Harry Reid Nuking Filibuster Rules

[trailmonkee]

Source: Fox News

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he plans to "change" the filibuster rules because they have been "abused" in the Senate.

REPORTER: Do you have any plans to change the filibuster?

HARRY REID: Yes, I do. I've said so publicly and I continue to feel that way. I think that the rules have been abused and 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.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/harry-reid/2012/11/07/harry-reid-nuking-filibuster-rules

---

linked to fox because they had the video link.... however, if you don't want to visit the fox site.... here is a link to a politico article (lesser of two evils ) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83514.html

MODS, this is from today.... I posted another story last night that led up to this, but this statement from Reid today is 'new' news - thank you

[BellaKos]

1. More good news. n/t

[LibGranny]

2. Reid adheres to that "speak softly but carry a big stick" policy!

Love it!

[MannyGoldstein]

3. This time it will really, really happen

No really. Seriously.

[BlueStreak]

28. This is the first time I recall Reid actually supporting the idea

He let Udall and others run with it before, but I don't recall Harry actually taking a position. This statement seems really clear cut. Obviously the details are important. IMHO, there are three simple changes that will make a big difference.

1) Eliminate all one-Senator holds, secret or otherwise

2) Make filibusters be real. The Senate shuts down and you actually have to hold the floor before the cameras to sustain your filibuster. If you have a good argument, the public will press the other side to compromise. If you have a weal argument, your filibuster will quickly wither under the public ridicule.

3) Make cloture a number smaller than 60. Something like 55-57 would be OK

Of all these, #2 is the one that would make the big difference, IMHO.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. 2010: Reid promises filibuster reform

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/reid_promises_filibuster_refor.html

I believe that he had the chance in 2011. I also suspect that Reid wants to make these changes, but his boss doesn't want it.

[railsback]

59. No, he needs to make sure there are enough votes

Obviously now he believes he has them.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. 2010: "And we're going to make some changes in it.”

He committed to change, but there were no changes.

He's again committing to changes. We all hope that they happen this time, but my point is that there have been previous commitments that haven't been honored, so we shouldn't assume it's a done deal.

[ieoeja]

45. 4) Require 2/5th opposition to closure.

Republicans would not have had enough votes to filibuster until Scott Brown was sworn in. They would have needed Lieberman or a Blue Dog Democrat to filibuster under the 2/5 Nay rule.

But the current rule is 3/5th Yay which Democrats and Independants never had under Obama. Yes, officially they had 60 for 49 days in 2009. However, one of those was on his death bed and last voted in the Senate months prior to that.

[BlueStreak]

48. I don't see how that would work.

You're saying that you could cut off a filibuster with 40 votes, but the bill itself would take 50 votes to pass? There would be no point in a filibuster rule at all in that case.

The point of the filibuster is to deliberately slow things down so that emotions don't get carried away, passing really bad legislation. it serves a useful purpose.

Simply taking it back to the rule that you actually have to debate continuously to sustain the filibuster would fix about 95% of the problem, I think. Each filibuster would become its own shiny object that the media couldn't help but cover. If the public agrees with the party doing the filibuster, they can force a compromise, and that is as it should be. if the public doesn't agree with the party filibustering, then they pay a real price by having to argue their unpopular position in front of the cameras.

Today with the virtual filibuster, there is absolutely no price to pay if a party filibusters for no good reason. That has to change.

[ieoeja]

53. You understood me backwards. Not 40 to cut off a filibuster. 40 to maintain a filibuster.

Vote to closure, e.g. end filibuster:

59 Yay
1 Nay

Under current filibuster rules closure fails and the filibuster continues. Under the 4th option I suggest the filibuster would end as there were not 40 votes to continue it.

That is actually more difficult than an actual filibuster. Heck, the Mr Smith filibuster was a filibuster by just one Senator! Even when Republics had 40 Senators, if just one of them leaves the room, Democrats can call for closure and get it. You don't need somebody talking, but you do have to keep enough bodies in the vicinity.

Not saying it is a better idea. Just adding one to your list.

[BlueStreak]

58. That's what we have today -- 60 votes required to cut off debate

That's the same as saying 41 to continue the filibuster.

[jeff47]

78. Not at all.

Because they don't need 41 to continue today. They need zero. A 59-0 vote to end debate means the filibuster continues.

Here's how it works today: The majority puts in a motion to end the debate. 1 - yes ONE senator objects. The majority now must gather 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. And if a senator is out sick, or otherwise not available, that hurts the majority's attempt to end the filibuster.

There are no votes to maintain the filibuster. There are only votes to break it.

Most of the proposals involve reversing that. So that there must be 41 votes to continue the filibuster, and you need zero votes to end it - make it require those filibustering to keep it going, instead of up to the majority to stop them.

[BlueStreak]

83. You are making a distinction without a difference

60 to invoke cloture is exactly the same thing as 41 to not have cloture. It doesn't matter which side has to cast the vote. It works out exactly the same.

[jeff47]

89. No, you are not paying attention to the subtle difference.

Currently, to break a filibuster 60 senators have to stay on Capitol Hill to vote to break it. The people filibustering can go home, campaign, fundraise and generally go about their lives. And if Senator Byrd is dying and thus not available, that makes it easier to maintain the filibuster - there's one less vote to break it. If the vote is 59-0 the filibuster continues, even though 0 senators voted to keep it going. And if that vote is at 3am, the 59 senators had to get to the chamber and vote to end the filibuster.

The proposals are to flip that around - At any time, one senator could call to end debate and 41 Senators have to vote to keep it going. That means the filibustering senators have to stay on Capitol Hill. The senators trying to break the filibuster can go home, campaign, fundraise and generally go about their life. If one of the filibustering senators goes home, the filibuster ends. If one of them is hospitalized, the filibuster ends. If the vote is 0-40, the filibuster ends even though 0 senators voted to end it. And if that vote is at 3am, the 40 senators had to get to the chamber and vote to keep the filibuster going. So you call votes at 3am, 3:01, 3:05, 3:08, 3:12 and so on.

Short version: Currently the 60 have to work hard to end a filibuster and the 40 have it very easy. Post reform: 40 have to work hard to maintain a filibuster and the 60 have it very easy.

[BlueStreak]

90. So how would that work?

Let's say I want to stop the filibuster. Can I demand a vote at any time? How long does the opposition have to gather their forces to cast their 40 votes? And if they get the 40 votes, can I call for another vote as soon as I see one of them go to the bathroom? Can I call for a vote at 2AM? Can I call for a vote in the middle of a hurricane?

[DURHAM D]

4. .

[barnabas63]

5. But the House will still be intransigent. Is there anything that can be done about that??

[sally5050]

8. Senate Holds the Purse Strings...

Harry Reid... please grow a backbone..

why not nuke the filibuster? it's gone in the house.. what real value does it serve?

[caseymoz]

24. House never had a fillibuster.

The Senate was set up to be a completely type of deliberative body. Sort of like a club.

[Dragonfli]

30. Incorrect

But very few know common history these days, the knowledge of the past has suffered from the societal ADD that has allowed the nation to forget most things before last year.

You can look it up however, before correcting someone.
Hint- 1842

[caseymoz]

68. However, I was told this by a source I implicitly trust . . .

Dad.

My apology. It seems I fell for it . . . again. I always do, or rather already have. I don't know when another "everybody knows" factoid is going to rear its head and embarrass me.

I can't sit down and identify all the things I have always faithfully believed with him, or my siblings, as the ultimate sources-- if I thought about it-- until it happens that I'm called out. I should just fact check every single goddam thing he ever told me, but if I could only think of them.

No wonder he's conservative. Sorry.

[Dragonfli]

91. We are a culture ridden with faux-axioms; influenced by a non-objective profit driven media.

Your father was likely honest but misinformed, you trust him because he is an honest man. I only knew it was incorrect because I had need to look up some congressional history recently and happened to remember that factoid. Also, even history can mislead by omission, were it not for Howard Zinn I would be completely ignorant of many of the labor struggles within our own fairly recent history.

Trust your fathers common sense while checking for yourself what the facts are as best you can.
Nothing is in itself an ultimate source. Multiple sources are best

[NYC Liberal]

34. The House did have a filibuster until the mid-19th century.

[caseymoz]

69. As I've now been corrected.

Sorry. See the "source I implicitly trust" post. I'm not in the habit of just making them up. Unfortunately, I've been in the habit of absorbing "facts" somebody else is making up. As far as I know, family is the only one that does this to me (that's to say, my siblings, too) and who will have whole conversations around imaginary facts as though they're true.

[gkhouston]

85. So, if the House hasn't had a filibuster in over a century, does the Senate need one? n/t

[NYC Liberal]

88. Nope. Not IMO. Nuke it.

I've been saying it for years.

[RobinA]

31. Why Not Nuke It?

We could need it some day. I'm conflicted on this. It's easy to hate it now. A bunch of years ago it wasn't so horrible-seeming.

[Wait Wut]

44. Yep.

I think Harry's got it right. Reform it, make it tougher, and force them to follow the rules.

[ancianita]

66. Each new session can totally re-instate any rules that previous sessions "nuked."

On the very first day only. If the filibuster is gone, that doesn't mean it's gone forever. I'm for totally ending it on the first day of the 113th Congressional session. If there is a simple majority, it could be reinstated in the 114th Congressional session in two years.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. Nope, that would be the House. nt

[Codeine]

75. The House holds those, actually.

Article 1, Section 8 (I think. Been a while since high school civics.)

[FailureToCommunicate]

10. Pass these around in the first session...

and suggest they all wake up as progressives?

[AllyCat]

84. We need bulk pricing.

[xxqqqzme]

14. It could get worse.

Boner could be dumped and replaced w/ cantor. Then in '14 the house goes Democratic cuz the people are fed up.

[caseymoz]

22. The Senate is key to appointments.

They have been holding up so many of the President's appointments. The government will be much better if Obama were allowed to staff the agencies he's running.

About the House, it's intransigence is going crack because a lot of hardline conservatives either got their asses kicked this election, or made it by the skin of their teeth even in heavily gerrymandered districts.

[Cosmocat]

61. I wish

the house could crack, but this election simply did not do enough damage.

I was HOPING it would turn over mid teen seats, that would have cut the margin to 20 or so, enough to let them know the were not golden.

We are only going to see a half dozen or so flip, and they will have a 40 seat edge.

I think in their crazed minds that makes them thing they are kings, and you already are hearing the consolodated talking point that even though this president won reelection and they ds picked up seats in both the senate and house, and hold the senate, the election actually is saying he has to do whatever the House wants because it was not taken.

THEY convince themselves of whatever they are spewing, and they believe this.

They are going to be absolute jack asses to deal with, and odds are MUCH better that they find a way to bring up charges for impeachment than actually make any meaningful compromises.

[caseymoz]

70. We'll see.

If they dig in their heels while we run over this "fiscal cliff," they're going to hasten GOP's demise quite a bit. At least some members must know this. And they no longer have or are confident in the goal that they can unseat Obama. Without that, they might calculate that further fighting isn't worth it.

There's a lot of indication that the GOP will become demoralized and incohesive.

[Ashened]

94. can't Obama make recess appointments?

I think I heard somewhere that if an executive position isn't filled that would normally have to be approved by Congress, the president can appoint someone during a Congressional recess if the position has not been filled.

Or am I way off base here?

[caseymoz]

99. Recess appointments are constitutionally limited.

The Constitutional stipulation is that they can only be made for vacancies that occur during recess of the Senate, and that they expire at the end of the Senate term.

Article II, section 2

"The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

[dflprincess]

92. The obstruction by Republicans in the Senate was not always clear to people who don't pay close

attention.

Doing away with the filibuster will make it clear that the Republicans in the House are the biggest reason nothing gets done. Maybe it will help the Democrats take back the House in 2014.

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

6. Now can we confirm Goodwin Liu to Supreme Court or at least the 9th circuit?

If we nuke the filibuster then majority will rule. GOODWIN LIU FOR Supreme Court. USE YOUR MANDATE, OBAMA.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. And when the Republicans gain control of the Senate

and they will, some day...
Would you want the majority to rule then??

It was bad enough when the Senate was controlled by the Republicans back in the Reagan days. I would never want to see a repeat performance of that.

[caveat_imperator]

43. If these rethugs do ever win the Senate

the very first thing they'll do is get rid of the filibuster.

[IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ]

47. BINGO

So we might as well be the first to do it. Demographics are on our side. If we firm up our bases (Latino-Americans, African-Americans, white women, Asian-Americans, etc), we will solidify our lock on the White House for quite some time.

Goodwin Liu would be the first ever Asian-American justice.

[JanT]

7. glad to here it spoken out loud

then the voting process needs to be fixed as well. so glad to wake up with Obama at the helm again.

[Posteritatis]

9. Can't the Republicans just, well, filibuster this? (nt)

[Blue Idaho]

12. No...

A change of the Senate operating rules only requires a simple majority - 51 votes.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

18. +1 nt

[Posteritatis]

20. Ah! Okay.

I'd thought that everything had to be 60 or 2/3s or whatever it was these days.

[BlueStreak]

29. But can only be done that way at the START of a new Senate term -- i.e. this January.

[Blue Idaho]

73. Thank you - I forgot to add that part. nt.

[kurt_cagle]

26. Possibly

Procedural rules are not legislation, and the filibuster is a procedural rule. From Wikipedia:

The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which in recent years has meant that most major legislation (apart from budgets and confirmations) requires a 60% majority to head off a filibuster. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.[42] Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate."[43]
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[44] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[44] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.[45]

Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, can put a vote for filibuster on the agenda on the 1st day of the session, requiring only a 50% vote. Most likely he will not elect to remove it, but instead will recommend returning it back to its original requirement - in order to call a filibuster, a senator or group of senators must remain on the floor while the Senate is in session and defend it by talking until either the Session is adjourned or a motion is made to table the motion by the speaking Senator, or a cloture vote of 2/3 of the Senate (sixty seven senators) becomes necessary to pass legislation. This provides an endurance test requirement of sorts - if you are passionate enough to try to defend it for potentially days, then it is worth tabling the motion for consideration at some later point. Otherwise (and as it stands now) this becomes simply a way for the minority party to force up the threshold of votes required for any legislation to 67, giving it effectively a veto.

I'd defend the old filibuster rule - sometimes you need an ethical safeguard - but as it stands now the current filibuster is an abuse of power and is simply a mechanism for obstructing all legislation.

[global1]

11. What Does He Mean By - "We're Not Going To Do Away With The Filibuster But We're Going To Make....

the Senate a more meaningful place"?

That sounds like weasel words to me. Why wouldn't you want to do away with the filibuster? Why even give the Repugs an inch of space to abuse it?

[cosmicone]

15. He will change the rule so

only 55 Senators can kill a filibuster instead of 60.

[global1]

32. Why Not A Simple Majority Of 51?.....

Why even give them and inch? Is he worried that he can't keep some of the Dems in line to vote? If you're going to do it - you might as well do it all the way.

[cosmicone]

64. Without a filibuster, Bork would have been on SCOTUS. n/t

[Cleita]

51. I don't know why he is so fond of the filibuster but he is. He has said so.

However, why not do it like they did back in the forties ala Mr. Smith goes to Washington? That cooled the heels of many a would be obstructionist when they realized they might have to stand there reading cookbooks for hours on end. It was also entertaining to watch from the sidelines.

[K8-EEE]

17. Remember when the Repukes were in charge they whined about any filibuster

UPPER DOWN UPPER DOWN VOTE!

There is a place for the filibuster but they are abusing it.

[Posteritatis]

21. I'd be fine with them if they actually had to stand up and speak in order to do one. (nt)

[99th_Monkey]

25. Or make filibuster like it was in Mr. Smith goes to Washington

Where they needed to stand there and give read the phone book, or recite poems,
or some such for 24/7 LITERALLY, in order to maintain a filibuster. In other words,
it'd damn inconvenient and takes some real commitment and effort.

"The right to talk you head off"

...as opposed to just picking up the phone and telling Harry.

[NYC Liberal]

35. Yes, not only is it inconvenient -- it's also highly VISIBLE.

People can see the obstruction when someone has to stand and talk for hours, as opposed to simply making some parliamentary motions.

[99th_Monkey]

52. Great point! yes. that too. nt

[pam4water]

42. Yeah a real filibuster would be great!

[Blue Idaho]

13. If you want this to happen - contact Harry Reid ASAP!

We the People need to weigh in on this - to give Harry cover.

[Mr. Sparkle]

16. imho, the filibuster rules should be suspended until the republicans decide to plan nice

and use the filibuster as it should be used, in extreme and rare circumstances.

in the meantime, they can take the next four years to think about it...

[Hotler]

71. Leave the rules alone. Make the repugs stand there and read the fucking phone book....

non-stop with no piss breaks. Stop playing nice Harry. Make those fuckers eat shit.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

19. Bout time.. nt

[CanonRay]

23. This is as good news as the Obama victory

At long last!

[kestrel91316]

27. Don't just flap your lips about it, Harry. DO IT.

[and-justice-for-all]

33. Fuck yeah!!! now lets pass that jobs bill please!!!

[rhett o rick]

36. I will believe it when I see it. nm

[harun]

96. I am sorry to say I share your pessimism whole heartily.

They aint changing a damn thing. Blue Dog Dem's love to hide behind GOP filibusters.

[rhett o rick]

97. I am afraid that's what I believe. nm

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. I think that is an excelent decision.

n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

39. Bout time! nt

[tclambert]

49. Four years late.

Apparently sometime in the last year, Harry Reid received a spine transplant. Looks like it took.

[pam4water]

41. Gets hopes up so they can dashed once again XD

[jpak]

50. Fuck Mitch McConnell and the Turtle he rode in on

yup

[Beacool]

54. Reid better be careful.

The proposed changes would favor the Democrats, but it may be a detriment if the Republicans become a majority some time in the future.

[yardwork]

56. Not a problem. The Democrats never use these things to our advantage anyway.

[jeff47]

79. Why do you think a Republican majority would keep the filibuster?

They'll remove it completely the next time they have a majority.

Reid has two options:
1) Go ahead and get rid of it now - might as well have Democrats benefit from it going away instead of waiting for a Republican majority
2) Reform it to put the effort back on those filibustering instead of on those trying to break the filibuster.

There's a slim chance the Republicans would leave #2 intact.

[Blasphemer]

81. I wouldn't have a problem with this

Granted it would be better if we had proportional representation and the two-party system died a swift death but getting rid of rules that keep us stuck in two-party gridlock would be a step in the right direction.

[yardwork]

55. Give em hell, Harry.

[Kablooie]

57. The filibuster is supposed to allow senators to remain talking on the floor to make their point.

It was never meant to allow anyone to arbitrarily decide a supermajority is needed to pass a proposal.

At worst it would just delay majority decisions and would never prevent them from being passed.

It needs to be for someone who holds the floor to talk with no trading off to others, no breaks.
If someone wants extra time they can take it unless a supermajority votes for them to shut up.

[DividedWeAre]

60. I hope so, Harry Reid has been WAY too soft.

I hope so. Harry Reid is WAY too soft. I was disappointed that Obama didn't work him out of the picture 4 years ago. The ONLY thing I dislike about the Democrat(ic) leadership is that they let the Republicans push them around while knowing that the Republicans would never be so cooperative if they were in charge. STAND UP people. Seriously, stand up. Now's the time.

[Swede Atlanta]

62. I hope he follows through.....

The problem now with our divided nation is that in the Senate, any one Senator can threaten a filibuster and cripple the entire chamber. They don't have to exert themselves (e.g. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington with Gregory Peck) or anything. They just scratch their nuts and "poof" the Senate is at a stalemate.

This cannot continue. I appreciate the value of the filibuster to give the minority party some influence over the upper chamber's affairs but the pukes have been using it do defeat what used to be accepted as majority party "rights". They won the majority they have some rights.

With the current filibuster rules the ONLY thing the majority party controls is the agenda. Otherwise the minority can sabotage any meaningful legislation. We call this democracy?

[silverweb]

63. YES!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]It's way past time, Harry. Do it!!

[MessiahRp]

65. Can we get rid of the ridiculous invisible hold rule as well?

Too many Senators are allowed to prevent a bill from hitting the floor and being able to be anonymous while doing so.

[gkhouston]

86. ^^ This. You wanna hold something up, you should be able to defend it. n/t

[lonestarnot]

72. Well you better get busy! You have lots to do.

[Nika]

74. We need to change the rules to allow Democrats to keep the Repugs from gridlocking us into ...

... stagnation the next two years. Hopefully in 2018 we can get a Democratic Majority in the House to really get things moving they way they should go.

[wordpix]

76. DO IT, Harry and secure your legacy!

[D23MIURG23]

77. No need to try and save it.

If the current mode of operation continues, the Repigs will just end the filibuster next time they gain a majority anyway. May as well do it now and save them the trouble.

[BlueMan Votes]

80. if he leaves them a way to use it- they WILL.

no matter how many procedural hurdles are put in their way.

now's the time to brass the balls and steel the spine, harry.

[Angleae]

82. I'll believe it when it actually happens.

[yurbud]

87. It's about fucking time, but I'll believe it when I see it

[sarcasmo]

93. Good start.

[sarcasmo]

95. Kick!

[ManiacJoe]

98. They need to remove the fake filibuster.

Get rid of this fake filibuster where a filibuster is declared and folks move on to other business. They need to go back to the requirement where someone needs to actually be up and talking for the filibuster to stand.