Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:09 AM Jan 2013

The 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 aren’t 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

44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Senate filibuster could end today using a rare timing. (Original Post) Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 OP
Let's Get 'Er Done realFedUp Jan 2013 #1
Harry Reid needs to take the ball and run Ichingcarpenter Jan 2013 #3
Give 'em hell Harry! realFedUp Jan 2013 #7
If they fail to fix the filibuster because some Dems are afraid ... Scuba Jan 2013 #2
Right Cosmocat Jan 2013 #13
It's up to the Dems to set the tone now for the future. cartach Jan 2013 #31
I predict business as usual RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #4
Regarding the concerns about what happens should the Republicans gain a majority. drm604 Jan 2013 #5
Excellent point. klook Jan 2013 #12
"Democrats are instead considering only a few half-measures." - Is Reid going to repeat his error PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #6
Seems like he might... for no good reason... JCMach1 Jan 2013 #8
it's just a handful of Democrats preventing this; the leader not among them bigtree Jan 2013 #9
Like the case of Boehner in the House if you can't get sufficient votes for a bill you support PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #16
Not really riqster Jan 2013 #21
Do we know who they are? n/t Pryderi Jan 2013 #28
There will be a rules change that will do little MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #10
They are just too good!! RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #11
I'll believe it when it happens n2doc Jan 2013 #14
I am also fearful . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #15
But there's NO PROPOSAL to fully remove it. DryRain Jan 2013 #18
Quite right. another_liberal Jan 2013 #30
'No filibuster' isn't being discussed. The most radical proposal is to return to the talking one. nt PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #20
Hardly radical . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #29
Which senators are pushing no filibuster ? PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #33
Which Senators . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #36
They also need to stop anonymous holds. n/t woodsprite Jan 2013 #17
I think that's a part of the current proposal. DryRain Jan 2013 #19
They've already announced they'll filibuster the SecDef nomination. Bucky Jan 2013 #22
Republican wisdom . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #32
No, I don't think they announced that n/t Inuca Jan 2013 #34
I will be on the horn when phone lines open this morning. This MUST get done. nt silvershadow Jan 2013 #23
I will lose all respect for Sen. Reid if he doesn't take this opportunity. Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #24
The Filibuster SCVDem Jan 2013 #25
What's up with Harry Reid, anyway? ReRe Jan 2013 #26
But the Republicans have NOT ONCE USED THE FILIBUSTER!!! RevStPatrick Jan 2013 #27
The real reason Democrats don't want this UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #35
+10 Cleita Jan 2013 #39
+1000 a2liberal Jan 2013 #41
Agreed, this is Reid doing his Washington Generals act, now watch Dragonfli Jan 2013 #43
Bingo. nt awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #44
I get so damn tired of hearing the defeatist attitude by democrats bonniebgood Jan 2013 #37
If they don't change it, it will signal tha the Dems are still timid and weak. Kablooie Jan 2013 #38
Let's see if they actually deliver. Javaman Jan 2013 #40
Incremental change is best bucolic_frolic Jan 2013 #42
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
2. If they fail to fix the filibuster because some Dems are afraid ...
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:15 AM
Jan 2013

... 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.

Cosmocat

(14,564 posts)
13. Right
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:10 AM
Jan 2013

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)
31. It's up to the Dems to set the tone now for the future.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:23 AM
Jan 2013

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.

drm604

(16,230 posts)
5. Regarding the concerns about what happens should the Republicans gain a majority.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:18 AM
Jan 2013

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)
12. Excellent point.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:09 AM
Jan 2013

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)
6. "Democrats are instead considering only a few half-measures." - Is Reid going to repeat his error
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:18 AM
Jan 2013

and squander this opportunity ?

JCMach1

(27,558 posts)
8. Seems like he might... for no good reason...
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:24 AM
Jan 2013

don't think for a second the Republicans wouldn't change it if the shoe were on the other foot.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
9. it's just a handful of Democrats preventing this; the leader not among them
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:24 AM
Jan 2013

He's bound by the votes he can count.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
16. Like the case of Boehner in the House if you can't get sufficient votes for a bill you support
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:23 AM
Jan 2013

from your own party it calls into question your leadership ability.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
21. Not really
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:30 AM
Jan 2013

In the current paradigm, it points more to the electorate's choices of right-leaning Senators.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
10. There will be a rules change that will do little
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:56 AM
Jan 2013

"We tried, but those mean Republicans still couldn't be stopped..."

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
15. I am also fearful . . .
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:18 AM
Jan 2013

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)
18. But there's NO PROPOSAL to fully remove it.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:24 AM
Jan 2013

Indeed the current proposal is to restore it to what it used to be, more or less.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
29. Hardly radical . . .
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:17 AM
Jan 2013

"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)
33. Which senators are pushing no filibuster ?
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:25 AM
Jan 2013

The Merkley proposal apparently surported by 48 senators returns the talking filibuster.

 

another_liberal

(8,821 posts)
36. Which Senators . . .
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:30 AM
Jan 2013

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."

 

DryRain

(237 posts)
19. I think that's a part of the current proposal.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:25 AM
Jan 2013

If I am not mistaken, and even Reid has spoken in favor of getting rid of that.

Bucky

(54,013 posts)
22. They've already announced they'll filibuster the SecDef nomination.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:32 AM
Jan 2013

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)
32. Republican wisdom . . .
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:24 AM
Jan 2013

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.

 

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)
24. I will lose all respect for Sen. Reid if he doesn't take this opportunity.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:46 AM
Jan 2013

House and Senate rules are so convoluted and twisted.

It needs to be a streamlined process.

Introduce. Debate. Vote.

 

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)
25. The Filibuster
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:47 AM
Jan 2013

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)
26. What's up with Harry Reid, anyway?
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:48 AM
Jan 2013

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)
27. But the Republicans have NOT ONCE USED THE FILIBUSTER!!!
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:54 AM
Jan 2013

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)
35. The real reason Democrats don't want this
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:28 AM
Jan 2013

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.

a2liberal

(1,524 posts)
41. +1000
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:58 AM
Jan 2013

No desire to lose the convenient "the mean Republicans made us do it" excuse for serving corporate masters...

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
43. Agreed, this is Reid doing his Washington Generals act, now watch
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:45 AM
Jan 2013

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.

bonniebgood

(943 posts)
37. I get so damn tired of hearing the defeatist attitude by democrats
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:33 AM
Jan 2013

"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)
38. If they don't change it, it will signal tha the Dems are still timid and weak.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:42 AM
Jan 2013

And the GOP will go for their throats.

bucolic_frolic

(43,161 posts)
42. Incremental change is best
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:09 AM
Jan 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Senate filibuster cou...