Just saw this Democratic Senator on Rachel's show that wants

[doc03]

to change the rules on the filibuster. With the Republicans taking over the House isn't that kind of stupid? Won't the filibuster work in our favor now in stopping the Republicans next year?

[Mojambo]

1. Democrats don't filibuster. n/t

[pscot]

2. There's no filibuster in the House

And Democrats still control the Senate.

[doc03]

5. The Democrats had 60 votes the last couple years and the

Republicans stopped nearly everything. Next year the Republicans will be able to push anything through the House and the Democrats have a very thin if any margin in the Senate. I wouldn't really say the Democrats have control of the Senate anyway, when you figure in Lieberman, Joe Manchin etc.

[Cleita]

3. Maybe. But we can't go on like this with the

minority ruling the majority. It's happened in California too and is breaking the State because of the 2/3rd majority rule that causes legislation to be railroaded by the minority Republicans. Also, the Democrats probably won't fight dirty like the Republicans either, so it's just a bad rule.

[TheKentuckian]

4. My problem is we didn't make the adjustment in response to the previous record setting session.

Not to mention their very public and outlandish threats and statements regarding our new President.

[OhioBlue]

6. filibuser is only in the Senate

not the House. It won't work in our favor.

[doc03]

7. Where did I say their was a filibuster in the House? My point is

the last couple years we had a super Majority in both the House and Senate and Republicans pretty much shut the government down. Next year the Republicans have a majority in the House and can pass anything they want. We know dam well the Democrats majority in the Senate is on paper only, we always have a couple Benedict Arnolds in the Senate. The filibuster may be the only thing we have to keep the Republicans in check,

[gateley]

14. Did we have a super Majority? I heard Randi Rhodes speaking on this tonight.

Let's see how much I can recall without screwing it up too much.

Constitutionally a filibuster can only be used in certain instances such as impeachment (and others which I of course forget). BUT the Senate makes its own rules so they decided to use the filibuster as a tactic. No requirements on how many people have to be present, they don't even have to actually do it - just whisper the word.

She said that we didn't have a super Majority -- FDR did with 69 votes. (Don't know if that's accurate but she seems to really know this stuff.)

So she suggests that on January 5, that's our opportunity. New Session, change the rules. I don't think she was advocating doing away with the filibuster, merely requiring it is used as it was intended.

Okay, I've imparted zero helpful info, glad I could help. :7

[hlthe2b]

8. For the Senate, where we will have an even larger hurdle...

to get to 60 votes, given the increase in Senate RETHUGS, even though we retain the majority. There is no filibuster i the House, where the RETHUGS will have the majority... So, the comment applies only to the Senate.

[doc03]

9. I never said there was a filibuster in the House, won't we need

the filibuster in the Senate to help keep the Republicans in check? We couldn't get nothing done with 60 votes it will even be worse next year.

[jaysunb]

10. We'll get our judges and other

things that don't need the House's approval.

Obama can now govern by Executive order for the most part and all but ignore the House. Of course the House holds the purse strings, but they'll be hard pressed to shut the money off for the essential things.

It ain't all bad.....

[Lasher]

11. We have the filibuster now and we just passed the Bush tax cuts.

With this freshly in mind, I don't see how the filibuster is going to help us.

[hlthe2b]

12. Fillibuster typically helps the minority, who can not determine

the bills that get considered, nor always get their way on revisions. Thus, it allows them the final obstructive option intended to fight the really repulsive. THough the Dem's majority will be smaller, they will still be in the driver's seat to set the agenda, determine which bills are brought up, and to some extent, control the direction of bills as they move through the process. For them, the filibuster is the obstacle that they want to block, to getting their agenda through. But, aware that they could be one election away from needing that filibuster, should they lose the Senate, they don't want to aggressively remove it. They would like to modify the procedures around it so that the RETHUGS are less effective at blocking everything the next two years.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. You will never get 2/3rs for a rule change when one party is completely out of power

Because that means they will be completely powerless if they can't filibuster in the Senate. When the government is divided (as it will be in January), there is a better chance that both sides will agree to end the filibuster since both sides will still have some power.

[rucky]

15. Depends on Obama"s willingness to use the veto

which I doubt he'll even threaten to do.

in that case any crap that passes the house can squeak through the Senate

the other alternative is for the senate to just let shit die in committee.

However, if there's every anything the Senate dems want to pass, they can forget about it - filibuster or not - because it'll get mutilated in the House.

This tax deal just set the tone for the next two years. Expect a steady diet of shit sandwiches. With a house majority, the filibuster rule matters less.