Some Democrats want to rein in the filibuster

[steven johnson]

Representative Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, has launched a petition drive urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to push for cutting from 60 to 55 the number of votes needed to cut off a filibuster.

But reconciliation has always been available. It is a legislative process in Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. It is subject to the 'Byrd Rule' which is that any legislation considered under the budget reconciliation process should principally affect federal revenues. Bush drove his tax cuts through with the reconcilliation process.

But it still only takes a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate.

The Senate filibuster has emerged as the bane of President Obama's legislative agenda, igniting anger among liberals over a tactic that is now hogtying Congress even on noncontroversial bills.

The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.

Frustration has intensified since Senate Republicans' no-holds-barred effort to block the healthcare bill. GOP use of the tactic forced Democrats to scrounge for 60 votes at every legislative turn to prevent filibusters.

Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall's midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.

Some Democrats want to rein in the filibuster

[Warpy]

1. Much of the work the Senate is supposed to be doing

has ground to a halt because some conservative, theirs or ours, has threatened a filibuster. Under current rules, they don't even have to stand up and talk. They can just call it a filibuster and go home to their nice warm beds.

Clearly this is insane. The filibuster is being abused.

I would favor a six month suspension of the filibuster rule in times of national emergency. After a year or so of potty training, perhaps most conservatives would think better of abusing it, especially when its abuse alone can cause a national emergency as necessary legislation and appointments are stalled forever.

The filibuster is a last ditch measure to be used only when one party or the other finds legislation so utterly repugnant they're willing to put their health on the line speaking against it 24/7 until either cloture cuts off debate or the bill is abandoned. It's served the country fairly well before now and I'd hate to see it abandoned completely.

However, giving the temper tantrum throwing conservatives a time out is necessary right now.

[Lasher]

2. There was a time when political parties were not so polarized.

Those days are long gone, thanks mostly to Saint Ronnie and his followers. I don't see this changing in my lifetime. It's time to end the filibuster and use a simple majority in the Senate.

[terrell9584]

3. And no one would be saying this

If it were a Republican Senate.


Keep the filibuster. It's that simple.

[bemildred]

4. Actually people were saying that when the Republicans had the Senate.

The filibuster is an outdated, anti-democratic, and reactionary rule which most democratic countries manage somehow to get along without. We should too.

[terrell9584]

5. Most state legislatures

Have a filibuster. If its good enough for the state legislatures its good enough for the national legislatures.