Cloture at 55

[Tom Rinaldo]

A sane and reasonable compromise for those in the Senate who believe it is important to preserve the relatively recent Senate tradition of requiring a super majority to conduct important "controversial" business; set the marker at 55. Not only is there nothing in the Constitution about a Senator's right to filibuster, there isn't even a long tradition of a 60 vote threshold to stop one. Not all that long ago the cloture mark was reset from 67 (or was it 66?) to 60 votes needed to close debate in the Senate. In the current partisan era of knee jerk oppositional voting to impede letting "the other guys" accomplish ANYTHING, that standard is obsolete.

Today in Presidential elections 55% of the vote is considered to be an overwhelming landslide for the victor. Needing more than 55% of the Senate to agree on closing debate is absurd. Minority rights would be more than adequately safeguarded if cloture was reset at a 55 vote limit. For those in the Senate who still believe that Senate filibusters can play a positive role, it is time to mend it before we force you to end it. We are fed up with petty filibuster despots like Joe Lieberman blocking the doorway to accomplishments.

[Lord Helmet]

1. k 'n r & I hope Lieberman loses his chairmanship

[HillGal]

2. You can't start changing the rules because you're not happy about

something, because the Republicans could be in charge again one day, and how will you feel if they start shoving things through that we don't agree with?

[shraby]

6. They have been there and did that and shoved through stuff

we didn't just disagree with, some of their "stuff" was downright dangerous to our country and society.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Of course you can if what you are unhappy about is a dysfunctional system

To be consistent your position should also argue against any consideration of constitutional amendments, yet the nation's founders made sure an amendment process was included in our constitution, for sound reasons.

The cloture rules were already changed in the past, do you think that mark should have been left at 2/3rds instead of 60?

Actually in advocating for a 55 vote cloture mark I am taking a fairly conservative position by acknowledging some merrit for a need for super majorities in some cases, to keep anyone from shoving anything through now or later. But allowing a small minority to grind Senate business to a halt is unacceptable. The Senate used to be a much less stridently partisan body when the 60 vote limit was originally set.

[DrToast]

12. You're asking how I feel about democracy

Well, I'm for it.

[CreekDog]

19. End cloture 100%. I am unhappy about an undemocratic rule

so there. :hi:

[Vincardog]

20. If they start shoving things through that we don't agree with? Do you remember the 8 years previous

to 2009? The GOP does what it wants to do when it wants to do it. Damn the rules.

[Inuca]

3. Unfortunately the rules of the Senate

are not so easily changed.

[rurallib]

4. A thread earlier noted that by rule it would take 67 votes to change

this rule down to 55.
Catch 22 anyone?

[Beetwasher]

10. No, I Believe A Simple Majority Could Change The Rule

I'll see if I can find the link. That's why when the Repubs wanted to do it there was the "gang of 14" that worked out a compromise because when the Repubs were threatening to nuke it, it was a real and accomplishable threat.

[DrToast]

5. I see no reason why 55 votes should be required

It should be a majority threshold. The end.

[Beetwasher]

7. I Was Against Nuking The Fillibuster When The Repubs Wanted To

And I'm against nuking it now. However, this is a compromise I think I could accept.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Senate Rules cannot be changed without the agreement of 2/3 of Senators

[Beetwasher]

11. Link?

My understanding is that it requires simple majority. That's why it was such a pernicious threat when the Repubs were threatening to do it, otherwise why was the threat taken serioiusly? They could never have gotten 60 votes back then.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Rule XXII:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=RulesOfSenate.View&Rule_id=b53f00ae-eaf3-4382-a827-097360cb1c93&CFID=28104178&CFTOKEN=73814183

[Beetwasher]

17. That Doesn't Apply To This Particular Instance

Why was it such a threat then when Repubs were doing the threatening? There was no way in hell the would have gotten 60 votes.
It can be done via a point of order and would require a simple majority. This is why it was such a real threat when the Repubs were making it. There was no way in hell they could have gotten 60 votes to do it, but Dems took it seriously because they didn't NEED 60, thus the gang of 14 was born.

Per Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

--snip--

The nuclear option is used in 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.

--snip--

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Republicans have made noises about wanting to completely end the filibuster before

Of course that was when they were in the majority, but they hope to be in that position again someday. If this was a compromise framed as the only alternative to flat out nuking the filibuster now, perhaps some Republicans would support it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. You are very unlikely to get anyone the minority party to give up this power

[Beetwasher]

18. You Wouldn't Have To, See Above, Does NOT Require 2/3

It can be done via point of order.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. That's what I thought. So...

The choice Republicans could be given would be between either supporting a rules change that lowered the number of votes needed for cloture down to 55 votes, or instead have the Democratic majority play the nuclear option and permanently abolish the filibuster, which would then allow Democrats to pass any legislation that their base wants with just 51 votes, and end the filibuster for all time.

It's sort of a game of chicken but one that makes sense to play. If Republicans don't want to lose the filibuster completely enough of them would have to support a rules change that lowered the cloture vote to 55. Republicans have used cloture more frequently than Democrats. Mend it or end it.

[Beetwasher]

22. I Could Live W/ A 55 Vote Threshhold

I was against nuking the fillibuster when the Repubs wanted to and I'm against it now. It could come back to bite us in the ass. A 55 vote threshold to me seems a reasonable compromise.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. K&R Couldn't. Agree. More.

[apnu]

23. I say fuck that, make Lieberman filibuster the thing all on his own.

Three days from now, when the federal government has come to a halt, and his smelly ass, wearing the same suit for 3 days, is the stench keeping the US from going through its business, public opinion will turn on him and his Republican masters in jaw dropping fashion.

And for the rest of his life, for all the good Lieberman once did, he'll be forever known as the guy who held the United States up for no good reason. Just like Newt Gingrich.

Let the fucker filibuster, call that bluff and ride that shit out. Goddamit Harry! Show some fucking balls! If you're too chickenshit to call Lieberman out, then kill all his chairmanships and put him to the back of the Senate line.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. We CAN play hardball using this. For example:

REID: "Give us a few Republican votes so we can invoke cloture on HCR, or else".

McCONNEL: "Or else WHAT?"

REID: "Or else give us the 10 or so Republican votes we need to change the Senate rules to lower cloture to 55 votes from 60".

McCONNEL: "Why on earth should I do that?"

REID: "Because if you don't I have the 51 votes I need to nuke all filibusters permanently right now, and I'll use them. I'll give you 72 hours to decide. Give me the votes to close debate on HCR, or the votes we need to lower cloture to 55 votes, or say goodbye to the filibuster and hello to Democrats governing with a simple, and I might add liberal, majority NEXT WEEK.

[Lochloosa]

25. +1

[Beetwasher]

26. Yup, Good Point, Just Like The Repub THREAT Of The Nuke Lead To The "Gang Of 14"

compromise, the same threat coming from the Dems can and should have some effect. One would hope. But only if Reid has the guts to actually pull the trigger.

[RoadRage]

27. And in 4 - 6 years, when the Republicans control the senate

with 56 votes.. and they want to pass some horrifying legislation that will allow corporations to pollute all over whatever they want, or they want to enact a law firmly banning gay marriage, etc... are you still going to be happy with that number?

Never forget.. the pedulum ALWAYS swings both ways.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Do you think the number should have been kept at 67 as originally set?

This isn't religion, it's politics. There isn't a preordained sacred number, it's a matter of finding the best balence. Things change. Once upon a time women couldn't vote and blacks were slaves also.

[RoadRage]

33. Right..

and I think 60 is an attainable number - but you have to work hard (VERY HARD) to get there. 55 means that any time the political winds blow - things get passed to quickly and easily.. and then what we're happy about now becomes our biggest nightmare a few years down the road.

67 is too tough
55 is to easy
59 - 60 seems about right.

[Phx_Dem]

31. I agree. What's good for us now isn't good for us in the future.

In fact, if the GOP gets control of the Senate, they will investigate and hold hearings on everything the Senate Dems and White House do, and there will be no way to stop them.

[TheBigotBasher]

34. It is not as though the Democratic Party did much to stop them before 2009

The one main advantage that the GOP has is discipline. I am not sure what powers their Whips hold but they do a good job. Where are the Democratic Whips?

GOP Whip to their Senators - if you don't vote Party line that boy you've been shagging gets on fox news - and even worse Fox wil put a D by your name.

Democratic Whip - no one supports Purity Tests.

[WI_DEM]

29. Not a bad idea.

[Clear Blue Sky]

30. Careful changing the rules. We won't have the majority forever.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Why not set cloture at 75 votes then?

That way we can feel really confident of our ability to stop Republicans from doing crazy things if they sweep into power in the future with really large majorities...

At some point we have to stand by the concept of Democracy. We can't always be trying to protect ourselves against it. Minorities can abuse their power just as surely as majorities can if the system allows them to. And if this nation elects a 55 seat Republican majority to the Senate in the future and Democrats can't convince even one of them to oppose something that is really poor policy or politics, we will just end up having to deal with the consequences of elections - assuming that Republicans control the House and Presidency then also.

[backscatter712]

35. Harkin's proposal for filibuster reform is pretty cool.

In a nutshell, the first time that there's a call for cloture, it'll take 60 votes. The second cloture vote, which can only happen a week after the first cloture vote, reduces the threshold to 57 votes. The third only takes 54 votes. After that, cloture votes only take 51 votes.

The point is to make it so the Senate can extend debate if a minority objects strongly enough, but closes the original loophole in the Senate rules that allow for senators to game the system and blockade legislation with infinite debate in the first place.

I'm all for this. As the latest clusterfuckery with Ben Nelson threatening cloture if Stupak's not in the bill shows, the filibuster is a powerful tool for thwarting democracy and trashing civil liberties, and a lousy tool for protecting them.