"Dems signal push for filibuster reform"

[Clio the Leo]

Dems signal push for filibuster reform
By Michael O'Brien - 12/15/10 08:08 AM ET

Democrats will make an attempt to reform the Senate's filibuster rules, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Wednesday.

Brown joined other members of his party who have been signaling, in the closing days of the lame-duck Congress, that their party is likely to seek changes to long-standing Senate rules that require 60 votes (instead of a simple majority of 51) to advance most pieces of legislation in the chamber.

"I think you're going to see attempts to do that," Brown said of the prospects for filibuster reform this morning on MSNBC.

The filibuster, or at least an implicit threat of one, has been used to great effect in the past two years by Senate Republicans to slow down or flat-out block pieces of legislation favored by Democrats.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a high-profile congressional liberal, is expected to address the need for filibuster reform in a speech at the National Press Club this morning, as well.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) has also been exploring options for filibuster reform, and suggested that the Senate might exercise the "constitutional option," and change Senate rules with a simple majority of votes on the first day of its next session. Since the constitution gives the House and Senate the power to set its own rules, Udall's proposal would seem to bypass the higher threshold required to change Senate rules.

"We can fix it on the first day because with 51 senators and utilizing the constitutional option, we can move to a situation where we change the rules," Udall said last night on MSNBC. "Obviously, I may be in the minority at some point, so I want minority rights protected. But we can make the Senate work more efficiently. And that`s what we`re working on right now."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/133709-dems-signal-push-for-filibuster-reform

Personally, I'd like to see Harkin's plan adopted...

Harkin's plan would reduce the amount of votes needed to break a filibuster the longer it goes on. Senators would need 60 votes to break the first vote but then the amount of votes needed would drop to 57, then 54 votes and finally 51 votes.

"If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously," he said. "Make sure you're not missing something. My proposal will do that."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73649-harkin-to-reintroduce-measure-to-change-filibuster

[BadgerKid]

1. So this helps to reduce effectiveness of

deliberate stalling and secret holds?

[vi5]

2. Really? Now?

They push for this now? When they have an even smaller majority and are 2 years away from very likely being the minority party?

I swear, sometimes when it comes to the Democratic party I am seriously ready to just permanently glue my hand to my face for the perpetual facepalm that I need to express my exasperation with my party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. That's What I Thought Too

A dispassionate observer would conclude that a Republican Senate in 012 is more likely than not given the fact we have a lot more seats up than them.

[Supersedeas]

25. Exactly

[Cosmocat]

29. YEP ...

They are one more tough election from being about 5 down in the senate ...

And NOW, they want to tweak the filibuster, when THEY likely will be hurt most by it ...

Friggen brilliant ...

[Epiphany4z]

3. a bit late no?

of course they will change it...I mean now that they are set to be the minority party...why wouldn't they...:banghead:

[earthside]

5. Better late than never ....

.... and if they don't, then it basically will mean that the Repuglicans control both houses of Congress.

Without restoring majority rule to the Senate, McConnell will hold everything the House passes hostage -- there won't be any up-or-down votes -- just legislative gridlock. And who do you think will be blamed for that? Why the Democratic Senate, of course!

And from Pres. Obama's behavior recently, no filibuster reform will mean even more 'compromises' (sellouts) to the hostage takers.

Frankly, I disappointed that Harry Reid continuing as Majority Leader is a foregone conclusion -- what a weak, ineffective 'leader' he has been.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. What Happens If And When The Republicans Become The Majority In 012?

.

[sadbear]

21. That's a foregone conclusion

If the Dems don't change the filibuster next year, the republicans will do it in '13. Better get some stuff done before '12, 'cause nothing's happening after '12.

[niceypoo]

26. They go bezerk with new tax cutting

And the economy collapses and the US defaults on its debt.

[pnorman]

27. "If"??? Preventing that possibility should be UPPERMOST on our minds!

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I don't understand why they would reform the filibuster just when they might need it

This is just dumb.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Why Do Some Of Them Oppose A Compromise Now When They Will Only Get A Worse One Later?

And why does much of the left wing punditocracy enable them?

[harun]

9. It is but even if Republican's use it against us I am willing to take that for a future

where the Country isn't held hostage by 40 Republican's.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Maybe I Am Missing Something

It's not outside the realm of possibility the Repubs recapture the Senate and White House in 012. If that comes to pass and there's no filibuster where are the checks and balances.

We would have one party rule.

They could have up and down votes to privatize SS, Medicare, the Army!!!!

[ladjf]

11. In 2012, if the Republicans have the majority and the Dems haven't

changed the rules down to 51 votes, then they will change the rule anyway.

[bbrady42]

12. That's absolutely right.

They have no shame. They'll come in and immediately start talking about the need to get government "working again." And the media will follow FOX's lead and all suddenly realize that changing the Senate rules really does make sense.

[ladjf]

13. If the Dems had changed the rules two years ago, history would

have been different.

Personally, I think the Senate should be abolished. The basic setup is inherently undemocratic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. That Would Leave Us At The Mercy Of A Republican House For The Next Ten Years

I don't know how America would be governed in that scenario. The Republican House would just send President Obama crappy legislation after crappy legilation and nothing would get accomplished. How would you even get a budget?

And what happens if a Republican is elected in 2012?

I don't want to be subject to the tyranny of a Republican majority.

[harun]

20. Wakeup, you're already subject to the tyranny of a Republican Minority.

If we aren't willing to take on the problems change from a Republican majority could enact, then we shouldn't be surprised when it is impossible to enact constructive change from a Democratic majority.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. If The Repubs Had Total Control Of The Govt Things Would Be A Lot Worse

There would be nine Scalias on the Courts, gays and straight folks would be subject to imprisonment for goinng down on one another, the unemployed would get no benefits at all, the poor would be taxed at higher rates than the rich, and debtors prisons would be revived.

[harun]

23. Possibly. It also might have allowed our Dem President, Dem Senate

and Dem House to enact Health Care Reform instead of Health Insurance Reform.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. It's Moot Anyway Though My Point Stands

"Still, it could be difficult to secure any agreement to change the rules. Under Senate protocol, 67 senators would have to agree to change filibuster rules, meaning that at least nine GOP senators would have to vote for a change. That could be especially difficult, considering Republicans are still in the minority in the Senate in the next two years."


We would be sowing the seeds of our destruction, providing most of the votes for an action that could result in our own demise because the Repubs won't be close to 67 in the forseeable future.

[Kber]

18. That's a good point.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. So, next year it will be easier for the Senate to pass bills that GOP-controlled House sends it

Brilliant!

[WI_DEM]

17. So why didn't they do this when they had 60 members?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Because It Takes Sixty Seven

.

[Nite Owl]

24. Sure, now that the House is in GOP

control and can stop everything anyway?

[Festivito]

28. I wish it were by Q&A attendance and participation.

Make the non-sensible arguer speak it and send it to the press.
Make the sensible arguer defend it and send it to the press.

[Ganja Ninja]

30. Great timing!

Not!

[DCBob]

31. This is the best news I have heard in months.

Hope they can pull it off.

[Dawgs]

32. Unrec for stupidity of Dems.

The timing on this couldn't be worse.