Senate's Returning Democrats Unanimously Favor Filibuster Reform

[kpete]

Source: National Journal

(All) Senate's Returning Democrats Unanimously Favor Filibuster Reform
All except Dodd sign a letter urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to change the rules.

by Dan Friedman
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 | 3:12 p.m.
Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images


All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

“There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say ‘I object’ and go home,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Read more: http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222?print=true

[derby378]

1. Too little, too late

They should have thought about this before Obama got sworn in. Now, they have no excuse, and we've been stuck with a long line of crappy compromise bills as a result.

[Matariki]

3. Late perhaps - but not "too little". I counter your cynicism with "better late than later".

[derby378]

5. Except that the Senate will now be under tighter Republican control than before

It is an affront to common sense that the Democrats allowed the Republicans to cause so much obstruction in the first place.

[musiclawyer]

4. Well, I can't disagree,

But doing nothing now would be even more malpractice upon malpractice. See my other post.

[pnwmom]

15. They didn't know that the Rethugs would abuse the filibuster

in a way that has had no historical precedent.

[aquart]

33. They didn't? I thought it was announced.

[wordpix]

54. after the first couple of times, it should have been obvious this is how the rethugs are operating

No excuse for that

[musiclawyer]

2. If this is true, it is huge!

Basically nothing, absolutely nothing gets done because of the GOP House. Without a change in rules, the Senate would get nothing done, and the GOP would blames the Dems.......... But if the Senate changes the rules, then they CAN do things, important things that the GOP house will then roadblock. But now ALL Dems running in '12 can legitimately run ads showing how the GOP cannot be put in charge again. We change the narrative and blame them. If I can figure this out, so can the Donkeys.

[groundloop]

6. It's just too damned bad this didn't happen 2 years ago

With a GOP controlled House we shouldn't expect any substantial legislation to become law for the next 2 years. But that's a very valid point about being able to point to the GOP controlled house as the roadblock to progress.

I'm wondering if even Joe Lie-berman is on board with these changes, seeing as how he pretty much single handedly screwed up the public option (or at least lowering medicare buy-in age, which at least would have been a start).

[defendandprotect]

10. Should have happened two years ago ... why not?

[pnwmom]

16. Why not? Because no previous Republican minority has ever

abused the filibuster in anything close to the extent done by this particular Congress.

[defendandprotect]

19. Repugs have been steadily abusing it -- escalating it every time .....

While Democrats have once in a while threatened to use it as the minority --

and then backed off when GOP began howling about it --

and the "back-off" became permanent --

[pnwmom]

22. No, there hasn't been a "steady" increase.

There was a huge increase in its use during the 111th Congress as compared to the 110th, or any previous Congress.

[defendandprotect]

23. The Repugs have been controlling the Senate whether they were the majority or the minority....

that's been going on for decades --

shamefully so!

And, Dems have seemingly been impotent -- as we saw again in 2009/2010 -- to do

anything about it .... hmmmm.

[pnwmom]

25. The filibuster had never been used to anything like the extent

it was used during the 111th Congress. The reason that all the incoming Democratic Senators now want to change the rules is in direct response to the abuse of the filibuster during the 111th Congress.

[defendandprotect]

28. Filibuster has been used over and again by Repugs ....

this may be a new precent -- but nothing surprising about what the GOP did --

In turn, notice that the Dems have NEVER used the filibuster when they were the

minority -- they threatened once or twice, but never did it --

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander -- but not if you're a Dem, evidently!!

[Bandit]

34. Then why did the Bush* tax cuts have to be done by reconcilliation?

It simply is not true to say Democrats have never used the filibuster...

[Ter]

50. There's no need to spread falsities

The Democrats "never" used a filibuster when they were in the minority? Come on now, that's pushing it a bit. Certainly not like this Senate, but they have used it.

[tblue37]

38. But they *promised* that they would, so the Dems should have taken them

at their word!

[pnwmom]

18. Two years ago we didn't know the Rethugs

would use the filibuster more than it has ever been used in history, to try to stop virtually every Democratic initiative.

[defendandprotect]

24. Gee, could we have guessed? What had they been doing previously that would

have clued us in?

Whether the majority or the minority, Repugs have been controlling the Senate --

I watched as Sen. George Mitchell, Majority leader -- actually turned the Senate

over to Bob Dole -- Repug minority leader --

has pretty much always been thus!

[pnwmom]

26. No, we wouldn't have guessed. Not without a crystal ball.

The use and abuse of the filibuster during the 111th Congress was unprecedented. In no previous Congress has the filibuster been used almost continuously.

[defendandprotect]

27. We had every clue ... and the filibuster should have been overturned in this Congress ....

if they couldn't overturn it with 58, how will they overturn it with 51?

Again, ignore it if you wish, but this has been going on for decades --

whether the majority or the minority the GOP has controlled the Senate.

[pnwmom]

29. The Senate rules can only be changed at the beginning of a session.

And it doesn't matter how often you repeat an error, it's still an error -- the abuse of the filibuster in the current Congress was new, not something that has been going on "for decades."

[defendandprotect]

30. And there was no beginning to the 110th or 111th Congress .... ?

There has long been under discussion "nuclear option" -- because it was

clear that it was necessary --

In fact, Repugs discussed doing it in 2005 --

It is not an error to say that the Repugs have used the filibuster prior

to 111th Congress --

Again -- Repugs have controlled Senate whether they have been the majority or

the minority --

one way or the other, they've done it.

Democrats have done it less successfully --



http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

[pnwmom]

31. At the beginning of the 111th Congress there was no reason

to suspect that the NEW Republican strategy would be to use the filibuster almost continuously -- because this had never been done before.

The Republicans discussed using the "nuclear option" on us when we were the minority party, even though we seldom used filibusters -- at least compared to the 111th Congress.

[defendandprotect]

32. Look at the link...Dems doubled the filbusters, then GOP tripled them...

the filbuster has long been abused -- especially by GOP --

That's why the "nuclear option" has been discussed since 2005 -- and BEFORE.

[pnwmom]

40. "Doubling" and "tripling" was relative to a low base.

Neither came close to what they've done in this past Congress.

And they were talking about imposing the nuclear option on us even though we weren't using it much. (They talked about it anytime we threatened to filibuster a judicial nomination.)

[shawn703]

36. Reminds me of something Condi Rice once said

Who would have guessed that terrorists might want to fly planes into buildings? Even though there were clues all over the place it would happen, some people needed it spelled out for them because they were unable to connect the dots.

The Republicans walked all over the Democrats when they were in power, and then the Democrats took the power away from them and left them with only one tool - the filibuster. Did we REALLY expect the Republicans to roll over and let us do whatever we wanted to do? If we learned anything about how they operate, it's that they can get everyone to march in lockstep. They're not like the Democrats who have a hard time getting their own party to fall in line.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. The ruptured duck and coverists are coming and boy are they...

pissed. They always throw We the Paupers a large Boehner with nutin' but putrid orange meat left on it.

Meanwhile Mitch sees himself in the White House cracking the big whip.

[ProudDad]

8. This is a BIG Deal

I hope they do it...

[defendandprotect]

9. Just in time to help the GOP now .... ???

[Tx4obama]

12. It will not help the GOP. The dems will still have the majority in the senate.

How do you see that this will help the GOP?

[defendandprotect]

21. You mean the smaller majority than they've had for two years ....

where the GOP -- not the Dems -- ran the Senate? As usual ... ?

Senate

D I R

2011 56 2 42

2011 51 2 47


by illegitimate means, Repugs kept Dem votes from passing by filibuster -- yet

though actually NOT filbustering ==

If it is now changed to 51 votes, it would make it as likely that Repugs could

move Blue Dog Dems to vote with them and again control the Senate -- by 51 votes.

You're suggesting that Dems have 51 "sure" votes --

Certainly if the filbuster isn't overturned, we'll simply see more of the usual --

Repugs controlling the Dem Senate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

58. It'll help when the R's retake the Senate in 2012.

Nothing is guaranteed but the ratio of D's up for re-election and R's up for re-election is 2:1.

[sam sarrha]

14. this is shoot'n your own balls off to spite some F'n Fascist NeoCon Cleptocratic Plutocrats

:wtf: :argh: :banghead:

[xynthee]

11. Do it!!

I can't believe they'd actually follow through with it, but I'd be very impressed if they did!

[Tx4obama]

13. Here's some more details of the dem's filibuster reform proposal

December 17th

Bipartisan Support Building Around Three Changes To Senate Rules In New Congress

Excerpt:

"This is a two-step process," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the leaders of the effort, told The Huffington Post in an interview after the caucus meeting. "The first step is that we need to recognize that under the Constitution, we can...adopt rules with 51 votes and also cut off debate on rules that we want to adopt with 51 votes. ... The second step is building the consensus with 51 senators on what they want to actually be in the rules. ... And that's the tough business we're in right now."

According to Udall, bipartisan support is beginning to build around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed and instead allow a set amount of time for debate, 2) ending secret holds, and 3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/changes-senate-rules-filibuster-transparency_n_798523.html

[jwirr]

17. How many votes does that give us?

[xchrom]

20. Recommend

[closeupready]

35. Silliness. This will accomplish nothing.

There will always be a convenient excuse to NOT do the people's business and instead to 'help themselves'.

Further, the filibuster is non-partisan.

[Tx4obama]

42. Yes it will accomplish a lot See comment #41 n/t

[tblue37]

37. Now that there won't be any decent bills from the House, they change the Senate rules

just in time t hand all that power to Republicans if they take over after the next election. They should have changed the rules in time to pass decent health care and financial reform and to prevent the tax giveaway to the wealthy.

[Tx4obama]

41. But...

1) Changing the rules 'now' will help the DEMOCRATS for the next two years.
Lowering the amount of debate time, getting rid of the 'secret holds', and making those that block a bill actually stand there on the floor in the open stating their case - are all three good rule changes that will benefit the DEMOCRATS :)

2) IF we do NOT change the rules, and IF the republicans were to take the senate in the next election (say with 53 seats) then the Republicans could change the rules on the first day of the next session that would start 2013 with only 51 votes - so worrying about what happens in 2013 has nothing to do with what we should do January 5, 2011.

p.s. And there are things that only the senate votes on and not the house - such as The President's administration and federal judicial appointments. A change in the rules will make the process regarding the confirmations much easier.

----------

December 17, 2010

Bipartisan Support Building Around Three Changes To Senate Rules In New Congress

Excerpt:

"This is a two-step process," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the leaders of the effort, told The Huffington Post in an interview after the caucus meeting. "The first step is that we need to recognize that under the Constitution, we can...adopt rules with 51 votes and also cut off debate on rules that we want to adopt with 51 votes. ... The second step is building the consensus with 51 senators on what they want to actually be in the rules. ... And that's the tough business we're in right now."

According to Udall, bipartisan support is beginning to build around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed and instead allow a set amount of time for debate, 2) ending secret holds, and 3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/changes-senate-rules-filibuster-transparency_n_798523.html

[Hardrada]

48. When they take over next November.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Heddi]

43. -

[alp227]

44. Democrats Seek Changes to Senate Procedures

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Frustrated by routine filibusters and other procedural blockades, Senate Democrats are urging their leadership to negotiate with Republicans to change the rules that govern how the Senate does business.

The Democrats would leave intact the ability of the minority party to filibuster legislation and nominations, meaning that in most cases it would still take 60 votes to get anything done. But they want to require senators to be on the floor if they intend to try to debate a bill to death and would make other changes to streamline the Senate’s operations, including ending the practice of secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees.

Republicans are likely to resist, and should no compromise be found, some Democrats are prepared to propose their own package of rules changes on the first day of the session. Doing so could touch off a bitter floor fight, escalate the already high partisan tensions in the chamber and hinder President Obama’s ability to advance legislation.

In a letter to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, Democratic senators expressed “strong sentiment” for ending what they see as Republican misuse of Senate process.

“We believe the current abuse of the rules by the minority threatens the ability of the Senate to do the necessary work of the nation, and we urge you to take steps to bring these abuses of our rules to an end,” said the Dec. 18 letter signed by 56 Democrats and independents, including all the other Democratic senators remaining in the Congress that opens Jan. 5.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/us/politics/25rules.html

---

So I guess that Bernie Sanders can still make 8-hour speeches criticizing bad legislation if he wanted to? But I'm glad that the Dems are speaking out against secret holds, an extreme abuse of power.

[Arctic Dave]

45. Sounds like something Chavez would do.

:hide:

Damn socialist senatorial dictators.

[Tx4obama]

46. Info in OP was already posted Wednesday in LBN on the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4670608&mesg_id=4670608

[totodeinhere]

47. This would have helped two years ago, but now that the GOP controls the House, they can block

anything that the Democrat controlled Senate does. It's too little too late.

[rampart]

51. so in 2012 when mcconnell is sworn in as majority leader

we won't be able to obstruct them?

put me in the "way too late" column.

[Amonester]

49. It's all for 'show'.

The government by the Rich FOR the Rich has no intention of changing anything (except to cut Social Security and Medicare).

[Vinca]

Please excuse the double post - computer went haywire.

[Vinca]

52. They need to consider the possibility of a Republican House and Senate.

This country could become completely unlivable in a very short period of time.

[No Elephants]

53. Neither panic nor rejoice: change, if any, will be quite modest.

[Odin2005]

55. Do it! I am sick of corrupted ConservaDems getting in the way!

[Synicus Maximus]

56. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Sooner or later

The Repubs are going to control the Senate again and we may need the filibuster.

[Posteritatis]

57. I'm fine with the filibuster having to be an endurance thing no matter who's in power

Saying "we shouldn't make the filibuster actually be a filibuster again because someday the Republicans will control the Senate" is, as far as I'm concerned, synonymous with "the Republicans' effort-free obstructionism in the last Congress was perfectly alright because we might want to do that someday."

Screw that; if people are going to try to filibuster something they should have to actually stand up there the entire time they're doing it instead of just going "Nuh-uh!" preemptively over every little thing.