General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Senate filibuster could end today using a rare timing.
For six years, Democrats in the Senate have chafed at an unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans, who have used the practice to hold up nominees high and low and require a supermajority for virtually every bill. But now that they finally have an opportunity to end much of this delay and abuse, Democrats are instead considering only a few half-measures.
When the Senate returns on Tuesday, it will still technically be in the first legislative day of the session, which means only a simple majority is necessary to change the rules for the rest of the session.
With the support of 51 senators, the rules could be changed to require a talking filibuster, forcing those objecting to a bill to stand and explain their reasons, at length. The current practice of routinely requiring a 60-vote majority for a bill through a silent objection would end, breaking the logjam that has made the chamber a well of inefficiency and frustration.
Several younger senators, led by Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico, say that if pressed, a majority of the Senate would support their plan for the talking filibuster. But older senators arent so sure, and have reportedly persuaded Harry Reid, the majority leader, to back off the idea. With the experience of having been in the minority themselves, these Democrats are fearful of losing a powerful tool should Republicans ever return to power in the chamber.
That would squander a moment for change. Supermajorities were never intended to be a routine legislative barrier; they should be reserved for the most momentous bills, and the best way to make that happen is to require that objectors work hard for their filibuster, assembling a like-minded coalition and being forthright about their concerns rather than hiding in the shadows or holding up a bill with an e-mailed note.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/a-chance-for-the-senate-to-fix-the-filibuster.html?smid=re-share
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)Use the momentum and undo the GOP crap we've lived with for the last decade.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)today is the day
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)I know you can do it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... of what the R's will do should they get back in power, they are incredibly naive.
The R's aren't going to play nice, no matter what the D's do now. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
if the next go around, the Rs get a 51 to 49 majority, is there any doubt that at 12:01 am, Mitch McConnell won't have them taking this vote?
cartach
(511 posts)If they don't on this one important move you can expect them to back down on future ones and their credibility will go down the drain.
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)Given the current Republican mindset, if they gain the majority they'll make this rule change anyway, regardless of whether or not we make it now.
By not making the change now, we'll handicap ourselves while leaving them open to make the change should they gain power, and being handicapped now makes it more likely that they will gain power.
klook
(12,155 posts)Why the hell can't they see this? Maybe a few hundred thousand more phone calls this morning will change their minds.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)and squander this opportunity ?
JCMach1
(27,558 posts)don't think for a second the Republicans wouldn't change it if the shoe were on the other foot.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)He's bound by the votes he can count.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)from your own party it calls into question your leadership ability.
riqster
(13,986 posts)In the current paradigm, it points more to the electorate's choices of right-leaning Senators.
Pryderi
(6,772 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"We tried, but those mean Republicans still couldn't be stopped..."
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)Nothing can stop them!
n2doc
(47,953 posts)too many times, too many times. do or shut up, Reid.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I am also fearful of a full removal of the filibuster. As the article noted, we may need it again some day.
A change to "Talking filibuster" only, sounds like a great idea. That would limit its use but leave it as a last ditch option.
DryRain
(237 posts)Indeed the current proposal is to restore it to what it used to be, more or less.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There is little support for getting rid of the option entirely.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)"No filibuster" has been discussed at length over the last few months, but that option will not be brought up for a vote. In my opinion, that is a good thing.
The so called "talking filibuster," on the other hand, is hardly radical, it is actually the only means of filibuster the Senate recognized for most of our history.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The Merkley proposal apparently surported by 48 senators returns the talking filibuster.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:25 PM - Edit history (2)
I do not recall which individual Senators wanted a complete repeal, though I have read articles which noted the possibility was lately being kicked around by members of the Democratic majority in the Senate. Luckily, more moderate heads prevailed.
Sorry, but I do not have a link.
"You can look it up."
woodsprite
(11,914 posts)DryRain
(237 posts)If I am not mistaken, and even Reid has spoken in favor of getting rid of that.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)Obama's gonna look like a chump if Reid lets that happen. They already said we're gonna abuse it again. Having the filibuster in the Senate is like giving your junkie brother who's crashing on your couch the rent money and asking him to please drop it all off at the landlord's this month.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Republican wisdom decrees that when one is losing popularity due to one's obstructionism, the way to turn things around is to find more ways one can be yet more obstructionist.
We'll see how that works out for them.
Inuca
(8,945 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)House and Senate rules are so convoluted and twisted.
It needs to be a streamlined process.
Introduce. Debate. Vote.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)A cowardly way to avoid talking about something, or a rarely used weapon of last resort.
Cowardly bastards won't even discuss bills they used to support.
Their obstruction must be punished by removing the silver bullet from their gun.
The bullet of course is the fillibuster.
Now GET TO WORK!
ReRe
(10,597 posts)He did not seem well yesterday. I was afraid he wasn't going to make it on the walk out to the balcony yesterday at the Inauguration. He didn't smile once. He didn't even finish a toast to PO at the luncheon. He looked like he would rather be anywhere but there.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)They've only THREATENED to filibuster.
If they want to filibuster, make them stand up and read the phone book every time.
I don't think anything in the rules needs to really change.
Just make them STAND THE FUCK UP AND ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER!
More ridiculousness...
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)is with the way it is now they can avoid passing progressive legislation that will anger their corporate sponsors and blame it on the Republican Party. This is all a game put on for voters who know they have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)a2liberal
(1,524 posts)No desire to lose the convenient "the mean Republicans made us do it" excuse for serving corporate masters...
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)him drop the ball today in his usual scripted fashion, as hilarity ensues, the republicans will pull his pants down, a blue dog will "accidentally" trip him up further, and all will laugh as Meadowlark Turtle scores an impressive three pointer.
Sometimes the show is better than the three stooges.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)bonniebgood
(943 posts)"when we are in the minority again we will need the filibuster". Which is to say, even though the repug
are in the dessert, we will still lose next time.
They had the damn filibuster during eight years of bush and how many times did they use it?
To my memory ONE. Weak ass, paid off asses democrats cant even
email a filibuster. Scared of Rush and fox noise.
I will believe it when i see it.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)And the GOP will go for their throats.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)I'm the skeptical cynic.
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)Yes, I would fear the fillybuster would be unavailable when
Democrats are in the minority. Not that they have the guts to
use it.
But silent filibustering is not working. Even if they required at least
3 Senators of the other side to present their case for 2 hours each
it would be an improvement.
I'm also concerned about all the riders to bills, these secret corporate
benefits that are slipped in at the last moments. Pandering to the cash
campaign contributions.