Sounds like Democratic Senators are considering changing the filibuster rules.

[Bandit]

What sort of changes do you think they could make and still allow for the minority to have some say in things.. I would like them to maybe limit the number of filibusters for each year to maybe three. That way Republicans really have to pick their battles and at least most legislation could get accomplished.. Remember the House has passed over four hundred bills that have just sat in the Senate because Republicans have blocked even having debate on them..Another possibility would be lowering the number to say fifty four Senators needed to break a filibuster. That would not help Democrats in the next Congress because they no longer have such a majority but down the road maybe, or perhaps a combination of both. Anyone else have any ideas? After listening to Senator Udall last night I believe something is definitely going to happen, just have no idea what.

[theaocp]

1. I like the idea of limited filies,

but what would be the consequence of doing more? There has to be teeth in this or the pukes will give the finger to the country and do what they want.

[Bandit]

2. Rules of the Senate are just that and even Republicans have to follow them

At the beginning of each new Congress the Senate adopts it's rules. It creates them and has to live by them and the ONLY time they can really be changed is the very first order of business of a new Senate..They can do that with a simple majority vote..

[BzaDem]

4. Any numerical limit is meaningless, since the majority can just attempt to pass the same bill over

and over again until they run out of filibusters. It wouldn't have any actual effect.

[Bandit]

5. That is not true at all.

It is true that at the beginning of every new Congress as the very first order of business the Senate may establish the rules it operates under. It has doen this on several occasions. Yes there could be some tit for tat but I think when Republicans become the Majority again they will like these restrictions. I can not see them changing them back..

[Better Believe It]

10. Rules can be changed at anytime during a Senate session, even the first order of business rule.

The President of the Senate can rule that a Senate rule change is permissible at any time with a simple majority vote.

The Constitution rules!

[Bandit]

18. I don't think the Senate rules say that and I know the Constitution doesn't.

All the Constitution says is the Senate makes it's own rules...As the rules currently stand even a first order of business change will create a huge uproar. A reading of the current rules would indicate the rules could never be changed at any time, but that would probably be found unconstitutional I believe. The Constitution says the Senate can make it's own rules..A rule saying the rules can never be changed goes completely against that wording in the Constitution..It is a built in Catch 22 and even Republicans I believe would oppose enforcing it.

[SharonAnn]

22. Change the rules to allow majority vote to bring a bill to the floor.

Then, if someone wants to filibuster, they can do it.

However, preventing bills from coming to the floor is too much power for the minority party to have.

[dkf]

3. They want to change the filibuster rules after we have lost the house?

I think I Want to scream. They we going to change the rules just in time for the election where we possibly lose everything. The stupidity of it is mind boggling.

[sweetapogee]

6. good point

and at the risk of being called negative, at the present rate, barring some unforeseen gift from above, the Senate will be even closer after the 2012 elections than they are now. I see something like a 50/50 Senate and can prove my point if need be.

I don't think changing the filibuster rules is in our best interests at this time because if we want to change it again in a 50/50 Senate the pukes will simply tell us to go pound sand.

We should instead focus our energies on crafting simple, workable and effective economic policy that gets the economy humming, not worry about tweaking parliamentary rules to give us some slight advantage. A good question to ask is this: how many dems vote for something to appease us progressives knowing that the Senate will use the filibuster to kill the bill and give us political cover with the voters in our state? I think the answer to that question would shock some of us.

[dkf]

17. Our senators may even need to filibuster now because the legislation from the house is going to be

Crazy. I predict we are about to see a whole lot of filibustering from Bernie Sanders coming up.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. A fact of American politics: it is always 'just in time for the election

where we possibly lose everything.' There is no such thing as the time where no election is coming, when either Party might win or lose, all or some. This is a constant. So it is really a bit much to claim we can not do anything with an election coming, as an election is always coming.
We are never more than two years from Congressional election. Two years out is as far out as there is in our system. Right now, we are as distant from the next election as we ever are.
I thought most voters knew this.

[robinlynne]

21. n January the republicans take over. An election is not coming. It happened.

the point is the Dems would be kicking themselves in the foot, taking away their own right to filibuster.
Although they never use it, unfortunately

[Recursion]

24. We still control the Senate; there's no filibuster in the House (nt)

[Hippo_Tron]

25. A rule change requires 2/3rds

And they were never going to get Republican votes to change the filibuster while Republicans were the minority in both houses and didn't control the White House. With a divided government there's a chance of it being changed because in the short term both parties can kill legislation either by some other mechanism.

[mmonk]

7. Too late.

Must be to push Reaganomics and war measures continually through.

[Better Believe It]

9. They will certainly be changed for Democrats once Republicans take formal control of the Senate.

And if a Democratic minority tries to engage in a "procedural filibuster" the Republicans will force them to filibuster on the Senate floor or will break a filibuster using the Constitutional option.

[ClassWarrior]

11. We'll still hold the majority in the Senate. Remember?

NGU.

[Better Believe It]

15. Yes, but the Republicans will continue to run it.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. First of all the "constitutional option" is right wing language akin to "death tax"

Some call it the "nuclear option" I refer to it as the "brute force option" or complete bullshit. The Senate determines its own rules and rules changes require a 2/3rds majority. Claiming the constitution requires only 51 votes (when it doesn't) in order to force a rules change with 51 votes is simply a rules change by brute force.

Additionally the GOP tried to make the Democrats keep talking and it lasted for about 24 hours. Frist made a big deal about how he was holding the Senate in session around the clock and only debating judges. It did nothing.

[spanone]

12. democrats will change rules so they need 70 votes

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Charge filibusterers (is that a word?) a percentage of their pension for each occurrence.

We'll see pretty quick who is filibustering out of principle and who is filibustering because Yurtle said to.

You want to see results? Hit 'em in their (ever-bulging) pocketbook.

[Dawgs]

14. Two years too late.

:(

[tk2kewl]

19. simply require that the senators actually have to show up and filibuster

and you hold a cloture vote to stop them rather than holding a cloture vote to allow an up or down vote.

[gulliver]

20. Just make them real filibusters and see how that works.

The number of filibusters would plummet if Senators had to stay on the floor and speak.

[DLnyc]

23. Exactly right. No more filibuster with actualling filibustering.

Make them take responsibility and stand up there and speak for days on end.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. 41 Senators rotating the floor can tie up the government for months, if not years

The Civil Rights Act filibuster on for months and it didn't end because they got tired and went home. It ended because Mansfield and Johnson finally got Dirksen to deliver enough Republican votes for cloture.