It is time to go nuclear.

[Blue Hen Buckeye]

Not just for healthcare but for any other legislation needing 60 Senate votes to pass it is anti-democratic. The senate rules should be changed to eliminate the filibuster, to eliminate one senator placing a hold on a nomination. For those of you who say, oh but what will happen when the other side wins? So what, that's democracy in action. The will of the people should not be frustrated. Whether is hurts or help a political agenda is not the point. One two or three Senators should not be able to thwart the majority. If you don't like the results, that's what elections are for.

[thotzRthingz]

1. amen! (n/t)

[ixion]

2. the will of the people was frustrated today by the dems, in spite of the filibuster

so I don't know what you're talking about.

[kirby]

3. We are a Republic, not a Democracy...

The Senate is working as the founders wanted it.

[tjwash]

4. Fuck that shit...the nuclear option was how we got bogged down in Iraq...

...got stuck with tax cuts for the upper 5 percent, and ended up with a slew of other bush administration crap that benefits only the ultra wealthy in this country and screwed everyone else.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. Recent Krugman Column

Pointed out that before 1980, filibusters or threats of filibusters were exceedingly rare -- used primarily by conservatives to block Civil Rights legislation. Now, according to a researcher that Krugman cites, the threat it hauled out in nearly 70 percent of all legislation in the Senate. It's become a way for a minority to simply stymie any progress on an issue they don't like.

I think the time is right to put an end to the filibuster.

[get the red out]

6. Good points

And considering that Democrats don't use the "filibuster" minority rule crap, nothing would change should the other side be in power.

The way things are is that it takes a majority of 60 if Democrats are in power but 51 for Republicans. I don't see how that is democratic at all.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Tools need to be in place to eliminate mob/majority rule.

The only thing sadder than authoritarian rule is mob tyranny.
Some rules, however unpopular, serve very legitimate purposes.

Remember, the majority has tools in it's favor as well - ie, cloture.
If it was truly a "few" congressmen holding something up... cloture is a counter.

edit: spelling

[jobycom]

8. One, two, or three senators can't thwart the majority. Takes 41 to defeat cloture.

The reason filibusters are possible is because the rules allow unlimited debate on a topic and require 60 votes to end debate and force a vote. Filibusters aren't part of the rules, they are a side effect of the rules.

If you allow 51 votes (or a majority of the quorum, which could be just 26 votes in the right circumstance) to end a vote, the Republicans will use that against us, too. All they would have to do is wait until they have a majority of a quorum present, then force cloture on an issue to kill it. Or, they can do things like force a vote on a bill before it has been debated fully, and before we have a chance to rally votes for it, or before we can amend it to fix shortcomings. The rules require 60 votes to prevent all that--and other tricks.

Not saying don't do it. I am saying there is a reason that for 203 years the Senate has kept the rules basically that way. Democracy doesn't just require that people's votes get counted, but also that people's voices get heard.

But if we change the rules, we change them. It won't fix anything, it won't usher in a period of enlightened democracy, it won't get us out of Iraq or get us the Health Care Bill we want. (You and I both know that if the Democrats in the Senate truly wanted those things, they would get it now. Some do, but not all. They just don't want to be seen as against them. Otherwise they'd be twisting arms and forcing compliance.) It will just require different tactics. Both sides want the ability to use those tactics. Sometimes the majority wants the other side to have that right to cover for them. If it's unpopular to vote against a bill, but they don't want the bill, they are happy to let the other side filibuster it. Right or wrong, that's politics, and it won't change because the rules change. Only the tactics will change.

When the Republicans threatened the nuclear option over confirmations a few years ago, the Democrats retaliated with a threat of shutting down Congress by continuous procedural votes. The Republicans could do the same thing here if we use some version of the NO to defeat them. They can shut down discussion of the HRC indefinitely through procedural votes that will have exactly the same effect as a filibuster. The flip side is that they would then have the ability to end just about any debate through procedural votes with only 50% of a quorum.

A rules change in the Senate won't win anything for anyone. If it's undemocratic, defeat it. If it's not, leave it. There are arguments both ways on the democracy of a filibuster. But don't think there's a magic want to suddenly make everything rainbows and sunshine. The real problems lie elsewhere.