Sen. Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster rule

[bigtree]

12/12/2009

{snip}

"I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something."

Harkin noted with interest that his original legislation was cosponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who has been threatening to filibuster the legislation. According to www.filibusted.us, a Web site that tracks how lawmakers vote on closing debate to avoid a filibuster, Harkin -- a member of the majority party now -- has voted to end debate 32 of 34 times, rather than filibuster. It said further he consistently votes to end filibusters.

"I did a lot of research on this back in the '90s, and it turned out the filibuster is just a Senate rule, not the Constitution or anything like that," Harkin said. "The reason, as best as I can ascertain it from historians that I talked to, Senate historians, was that it came into being when the Senate ... would meet and they would pass a bill before other senators could get there."


Regardless of its origins, Harkin said the filibuster has outlived its usefulness.

"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.


read: http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/harkin-filibuster-121209

[krispos42]

1. I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet a couple of weeks ago...

the 40 Repub senators represent 35% of the US population.

[Warpy]

11. Senators don't represent population, they represent states

That is a very important distinction people often miss. The job of a Senator is to look out for the interest of his home state as a whole, not so much its people. The focus is completely different, which is why the Senate is the body that approves treaties.

Having said that, too many Senators are representing neither state nor people but party, corporation and/or religion.

The filibuster rule has to be temporarily rescinded to strip these men of the power they wield that is out of proportion to their number.

[krispos42]

24. True. Nonetheless, the states they represent are only 35% of the people

I've been pondering the idea that we need to limit the ratio of representatives to senators to, say, six-to-one.

Any time a state gets more than 12 reps after the latest Census, the state has to split into two roughly equal parts according to a statewide referendum for each state.


This would have the immediate effect of forcing California to break up into 5 smaller states, Texas, New York, and Florida into 3 states each, and Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey into two states.

This would make the number of stars on the US flag go from 50 to 67 in the space of a few years.


What do you think?

[TheWraith]

2. I feel ambivalent about this.

There's the simple fact that the Repubs wanted to do the same thing to us a few years ago to guarantee nobody could stop their judicial appointments. Eventually, whether it takes 8 years or 30, the Senate is going to be in Republican hands again, and what happens then?

On the other hand though, as things currently stand the Republicans have no hesitance to filibuster EVERYTHING that comes up, no matter the validity, just because they want to shut down the government. That's not the intended use of the filibuster, and the fact is they're going to always get more use out of it than the Dems because the Dems are afraid of looking obstructionist.

[Vidar]

3. Way overdue, along wi the Electoral College.

[whistler162]

4. Nice Christmas present for Republicans....

if Senator Harkin has his way!

BAD ONE SENATOR!!!!

[Aramchek]

5. go for it, Dude!

[rucky]

6. It'll get filibustered. n/t

[upi402]

7. Republicans HATE the taste of their own medicine

They wanted this before, now they'll screech like squished kittens!
Expect 'Term Limits' to make a come back soon from the Rethugs.

[laughingliberal]

8. But, will they need 60 votes to end the filibuster on a vote to end the filibuster

Cause you can count the Blue Dogs who are now able to wield total power to get what they want to join the Republicans in filibustering this.

[AlinPA]

9. This is a tough one. The republican party could take over again and their hate filled,

facist teabaggers and KKK influenced leaders would need to be slowed down. It CAN happen here.

[laughingliberal]

10. I think that's what always gives most of us pause when considering ending the filibuster

But, really, is it okay when 1 member of any party can, endlessly, hold up legislation in opposition to the majority. And when the Republicans had the Senate we had enough Democrats voting with them that they got their most egregious legislation through, anyway.

[AlinPA]

14. Democrats can't stick together like the republican zealots so yes it is frustrating. It probably

won't be eliminated because there will be enough Democrats like Bayh and Landrieu to join the republicans.

[laughingliberal]

20. Correct, these few who wield all the power by threatening to join the Republican filibusters aren't

likely to give that up. They'll join the Republicans in filibustering this bill.

[global1]

15. So Then Just Before The Dems Would Go Out Of Power They Should Vote The Filibuster Back In....nt

[AlinPA]

17. That's the way!

[moondust]

12. Too easy to abuse.

It only has redeeming value if it is applied in good faith to prevent the majority from tyrannizing a minority. Republicans have turned democracy itself on its head by abusing it in bad faith to enable the tyranny of their minority.

I wouldn't worry too much about Democrats not having it to use against Republicans in the future because the big tent Democratic Party is too broad and diverse to achieve lockstep voting on anything that is reasonably legitimate. Some simply wouldn't allow it to be abused for pure political gain.

Dump it and move on.

[Lord Helmet]

13. That would help stop the gridlock.

[UTUSN]

16. K&R #10 for, wake me up when this great idea becomes reality!1 n/t

[andym]

18. Here's his idea

From the article:

"To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin's proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.

He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the number of votes required to end debate would drop by three. Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple majority of 51 votes.

"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better.""

[rateyes]

19. Hell, they'll just filibuster the filibuster buster bill.

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

21. That's what I'm thinkin' nt

[tritsofme]

22. Last time the bill failed 76-19.

It would probably fail on a similar margin today.

[MadBadger]

23. And then when we are in the minority, he'll want it back.