60 Senators or not, if Republicans continue to filibuster all the time, Pres. Obama needs to

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

shine the righteous spotlight of justice on them from the White House bully pulpit.

There should be high profile all nighter debate sessions with media coverage to illuminate these cockroaches to the world. This has NOT been done during the last two years.

[Ian David]

1. And no more of Harry Reid's bullshit of allowing "Virtual Fillibusters." n/t

[adamuu]

7. Hear, Hear. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

9. and start brandishing about "nuclear options" when it's REALLY important. nt

[AllieB]

2. Obama will need to say that the Repubs are working against the people's best interests

if they are obstructionist when the Congress tries to pass economic stimulus packages.

[Snotcicles]

3. Sunshine is the best cure. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Few know that filibusters are at an all-time high.

By not making them actively filibuster, Reid is offering tacit consent.

[crazylikafox]

5. and allowed the MSM to continue the meme of a do-nothing Democratic Congress

when in fact the Pubs were blocking us every step of the way

[Strelnikov_]

6. Agree. No more mail-in Filibusters n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

8. if they appear to be obstructionists they will lose even more seats in 2 years..

[Overseas]

10. IF they threaten filibusters tell them to go ahead and do it and publicize it.

I never understood why Harry Reid didn't just LET THEM GO AHEAD and filibuster. If the Republicans said they would filibuster a bill for veterans' benefits if it included a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, he should have said GO AHEAD!

And then call the media and be sure the Republican filibustering and delaying a bill on veterans' benefits gets lots of coverage.

As it was, all the Republicans needed to do was threaten filibusters and the Democrats would take it as though they'd already done them. No no no no no !!

They got all the advantages of filibustering without the hours of effort and without their obstruction getting the necessary publicity.

No more filibustering without the full execution-- the hours and hours of reading stuff into the record or whatever. LET'S SEE IT ! What did you Republicans think was so important that you needed to delay the work of Congress to oppose it? Go on the record.

REPUBLICANS THREATENED Democrats when we were all hoping Harry Reid would have the guts to filibuster ALito, so Harry CAVED. Then Republicans did hundreds of filibusters and were just allowed to sail through. If they'd had to do the full procedure for each filibuster, that would have been very informative to the public on how far the Republicans were willing to go to obstruct Democratic government.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. K&R! When/why did this need for 60 votes to pass anything start in the first place? nt

[stahbrett]

12. FIlibuster rules need to be overhauled

Unless the Constitution explicitly demands a super-majority (veto overrides, etc.), then there shouldn't be the need for a super-majority to get something a floor vote.

The way it SHOULD work would be like this - the first time a group of Senators want to try to delay something, they can call for a filibuster. If they have 40 or more votes, then their attempt succeeds, but not indefinitely. After a delay (maybe a few days, or a week), the same agenda item can be brought up, and this time it would take 41 votes to delay a vote. If they have 41 votes, there's another delay, and then 42 votes, and so on, up until we reach 50 votes. Then a simple majority can vote for or against the original agenda item.

To me, this keeps part of the filibuster's goals - to allow for a minority to slow down something. But it does NOT allow a minority to INDEFINITELY block something.