Younger senators take aim at old Senate rules

[Lasher]

By Paul Kane
Saturday, March 27, 2010

As the battle over health care raged for 15 months, no institution saw its reputation battered quite as much as the U.S. Senate.

Jousting over parliamentary maneuvers and partisan acrimony dominated the headlines as the nation fixated on the debate over President Obama's top domestic initiative. But behind that struggle, other signs of institutional strife were abundant.

A nominee to the federal bench took nine months to win confirmation on a 99 to 0 vote. One senator held up dozens of nominations over a parochial dispute. And on Wednesday, one of the most basic functions of the chamber -- committee hearings -- ground to a halt.

Faced with what they're calling a "broken" system, a band of Senate Democratic newcomers are vowing to change the way the world's greatest deliberative body does business. These "young turks" -- "young" being relative in a body in which 60 is considered middle-aged -- are pushing to revamp the decades-old rules that govern the Senate.

Their targets include long-held senatorial courtesies such as the "hold" and the seniority system that awards chairmen's gavels solely on tenure. Ultimately, some want to modify or eliminate the most potent of all senatorial weapons: the filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603033.html?hpid=topnews

[DFLforever]

1. A very good read.

Thanks.

[Lasher]

4. I was hoping one or two others might share my interest.

There was a time when the Senate rules worked becuse there was some restraint, but that day has come and gone.

[rhett o rick]

2. We dont need the Senate. Dump the bastards. nm

[rgbecker]

3. The whole system makes so much sense......

Wyoming with a population under a million gets two votes, and California, with 35+ million gets...yep..two votes. Seems fair enough.

[Lasher]

6. Congress was intentionally designed that way by the framers of the Constitution.

Otherwise small states would always get left out in the cold. But this article is about the antiquated Senate rules that are no longer working. They are not mandated by the Constitution, and need to go.

[DebbieCDC]

5. Good -- shake up those stupid rules developed 200 years ago

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. They are much more recent than that...part of the last major shakeup with crippled seniorty

[Posteritatis]

7. Interesting read; thanks for posting! (nt)

[Silent3]

9. I wouldn't totally eliminate the filibuster...

...but I'd certainly want to come up with some way to limit how often and how long it can be used. I'm glad it was there when Democrats were a minority to block some of Bush's judicial appointments, that's for sure.

I'd also make the filibuster harder to exercise, make it take real devotion to the cause, like the old, apparently now passé notion that supporters of a filibuster have to keep at it 24/7.