Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change rules, prohibit filibusters

[ProSense]

Source: The Hill

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to end a filibuster.

Reid said these motions, which do not need unanimous consent, amount to a second-round filibuster after the Senate has voted to move to final passage of a measure.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

[bluestateguy]

1. Just waiting for Dick Durbin to apologize and start crying on the Senate floor

nt

[russspeakeasy]

20. You won't have to wait long...he'll be blubbering by noon Friday.

[occupy_wall_street]

48. INVITATION TO WALL STREET -- for Saturday at 11 AM at Liberty Park @ Red Cube corner

Please assemble peacefully at 140 Broadway.

A company such as Apple or General Motors or the old Ben & Jerrys has a responsibility to act in a responsible manner. Profit is not bad, but adding social justice makes these organizations much better.

The companies of Financial Capitalism are different. The crimes of their employees are what produced the Great Recession of 2008 and massive unemployment. They also took trillions of dollars from retirement funds and from other small investors.

Prosecute Wall Street's criminals. Fraud is still fraud. Banking regulations cannot to cited to usurp the general protections of the Common Law.

No one ever thought of prosecuting Steve Job for anything. He was not a criminal. He was a good man. Steve Jobs would not have been a success on today's Wall Street. "We Are The 1%" was not his motto.

"Think different" sums it up.

-- DU members are all invited to come to the Occupy Wall Street site on Saturday, October 8th at 11 AM

-- Please assemble peacefully at the Red Cube at 140 Broadway, at the corner of Broadway and Liberty Street

-- A speaker from OWS will greet everyone from DU. A statement of purpose and an invitation to support OWS will be presented.

That site can accommodate 250 DU members and their friends easily. As many as 1,000 extra people connected to DU can be accommodated directly with OWS plans for Saturday afternoon.



Freely exercise your freedom of speech and of the press; and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please, feel free to do all of this with Occupy Wall Street.

[Hutzpa]

68. Wish I can kick your comment

thank you so much for those kind words about Steve Jobs, so many here on DU
do not understand the man.

[occupy_wall_street]

78. Thank you.

[donquijoterocket]

80. second that

Jobs was so wrapped up in assuring that Apple products would push the technology and be, if possible, insanely great that money would have been a far afterthought.At the very least his business model was not that of Gates who might well have been emulating Edward Teach.
I'm very sure that neither Jobs,Wozniak or for that matter, Gates or Buffett knew or cared what the top marginal tax rate was when they started.

[lonestarnot]

75. K&R!

[defendandprotect]

81. kr

[Pirate Smile]

2. From The Plum Line: This only applies after cloture so you have to have 60 votes to get here.

Harry Reid triggers a procedural “nuclear option,” one that Dems had previously condemned, to change the rules and (it seems) to prevent filibusters. Implications aren’t fully clear yet, but it seems to be a big deal.

Update: This might not be quite right. It seems to be more focued on amendments, not filibusters. A Dem aide emails:

The Senate voted to make post-cloture motions to suspend the rules out of order. This was done because the minority has used this tactic to derail even bills with broad bipartisan agreement that successfully gain cloture, such as the China currency bill which received 79 votes on the motion to proceed and 62 votes to cut off debate. The Senate must have the ability to move forward with bills that have broad bipartisan support.

Note that this only applies to motions to suspend the rules post-cloture.

Motions to suspend the rules after cloture are not a tactic that is central to minority rights in the Senate.

A motion to suspend the rules has not succeeded since 1941, according to the Senate Historian’s office. This is simply a delay tactic the minority has used to derail even bills with broad, bipartisan agreement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/happy-hour-roundup/2011/10/06/gIQA1RSBRL_blog.html

[ProSense]

6. Thanks. More details

Roll Call: Harry Reid Cracks Down in Floor Showdown With Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put the hammer down against the GOP today, setting a new precedent that clamps down on procedural motions after cloture has been reached.

The Nevada Democrat warned that allowing unchecked motions to suspend the rules could lead to unending debate, even after 60 Senators have voted to invoke cloture. However, the presiding officer at the time, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), ruled that such motions are not dilatory — a term of art meaning that they are intended to delay. In a convoluted power play, Reid moved that the ruling of the chair be sustained — a simple-majority vote that he wanted to lose and did, 48-51.

The power move by Reid appeared similar to a proposed “nuclear option” of changing the rules with a simple majority, but would keep the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned that Reid was changing the precedents of the Senate simply to avoid voting on several motions to suspend the rules sought by the GOP.

<...>

[groundloop]

18. EVERYONE - before you get all excited READ THE ARTICLE

Note that this only applies to motions to suspend the rules post-cloture.

The pubs were blocking legislation even after it had cleared the 60 vote filibuster hurdle. This prevents that trick, but does nothing to stop the damned filibuster.

[Sirveri]

33. Yeah, they can do away with that on the first day of a new congress.

So they already pissed away their chance to affect real change.

[global1]

3. Finally - Why Didn't They Do This Sooner .......

Think of all that could have gotten done.

[PuffedMica]

44. Why didn't Senator Reid do this in 2009 when our President took office?

We were set to crush the Republicans. Instead they were able to nickle and dime us on every piece of legislation insuring nothing was accomplished.

I don't understand our leadership. Reid will change the Senate rules now, but not when it would have given us another tool to fight the repukes.

[tclambert]

46. Somebody wanted to try bipartisanship.

It took about two and a half years of getting his hand spit on every time he reached out before he admitted the other side had no interest in playing nice. Too slow.

[stopbush]

67. Possibly because the longer one stays in the Senate, the more it becomes like a religion,

with all kinds of crap that's just taken on faith. Ergo, people like Reid believe not only that they're living in some fantasy world that has its own rules and version of reality, but that to change even the smallest of those rules threatens to alter the faux reality and expose the entire fantasy for what it is - a fantasy.

[defendandprotect]

82. kr

[soryang]

105. Because they needed excuses for the pro-corporate health bill...

...and another excuse for not repealing the bush tax cuts as soon as they took office.

[Cosmocat]

50. Christ sakes alive ...

Words cannot describe ...

[Warpy]

4. Good it's overdue

While the filibuster has been a useful tool used by an out of power party to prevent any excesses by the party in power, it's just gotten to the point that the Senate doesn't work at all

I don't think we can afford abolishing it forever. I do think the rules need to be changed so that its suspension is triggered whenever there is a national emergency or more than 30 bills being filibustered at a time.

The latter provision will keep both parties honest and using it as a last resort.

[cstanleytech]

13. What we really need is a constitutional amendment that limits the number of seats a party can hold

but thats about as likely to happen imo as my hitting the powerball, in fact I probably have better odds of getting struck by lightning than either of those things happening.

[Warpy]

14. It won't happen because it shouldn't happen

There will always be party differences and regional differences and those regions need to be represented, no matter how backwards they are.

We're still all in this together, even if we don't like each other very much from time to time.

[GaltFreeDiet]

17. No, states with less than 5 electoral votes should get only one senator

and states with more than 30 electoral votes should get one more.

[Lasher]

41. The original small colonies objected to such a thing.

They believed, and rightly so, that the larger colonies would simply run them over. The composition of Congress is a compromise in that respect. States are represented in the House according to population, and each State has an equal voice in the Senate.

[paulk]

64. it's an absurd system

where a state like Wyoming, with the smallest population in the continental US, has equal representation in the Senate with a state like California, with the largest population and an economy, if California were a nation, that would rank in the top ten of the entire world.

And the House is gerrymandered to the point where it's a joke.

a system of government developed for thirteen states 230 years ago, cannot meet the needs of the modern world.

imo.

[Lasher]

79. The two chamber structure functioned well in the 13 original states.

Today it seems a quaint system to some, but the USA probably would not have established a strong central government - at least not for years afterward - without this compromise. States like Rhode Island had little incentive to relinquish sovereignty to be effectively ruled by other states like Virginia.

There is certainly room for improvement but I don't see anything wrong with letting the little states have an equal voice in the Senate. With the House and the Presidency each decided according to population, the structure seems as fair as it can be.

I agree with you about gerrymandering, however. I have been particularly troubled to see this occur in states like Texas when they didn't even have an excuse of a new census result to change boundaries. That was going way to far and Congress should have stepped in to stop it. But that was the House of Representatives of Hastert the Hut and Hot Tub Tom DeLay, who actually ran that circus.

[paulk]

109. if you're going to keep the system as is

then you need to either get rid of the filibuster or radically change it. The filibuster shoots down any idea of an "equal voice" - it lets a coalition of small population states overule a majority, even a large majority. The 2008 Senate is a good example, with the 41 Republican Senators representing just over a quarter of the population of the country... and using the Senate rules to thwart the will of the other 3/4. That is a system that does not work.

[Lasher]

120. I'm all for ending the filibuster.

There was a time when the filibuster worked reasonably to guard against abrupt and extreme changes. That was back in a day when Senators could be expected to use it only rarely. Those days are long gone, so it's time to end what has become a perverted practice.

In recent years there have been attempts by some Senators, as each new Congress has convened, to end the filibuster. But this has been unsuccessful. Particularly since 2008 Democrats have been fools to have allowed the practice to continue. A one-sided political war is being waged in the Senate but Democrats don't seem to realize it's been going on.

I don't understand why so many Democratic Senators insist on keeping the filibuster, but I have guessed that it might be because individuals cherish its power. I believe the filibuster will be ended if Republicans manage to gain control of the Executive and Legislative branches next year.

[paulk]

122. "War"

That's the right word, and it's the main source of my disappointment with both Obama and the Democratic Party.

We're dealing with a party, the GOP, that has stolen two Presidential elections in this young century - if that doesn't tip one off to what's going on, I don't know what will. These people don't care about the rules, they don't care about the institution, they don't believe in democracy.

[golfguru]

106. Gerrymandering is indeed ridiculous

the framers of constitution did not visualize this problem. Each house district should look close to a square or a circle, not like a frog run over by a SUV on the road.

[Chan790]

121. No.

The Senate is not a population-representative body...nor should it be. That's what the House is for. The only change that should be considered is the one to grant state-level Congressional representation to DC.



Note that at the current representation rates we'd have 1 Rep and 2 Senators...and they'd all be Democrats...and that would make a difference.

[Ter]

93. What?

Neither party has that many Seats in the Senate. Out of 100, there are roughly 53 Dems, 45 Reps, and 2 Indies.

[cstanleytech]

99. Its just my opinion though (assuming I'm still allowed to have such a thing)

that no party should have more than say 40 of those seats.

[Ter]

118. You're allowed

But how would you go about it? Nothing would ever get done. Gridlock would be 10 times worse than even now. If there are already 40 Democrats, what happens in the NY election? The Republican goes against the Libertarian and Green? What happens when it's 40 Dems and 40 Reps? Libertarian vs. Greens? Constitution Party vs. the Socialist?

[cstanleytech]

119. Then the dems and republicans would have to actually learn to work in a timely manner to pass stuff.

That or they can risk trying to get those other varies votes which might not be enough.

[RoccoR5955]

39. If we do it that way..

It wouldn't keep the RepubliCONs "honest." They'd merely filibuster every 29 bills.

[Warpy]

90. However, the Senate would still largely work

There are over 100 bills that were passed by the last House that are still being "filibustered" in the Senate. The Senate has simply stopped doing its job thanks to petty politics mostly (but not exclusively) by the far right.

[krispos42]

52. The Senate is already disproportionate in representation

In that California (37 million people) has as much sway as Wyoming (½ million people).




There are 308 million people in the country; this means that the senators representing only 34 million people can filibuster things.

[Warpy]

89. You have misunderstood its purpose

The Senate was put in place to represent the states as separate entities, not the population of those states. It was there to put a check on high population states making laws that favored themselves but had the potential to destroy the economies of low population states. That's why Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures.

[krispos42]

111. Oh, I understand that...

...it's to keep big empty states from being raped and/or dumped on by big populous states.


It doesn't change the fact that at this point it is GROSSLY disproportionate already. Raising the effective vote limit to 60 only makes it that much easier to screw up the system further.


I think the only true fix to the system is to break up the populous states into smaller ones. Fix the ratio of Representatives to Senators at, say 6:1 for any given state. This means that no state can get more than 12 representatives. The big states would have to break up into smaller states, or get under-represented in the House.

California into 5 states; Texas, Florida, and New York into 3 states; and so on. I think I calculated we would have 67 states after this was implemented.



Of course, it will never happen. But it should.

[Warpy]

112. I agree that the big, populous states could stand to be split

The problem will be selling that to their populations.

[krispos42]

114. Actually, I think that would be relatively easy

Imagine if the people of present-day California could be represented by 10 senators instead of 2?

should be easy enough.




But it will be selling it to the sparsely populated states that wield that disproportionate influence? Never.

[aggiesal]

94. This is not abolishing the filibuster ...

This is after cloture (It has nothing to do with the filibuster).
The Republicans are filing Motions To Suspend, after it has
cleared the committee, and the filibuster (i.e. voted to close the debate AKA Cloture)
and is now ready to be voted on the floor.

But the Republicans are filing Motions To Suspend so that, by
their reasoning, they can add amendments before the final vote.
Unfortunately, they are only using it as a stall tactic, and never
adding any amendments, thus never allowing it to be voted on,
on the floor.

[jmowreader]

108. They still have the filibuster

This prevents "refilibusters"--the pukes throwing up additional procedural motions to kill bills after the filibusters against them have been closed by cloture.

The single largest problem we have as a nation is the filibuster. It was designed to allow the minority party to shut down a really bad bill the majority party was bringing through the Senate. It was NOT designed to be used as a campaign tactic--the Republicans filibuster everything then say we have a "do nothing" Congress that can only be fixed by giving the Republicans back the majority. Reid's move does nothing to fix this.

[MineralMan]

5. It's about time, Senator Reid.

This should have been done long ago.

[Zorra]

7. Fucking brilliant! If this is true, and Dems remain united in drafting/voting on legislation,

this is enormous.

The House is a huge impediment t actually passing a lot of progressive legislation, but now, if Senate Dems unite, Democratic Senators can propose and then vote on legislative items at will, among other goodies.

They can make both House and Senate republicans look like the monsters that they are by forcing them to vote on popular progressive issues critical to the well being of the people of the US.

Could be an awesome boost for Dem hopes in '12.

I'm stunned. I wish Harry had the foresight to do this in Feb. 2008, but better late than never.

Holy shit!
:bounce:

[ixion]

8. Not wise, in my opinion.

I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying so.

[bahrbearian]

9. I know its, deja vue all over again.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

86. You are right !!

If the GOP takes the Senate - they will say the Democrats did it so we can!!!

[ixion]

96. precisely

and not only that, they'll raise the bar even higher, just to be vindictive.

[MrSlayer]

10. Kind of dumb to do it now.

He should have done this in 2009. We could have passed a host of good legislation. Which is, of course, why they didn't do it then. Now the Republicans can come in and steamroll us in 2013.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Yep

Now that we've done it, don't be surprised in the slightest to see the Repukes do it when they get control of the Senate again, which could be as little as fifteen months away.

[razorman]

15. Most likely. The attitude toward the filibuster is directly related to which party controls

the senate at a given time. D's and R's switch sides on this issue every few years, as the senate changes hands.

[toddwv]

62. That's normally true...

but the Republicans DOUBLED the use of the filibuster effectively shutting down any legislation that they didn't approve of and making the Senate grind to a halt...



So an agreement was made in exchange for not changing the rules.

And that agreement was promptly broken...

Every party uses a few sneaky tricks here and there but the Republicans have, once again taken it to a WHOLE different level. Don't forget about all the appointments that the Republicans are holding up. They are even holding pro-forma sessions of Congress to keep it from a full recess so that the President can't make recess appointments as he is authorized to do BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

[defendandprotect]

83. Except that Dems hadn't used it to do what the Repugs have done with it -- that I recall?????

[cstanleytech]

24. I disagree. I dont think it was dumb to wait, the dems kept offering for the most part reasonable

offers time after time and finally they had enough of the republican heel dragging and called them on, now all they need to do is keep after them if they try it for now on because the country cannot survive the republicans childish games anymore.

[MrSlayer]

25. Yes but we've had to suffer them for years.

So why do this now when it can't do us any good? The Republicans are still going to obstruct at every turn and they control the House so this is a meaningless gesture.

[Tx4obama]

26. No.

The problem has been not being able to get 60 votes for cloture on bills.
That is something different than what took place today.
The rule change today only deals with what happens AFTER cloture has been invoked, the new rule will prevent republicans from introducing motions to introduce unlimited amendments during the debate time before the final vote.

Bills will still need 60 yes votes to invoke cloture - and the GOP will still be obstructing things by not voting for cloture.

[Firebrand Gary]

36. Yes, however there are 7 reliable Republican votes to invoke cloture. This is a big step.

[Tx4obama]

37. Seven?

Where'd you get that number from?
Normally the republicans that the dems can count on are: Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, and Brown.
Sanders and Lieberman are NOT republicans they are Independents.

So, who are the other THREE you are referring to?

[Firebrand Gary]

45. Lugar, McCain and Graham are going to raise a few eyebrows I think.

Not to mention Graham and Sessions very much want the Currency bill to become law, Reid has leverage. Graham and Sessions can whip some of the GOP votes.

[Cosmocat]

51. Eh ...

1) yes, WAY, WAY too late ...
2) The Rs don't need the Ds to have made this maneuver. Five minutes into having control of the senate they would set rules like this to their favor.

[rhett o rick]

57. My feelings exactly. nm

[Historic NY]

11. Its about time.

[caseymoz]

16. Good. Don't pull back, Harry.

Let's bury the unconstitutional filibuster.

[gmee2]

71. filibuster is not unconstitutional....

If anything it is constitutional. The framers of the Constitution set up Congress to have unlimited debate and to create their own rules. It has its basis in the framers intentions to assure that a rogue majority in Congress could not shove legislation down the country's throat. There was no cloture vote until 1917 when rules were adopted to stop debate by a 2/3 majority (67 votes) which in effect did nothing. In 1975 Dem's changed the rules again to require the 60 votes that is in use now.

So what is your basis for saying it is unconstitutional?

[Hosnon]

95. I think there's a strong argument that it is unconstitutional as well.

For all practical purposes, the filibuster requires more than a simple majority to pass legislation in the Senate, which is all the Constitution requires (by omission).

[gmee2]

97. that is not an argument because filibuster is about

debate not legislation. Before the cloture rules there was no way to stop debate. As long as a Senator was willing to debate, the deliberations kept going. It was the same in both legislative bodies but the House decided to change the rules. If anything, limiting debate is unconstitutional. It all falls under the legislative bodies ability to change rules under the Constitution.

[caseymoz]

101. Where is filibuster mentioned in the Constitution?

Can you find it? If yes, it's constitutional. If no, it's unconstitutional. Simple as that, really. Do you have a counter-argument? Where does it say bills are passed and advice and consent are given, "by vote of sixty percent of the Senate?"

It could be argued that Congress has the complete constitutional right to manage its own rules, therefore the filibuster is extra- rather than unconstitutional. But the rules meant to manage Congress should not have widespread ramifications for supreme laws of the land outside of Congress. Nor should they make Congress unable to perform its Constitutionally required duties. If whole slews of laws, Presidential appointments and treaties are being blocked by Congressional procedure, then Congress becomes unable to perform any of its constitutional duties. If the Senate cannot advise and consent due to the filibuster, the filibuster itself is unconstitutional.

And agreed, the filibuster is a long-standing tradition in the Senate. However, that just means what it says. It still isn't in the Constitution. Fact is, the filibuster has never been abused before the way it is now. Arguably, it's extra-constitutional and it's being used in unconstitutional ways. It has to go.

[gmee2]

125. The cloture vote if anything is unconstitutional

The truth is that filibuster is just a name given after the Constitution was written. As long as a Senator wants to stand there and debate he has a right to do so. The Dems started the cloture vote. If one honestly looks at when the abuse started, it was after 86 when the Dems lost the Senate. There was a doubling of the number of filibusters. One of the more famous filibusters was that of Al Gore Sr. who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with a lot of other Democrats. THe truth is that unlimited debate whether you agree with it or not was the way it was set up by the Founders so the filibuster is Constitutional. The cloture vote is unconstitutional. Seeing as that you use BF for an avatar I would think that you would know that. And if you want to get technical about what is in the constitution maybe you can answer this. Where is the right of the Federal Government to rule by fiat ie. the EPA or for that matter where in the Constitution are the enumerated rights for anything the Federal Government does other then defense of the country.

[rtracey]

103. not in the constitution

The Constitution does not contemplate the filibuster in any way, directly or indirectly. The filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the Senate. The Constitution allows each house of Congress to set its own rules. Early on, both houses had unlimited debate provisions. The term for the use of unlimited debate as a legislative tactic became known as a filibuster in the 1850's, but it was never set up in the Constitution as a specific aspect of the congress.

[gmee2]

126. You are correct

Filibuster is just a name, whether a delaying tactic (which is what it is used for) or unlimited debate it is the same thing.

[madamesilverspurs]

19. Would love to have seen the look on McConnell's face!

I'd been watching C-Span2, switched away when Jeff Sessions took the mike.

What the heck, maybe somebody caught the moment on video? It'd be worth the trip to a wifi spot to watch it.

[russspeakeasy]

21. Just imagine a pig's ass, with the sides turned up.

[Muskypundit]

22. You have captured the essence of McConnell

in perfect literary form.

[gkhouston]

34. I never realized that it's possible to insult a pig's ass. I ROFL corrected. n/t

[gkhouston]

35. I never realized that it's possible to insult a pig's ass. I ROFL corrected. n/t

[tropicanarose]

73. LOL!

[Tx4obama]

23. Here's a link to a video

it's only 2:19 minutes long, not sure what's on it because I haven't watched it yet

Reid and McConnell spar over ‘nuclear option’
http://thehill.com/video/senate/186145-reid-and-mcconnell-spar-over-nuclear-option

Edited to add additional link:

Senate leaders bicker on the floor, remember 'good old days'
http://thehill.com/video/senate/186003-senate-leaders-bicker-on-the-floor-remember-good-old-days

[red dog 1]

27. Way to go Harry!

Better late than never....I'll bet Bonehead is really pissed!

[Lucretius]

28. Filibuster? What filibuster?

I can not remember an actual filibuster since the end of the Vietnam War? Which Senators are speaking by turns to uphold which out of favor opinion?

[valerief]

61. It's post-cloture delays being done away with, not filibusters. nt

[Fearless]

29. About-Fucking-Time.

[midnight armadillo]

30. not impressed

Now, when Reid tells one of those old GOP fuckers: "Filibuster? fine. Start talking old man, and I hope you're wearing Depends" then I'll be impressed.

[unionworks]

31. Give 'Em HELL

Harry!:evilgrin:

[The Second Stone]

32. Reid breaks out the big guns for the People's Republic of China

but the people of the USA don't rate that kind of concern. The filibuster is being used to destroy the US economy and should be eliminated.

[plumbob]

38. Good! Let's get on with it!

More now and more changes to get things moving again!

[Rochester]

40. This is going to come back to bite us in the ass...

...if the bad guys ever regain the House, Senate, and the presidency simultaneously.
It could happen.
Just wait and see.

[mother earth]

43. Are you kidding? They've been biting our ass left & right?!?!!!

First you come out swinging when you are dealing with assinine obstructionists that the GOP surely are & it's about time the American people witness Dems with spines for change. Hell, can the situation become worst than it is? If you are worried about what ifs, how about worrying that this may be the last chance to make a damned difference? Are you kidding?

[mother earth]

42. Finally! Understand now? Fight the fight for the people! K&R

[No Elephants]

47. I am ready to kiss all super majority requirements good bye. Let the majority be fully

responsible for what they do and do not get done.

Right now, all most voters know is that Congress has failed them.

Maybe, if a majority party loees the ability to make excuses to voters, Congress will finally get back to doing something for people, instead of for corporations and their lobbyists.

[defendandprotect]

84. And take new "Super Congress" with it --- !!!

[BigD_95]

49. So Reed uses the ‘nuclear option’ for amendments to China currency legislation

But wouldnt use it for the 100 other bills that were way more important.

hmmmmmm

[defendandprotect]

85. Wow - - !!!

[jeff47]

53. Title is very misleading. Doesn't prohibit filibusters

What it does is prohibit other post-filibuster motions. The filibuster itself still exists. But once there are 60 votes, the minority can't force a bunch of other motions to delay things further.

[Myrina]

54. ... which means the Dems will never be able to filibuster in the future ...

.... talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

[razorman]

55. Absolutely. This sets a precedent. When the shoe is on the other foot,(as it will be some day),

prohibiting filibusters will benefit the Republicans. Then, I believe Senator Reid will regret this move.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

58. Good grief. Do you honestly think the Republicons worry about precedence?

They would have/or will invoke this option as soon as they NEED it. We must stop trying to be nice so the republicons wont hurt us.

It's way, way past time to fight back.

[razorman]

98. They DID need it several years ago, but didn't use it. Remember the "Gang of 14"?

Those filibusters stopped several Bush judicial appointments. Now, the next time the Pubs control the senate, they can use this to stop such filibusters. They will not even have to accept blame for breaking tradition. Harry Reid just did it for them.

[rhett o rick]

115. You are comparing "several Bush judicial appointments" as the same as over one hundred

filibusters last year. If you believe that the repukes have held back because of historical precedence you are badly mistaken. They have totally abused the reason for the filibuster. When they did that, all bets are off. My only criticism with Sen Reid is that he should have done this sooner.

[onpatrol98]

59. Wait???

Didn't Reid change the rules so that they "wouldn't" have to vote on it, as is? This is confusing. The President says, vote on it, "AS IT IS". Reid doesn't need McConnell to do that, right? He can bring it to the floor, and let Republicans just vote no and let the world see how they vote. Why did he even need a rule change?

[valerief]

63. Reid did away with post-cloture delays. nt

[still_one]

60. I already heard grumbling from the MSM how bad this was. Funny, the MSM didn't have a problem when

the repukes wanted to do it

[radhika]

65. He could have done this Jan 5th without the 'drama'

First day of a new Senate permits rules changes to be adopted with a 50% vote, which was doable with a Dem Majority. Many options were on the table to restrict or modify filibustering...Harry copped out. Now - probably thanks to Occupy WS and similar outside activism - Harry thinks the Dems have to pretend to fight back.

[madville]

69. He was fighting this very thing from 2002-2006

The Republicans and Frist threatened to do it all the time when the Democrats were obstructing appointments and legislation. I remember Harry speaking out against it almost daily for a time there, of course they were in the minority then and it was their only weapon.

I think they are just hedging their bets in case we lose the presidency and senate next year, the filibuster will be the only weapon we have left.

[HERVEPA]

66. Day late and a dollar short.

[groundloop]

70. MISLEADING TITLE - THIS DOESN'T END FILIBUSTERS !!!

Apparently some republicons were playing political games with legislation that had already made it past the 60 vote filibuster margin. All this does is put an end to that BS so that these particular bills can move on.

[onpatrol98]

74. Will this help the Jobs Bill?

[kestrel91316]

72. I expect Reid to go back to business as usual after applying this to a single bill

under consideration.

The Repigs can relax.

[lonestarnot]

76. Yeppers.

[gmee2]

77. better not loose the Senate in 2012

or everyone is going to regret doing this

[RC]

87. The elections are coming, the elections are coming!

The Democrats are getting their spines out of their respective closets.

[comtec]

88. HOLY SHIT BATMAN!!!!!! Reid has a spine!?!?!?!?!?!?

WHEN the fuck did that happen!?

[Progressive dog]

91. why is this shocking?

We pretend to live in a representative democracy, but our President is NOT ELECTED by popular vote and our Senate is far from equal in representation. Then the Senate has rules that make it even less representative of the people.
This "rule change" is as nuclear as the WMD in Iraq. This is one tiny step for democracy.

[kenfrequed]

92. Hmmph...

Couldn't bring this to the healthcare debate or any of the votes to try to help out working people. But chinese currency laws, now the big guns come out.

[crazyjoe]

100. bad move, what happens if republicans regain the majority?

[unionworks]

102. Condition Orange!

Attention all republicans! This is Tom Rigged from Fatherland security! Insert rectal thernometers and proceed to nearest cold shower, till your blood cools to normal republican reptile levels! Then tune in your A.M. radio to Rush Limbaugh for emergency talking points! :rofl: :rofl:

[dotymed]

104. Just curious...

Do these obstructionist's actually filibuster, or do they merely have to threaten a filibuster? I hope that this action by Senator Reid is not "too little, too late."

[unblock]

107. the term "filibuster" refers to ANY delaying tactic

if by "actually filibuster" you mean those legendary hollywood refusing to relinquish the floor read-from-the-phonebook marathon speeches, that's merely one example of a delaying tactic, one of many filibustering techniques.

and as of a senate rules change in 1975, it's no longer necessary as there are many easier ways to delay.


reids action removes one of these other delaying tactic, which could be called the "repeat filibuster", though it leaves in place many others.

[dotymed]

113. Thank you and I was thinking "Mr. Smith goes to Washington."

[kelly1mm]

110. Reid and the Democrats are going to regret this. Also, it does not get rid

of filibusters, just limits post closure motions to only those with a majority. So, lets look to the future, say February, 2013.

House passes a bill to fund the military.

Senate has closure vote on bill to fund the military, getting the 60 votes.

Once that is done, Senate Leader McConnell says to the newly elected NE R Senator "hey want to make an amendment?" "Why yes I do - repeal the health care law in total!" says new R Senator.

Reid screams and pounds his fists - "You can't do that - We 45 D's won't allow that or vote for closure"

McConnell: " Hey Harry, remember the China currency vote? We only need a simple majority - ha ha!"

Reid "Oh Fuck!"

Vote 45 no, 55 yes. McConnell says to House at conference "You all don't mind this little amendment right?" "No problem! says" the House.

Bill goes up to President Romney/Perry/Cain - and he signs it saying "hehehe that was easy, what a bunch of dupes!"

The End.

[wtmusic]

116. "All amendments must be relevant to the debate"

"After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.<13>
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of."

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

[kelly1mm]

124. You are kidding, right? Do you know why this was such a big deal? Because

Reid changed the rules that would have allowed amendments that had been considered in the past and that would have needed 60 votes to end debate . In fact, the bill was for the China currency bill. The R's tried to put in 7 amendments, 2 of which were about the President's job bill and EPA dust regulations - having absolutely nothing to do with China currency - and the types of amendments that would have commonly been debated in the past.

The fact of the matter is that the majority can now add whatever amendments they want to a bill after closure and the minority can't.

If you disagree, that's fine - we will see in January/February 2013 as it looks likely that the R's will control the House and Senate. Whitehouse I am still thinking that Obama will win, but not a sure thing.

[marasinghe]

117. at this point, i'll take anything that puts the repukes in a snarling frenzy.

even if it's too little too late.

[wordpix]

123. FINALLY the leadership is bringing "heavy artillery" to defend against the repuke blitz

that's been going on since O was elected. ABout time. I am going to applaud Reid b/c better late than never :applause: :woohoo: