Reid Not Ruling Out Further Senate Rules Changes

[bigtree]

TPM: Reid Not Ruling Out Further Senate Rules Change Through Regular Order

After the Senate voted on a broad bipartisan basis Thursday night to make modest rules changes to streamline Senate business, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he reserves the right to make further rules changes through regular order.

“If these reforms do not do enough to end the gridlock here in Washington, we will consider doing more in the future,” Reid said in a statement . . .

“Finally,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) asked, “I would confirm with the Majority Leader that the Senate would not consider other resolutions in relation to any standing order or rules this Congress unless they went through the regular order process?”

Reid responded: “That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process including consideration by the Rules Committee.”


read: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/reid-promises-no-rules-changes-without-gop-consent.php?ref=fpb …

[Lasher]

1. I'm not ruling out pigs flying by my window.

But I'm pretty sure I won't see any during the next two years.

[bigtree]

2. that's a pretty sure bet

. . . but it MAY be a limiting factor on republicans to have this out there. He'll never give up the supermajority rule tho . . . too many last stands (abortion, SS) with republican presidents in memory for institution Democrats to risk losing the ONLY leverage they had during those dark days.

[Lasher]

5. The regular order process = subject to filibuster.

Game over. Until Yertle becomes Senate Majority leader 2 years from now. He won't be so timid about it.

[bigtree]

8. well then, revisit it in another two years.

It was a dicey proposition anyway to remove the 60 vote threshold, as folks wanted. I'm not sure the party is unified enough or capable enough to manage that when the tables eventually turn (or maybe some think the balance of power in the WH and Congress won't revert one day to a republican rule).

[Bandit]

3. Doesn't matter what he says now, his credibility is gone...

Pffff listen to the wind blow...

[woo me with science]

4. Yeah, yeah, we know. They'll fix it later.

Because heaven knows there is no reason to do it right now. As always, the people will be gloriously represented at some time in the future.



This corporate kabuki is insulting as hell.

Welcome to corporate term #2, as confidently predicted by anyone with a scintilla of honesty who has been paying any attention whatsoever to our corporate Democratic "representation." What a tired, cynical, sickening game this is.

So now we are mysteriously falling short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

[bigtree]

6. meh. I'm not anxious to chuck the 60-vote threshold

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I damn well sat right here and watched our own party use it to defend against some of the worst initiatives and bills that were just one step away from a republican WH.

We'll see what effect these 'compromise' changes have on republicans' abuse of the rule.

[pscot]

9. Just as it ever was

My WTF moment came 30 years ago, as I watched an overwhelmingly Democratic House vote to fund the Contras. The difference now is that we're in a much riskier environment, and a lot closer to an authoritarian takeover.