Kerry Predicts 'Major' Fillibuster Changes

[bigtree]

Oct 28, 2010

{snip}

(During an hour-long appearance before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce) Sen. Kerry pinned gridlock on key issues in Congress on Republicans, and he said he’s been speaking with Republican colleagues Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander about a post-election agenda.

Part of that agenda, Kerry said, would be a “major” rules reform that he said could limit the ability of the minority in the Senate to filibuster. “I will vote for it. We’re going to try to do it. You will see some reform votes in the Senate to try to do those kinds of things,” he said.

One possible change, Kerry said, would be to gradually ease the majority’s ability to break a filibuster the longer it goes on. Another, he said, would be to require the filibustering party to be present and speaking to maintain the filibuster.

“We’ve had more cloture votes … in the last year and a half, than we had from World War I through the moon landing in 1969,” he said. “We still don’t have an assistant secretary of the treasury … You decide who should be held accountable for that.”


read: http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x2115300611/Kerry-defends-Democratic-agenda-predicts-major-filibuster-changes

[tularetom]

1. His new republican bff's will stab him in the back after the election

I don't understand how somebody who has been in the senate as long as Kerry could be so naive. Those assholes are not going to consent to any change in rules that could end the filibuster until the republicans have a majority in the senate.

Why do these Democrats even bother to try to work with them?

[bigtree]

4. we don't need their votes (makes you wonder why they waited this long)

wiki's version of the nuclear option: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules

The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

we still have the President to veto

[Posteritatis]

2. It bugs me that people don't have to filibuster in order to filibuster anymore. (nt)

[LostInAnomie]

3. Just in time for the Dems to be force fed a shit sandwich.

Yay!

[bigtree]

5. there's still the presidential veto

[LostInAnomie]

10. That's great...

... until we don't have the presidency.

[bigtree]

11. well

. . . the premise is that our good works (enhanced by the elimination of the institutionalized obstruction) will keep us in the majority.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Dems will still likely control the majority in the Senate

[bananas]

6. if you want to hold them accountable, indict them for their crimes

where is the John Kerry from the bcci and narcotrafficking investigations?

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Where is he? Likely bought off.

x(

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Present and speaking

Bout bloody time.

[rucky]

8. But only if the Republicans regain the majority.

[bigtree]

9. they won't get the Senate

. . . and I think this is a good selling point for our party to put this out there right now, on the eve of the election.

[politicasista]

14. delete n/t

[LonePirate]

15. Unless by "major" he means the elimination of the filibuster, then I'm not interested.

Reducing the threshold to 51 or 52 votes or one more than the number of Democrats in the Senate is not a major filibuster change.