SIGN the DailyKos/Merkley/Udall PETITION: Tell Senators--make the filibuster real!

[Tx4obama]

Tell Senators--make the filibuster real!

Join with Daily Kos, and with Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall, to petition Senators to reform the filibuster.
To all members of the Senate in the 112th Congress:

Make the filibuster real. Require Senators who filibuster to stay on the floor and explain to the American people why they think they are right and a majority of Senators are wrong.

http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=17

---

Text of email from Merkley and Udall

XXXX,

Are you as angry about the broken Senate as we are? In the movies, in order to filibuster, Senators have to stand in the Senate and make their case to the American people. But in the modern Senate, a filibuster takes no such act of principle or courage. Senators can filibuster simply by placing a phone call to a clerk and heading off to dinner!

This January 5th, we have a chance to change the rules of the Senate, and make Senators engage in an all night talk-a-thon in order to block legislation or nominations. We can make the filibuster a real filibuster, and put an end to obstruction for the sake of obstruction. The key is to adopt new rules on the first day the Senate convenes next year, when only a simple majority of Senators is required for a rules change.

We’re fighting with some dedicated colleagues to make this happen, but to get across the finish line, we need members of the Daily Kos community to show their support. You can do so by signing the petition http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=17 Daily Kos has created in support of making the filibuster real.

Senators need to hear from their constituents on this. As such, we will use your support of this effort to make the case to other Senators that we must reform the filibuster on January 5th.

Join us, and Daily Kos, in support of making the filibuster a real filibuster. We can put an end to obstruction for the sake of obstruction, but your support is key.

Keep fighting,
Senator Jeff Merkley
Senator Tom Udall

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[lamp_shade]

2. Done

[aquart]

3. Done.

[jwirr]

4. Done.

[Hannah Bell]

5. kr

[leveymg]

6. No, Don't! We'll likely be in the minority in 2 years, and will need it. This creates precedent

and makes it even easier for the GOOPers to nuke us in 2012. There won't be any decent legislation coming out of the House anyway.

I don't think some confirmations are really worth this.

Leave it to the current crop of Democrats to hand away the filibuster just as we're about to need it.

[Tx4obama]

7. IF the repubs take control in 2012 THEY can change the rules TOO.

The rules can be changes with a simple 51 majority vote on the first day of EACH new session.
The republicans 'could' change the rules to their likely if the take the Senate.
So, it is better for us DEMS to change them now January 5th so that we can get things done.
Make the republicans actually stand there and filibuster if they want to slow things down!

Do you really want us to have to put up with the crappy filibuster rules and the secret holds for another two years?

[leveymg]

9. This makes it MUCH easier.

I'm aware of how it works - but, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be. Looking at it as a cost-benefit basis, I just don't see that much benefit. But, if we do it in January, it virtually assures that they'll do it when they can.

[Tx4obama]

11. Have the republicans 'promised' not to change the rules when they take the Senate?

The old days are over.
The republicans will screw us any and every way they can.
I'll bet the farm that the republicans would 'never' say "we won't change the bad rules because it would set a bad precedent".
We are at war with the republicans and we need to do 'everything' we can in order to win.

[leveymg]

14. No, but it's still taboo. Again, the cost/benefits don't add up - we should've done this in 01/09

it would have made complete sense (in retrospect) to do it then. We would have gotten decent HCR and hundreds of House Bills would have passed the Senate and become law. We'd be in a completely different place politically - we would have held onto the House. But, without the House, the nuclear option doesn't make as much sense. Nothing to force through with 51.

Think about it.

[Tx4obama]

16. There is A LOT to gain

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.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=45761&mesg_id=46071

p.s. Yesterday we just lost 4 important Obama judicial nominations due to the republicans obstruction.
If the rules where to be changed we could get nominees confirmed and 'who sits on the courts' is very important!

[leveymg]

18. Udall is one of the guys who also want to cut Social Security and entitlements. Check the board.

"The Hill: Deficit panel's ideas to be resurrected in bipartisan Senate bill (Warner and Chambliss)(also names Udall as one of the 18 who want a bipartisan benefits reduction Bill)" http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/134531-warner-chambliss-will-introduce-debt-commission-bill-next-year Now, does this make sense? It removes one of the last impediments to giving it all up -- slashing social programs -- without the DLC Right having to go on the record to vote with the GOP. Why can't you see it?

We also picked up 19 judges without having to give up the filibuster.

[Tx4obama]

26. We had to agree to give up the Goodwin Liu & 3 other liberal nominations in order to get the 19

we wouldn't have lost the 4 judicial nominations if the correct rules were in place.

The deal to get the 19 judges confirmed - sucks!!!

[leveymg]

29. I read that article. Isn't that the way these deals normally are made?

Horsetrading?

[Tx4obama]

33. I wouldn't call it horsetrading, the GOP was holding ALL nominees hostage.

If the dems didn't agree to drop the 4 liberal controversial nominations then the GOP wasn't going to let any judges get a confirmation vote in the rest of the current congressional session.

Up until the 'deal' that was made a couple of days ago,
the GOP were blocking ALL votes on judges since the middle of September. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

[leveymg]

37. Part of a bigger deal - which is why I am very leery of this "reform"

Seems there's a major move afoot to finish the job of destroying the New Deal. Frankly, I don't trust the same Senators who want to cut entitlements to change Senate rules. You should be wary, too.

[Tx4obama]

39. Senator Claire McCaskill has been working for over a year to get rid of the 'secret holds' rule

is she part of the Senators that you are wary of?

[Tx4obama]

44. Btw...

At the same time in Bush's first half of his term he had TWICE as many judges confirmed than Obama does right now.

Even 'after' the 19 judges that the GOP agreed to allow a confirmation vote on,
we will still have OVER FORTY (40) judicial nominations sitting in limbo.

The GOP should be ashamed of themselves!

[Better Believe It]

13. You don't need to change Senate Rules to stop "procedural filibusters".

There are no Senate Rules regarding "procedural filibusters".

[Tx4obama]

15. Please do tell us how. n/t

[Better Believe It]

20. OK No problem:

Senate Democrats can easily halt Republican "procedural filibusters". Just stop the "dual-track" practice!

Now was that so hard?

This is not rocket science.

[Tx4obama]

24. n/t

[Tx4obama]

8. And there's NO WAY that we'll lose the Senate in the next election.

All the dems that didn't come out to vote in 2010 will show up in 2012 for the presidential election,
and we will more than likely regain the seats we lost in the Senate plus extras :)

[leveymg]

10. Surely, there's some irony in that statement?

[Tx4obama]

12. A must read: Here's a link below tons of info regarding the dem's defilibuster reform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=45761&mesg_id=46071

[Better Believe It]

17. Senate Dems can easily halt Republican "procedural filibusters" Just stop the "dual-track" practice!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x51481

[leveymg]

19. Please explain what those terms mean. Thnx.

[Better Believe It]

21. Which ones? If you haven't, please read the full articles. That should help.

[leveymg]

23. Requires "unanimous consent or agreement of the Minority Leader" to dual-track

Maybe not so easy to obtain that much agreement - this isn't the '60s or '70s.

[Better Believe It]

25. To end "dual-track" which is what is being proposed, you do not

need unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader. You only need unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader to permit the dual-track procedure.

That makes it pretty easy for the Senate Majority Leader to end the dual-track procedure. Senator Reid can do it on his own as the Majority Leader of the Senate.

Hope that's clear now.

[leveymg]

27. Yes. I see how easy it would be for the Majority to put an end to it - but then a filibuster

ties up the floor of the Senate, potentially for weeks. Is that what we want?

Dual-track was Byrd's compromise that allowed Senate business to continue during filibusters, without tying up the filibustering Senator(s). Dual-track seems to meet the needs of both sides.

Is dual-track a bad thing for a weak majority, arguably, because it also drives the requirement to have 60 votes to achieve cloture on Bills? Or does the 60-vote requirement come from some other arcane Senate rule?

[Tx4obama]

30. The 60 vote rule is a Senate 'rule'.

It actually was higher than 60 in the old days.
----------------

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes necessary for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate. Some senators wanted to change the rule to require only a simple majority (51), but Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (Democrat–Montana) objected. Mansfield believed it was important to retain some way for the minority to check the majority. By then, even moderate and liberal senators had resorted to filibusters to block legislation they found offensive.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/cloture#ixzz18mYSIwqB

[Better Believe It]

32. Yes. We want Republicans forced to tie-up the Senate with real filibusters

rather than permit them to tie-up and obstruct the Senate with fake bogus filibusters.

Isn't that supposedly the intent behind the rules changes advocated in the opening post?

To make them filibuster?

[Tx4obama]

35. Three of the proposals of the reform are....

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
3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill
-----------
'A set amount of time for debate' is much better than an endless cloture filibuster.
That is much different than just getting rid of the 'dual track'.

[leveymg]

38. I would support anything that makes the filibuster more effective if we lose the Senate in '12

But, I'm not willing to be the first to pull the trigger next year, if it gives up any power we might have under present rules.

Can someone please post a brief summary that shows the pros and cons of these proposals? Many of us don't want to wade through the press releases and summaries put out by the backers(I will, but I know many others won't.)

[Tx4obama]

43. Lots of info on the link below

Here's a link to three articles that have lots of info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=45761&mesg_id=46071

[Better Believe It]

40. I'm not attacking those proposals but we both know that the next Senate won't pass those new rules.

We have a better chance of watching the Sun rise in the West.

The Senate failed to pass new rules when Democrats had a much larger majority in 2009 and so with six more Republicans in the Senate how does that improve the chances of passing anti-filibuster rules? How does that work?

Meanwhile, Senator Reid can simply withdraw his "dual-track" procedure which would end obstructionist procedural filibusters by Republicans should the Senate not change its rules in January.

Would you favor that, or not?

[Tx4obama]

42. I beleive The Senate WILL pass new rules in January, because ...

The filibustering of bills in 2009 was at a historic high.
The senators are feed up with how things work now, even some of the republican senators have said they are too.

[Tx4obama]

28. Dual Track will NOT affect the need to still have 60 votes for cloture.

And the minority leader is not going to 'agree' to any thing that Reid wants.

So, we need cloture reform, filibuster reform, and 'secret hold' reform.

[leveymg]

31. But, you think there will be 51 votes in January for all those changes?

You seem to be an optimist.

[Better Believe It]

36. Are Senator Reid and President Obama campaigning for these changes?

Or are we talking about a few Senators just making the political record?

The old Congressional graveyard of bills and proposals.

You know that's done with hundreds of pieces of legislation every year in both the House and Senate that never go anywhere and are never fought for by the Democratic Party leadership.

[Better Believe It]

34. Read the articles. Senator Reid does not need the Republican minority leaders agreement ....

to end his "dual track" procedure.

Do you understand that now after reading the articles?

If not, tell me what confuses you and I'll try and break it down for you.

OK?

[Eric J in MN]

22. Done.

"Sign the petition to bring back the real filibuster!" http://bit.ly/gXBFJY

[Luciferous]

41. done

[Tx4obama]

45. Bump :) n/t