]

10. If we eliminate the filibuster we need to go for broke

passing progressive policies would be great, but we will need to make procedural moves to protect those policies and that means adding states and expanding the supreme court.

[roamer65]

12. I agree 100 pct.

It’s not in the Constitution.

[dansolo]

14. Wasn't Harry Reid the one who neutered the filibuster?

Didn't he make the change so that you didn't have to actually filibuster. That opened the door to the Republican obstruction. If they want to filibuster, make them have to stand up and do it.

One change I would prefer is a 60 vote threshold for all lifetime appointments. Supreme Court justices who couldn't get sixty votes shouldn't be on the bench.