if we win the senate, get rid of the filibuster harry reid

[still_one]

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Either Reid gets rid of the filibuster or he should be removed as Maj. Leader.

Because this will be the third new congress he'll preside over that he allows the debilitating filibuster rule to stand, giving the Republicans the tools they need to continue to hamstring President Obama.

[catfish57]

13. Filibuster

Isn't there a chance that we may need the filbuster process in the next 100 years?

[BlueCaliDem]

20. No. The House got rid of theirs in the late 1800's and have been faring

quite well without it.

If the people continue to be stupid and vote Republican, and because of it they'll see their incomes, earned benefits, etc., cut to poverty level because the Democrats don't have the filibuster at their disposal to stop it, well, elections have consequences. They'll have to reap what they sow. Maybe the next time they'll think twice about voting R.

That said, Democrats are NOT prone to using the filibuster to hamstring a Republican president. That senate tool is used for that purpose exclusively by the GOP against Democratic presidents, especially one as progressive as President Obama wants to be for this country.

The filibuster must go.

[SDjack]

24. Or, make the Senators actually stand at the podium and speak (filibuster). nt

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Unfortunately, under the filibuster rule

nowhere does it state that Senators have to stand and speak endlessly - or until they finally give in.

From Huffington Post by Ryan Grim (March 23, 2009):

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[SDjack]

68. Archaic rules can be modernized -- even the US Senate is now illuminated with

electric lights instead of whale oil lamps. Being required to actually stand and speak to filibuster will focus attention on the actions of the Senate, esp. who is impeding progress and for what reasons. Most people don't know that the GOP paralyzed the Senate for 8 years, with the exception of about 1 month. Yet, no GOP Senator was seen doing anything.

[BlueCaliDem]

72. In order for that to happen, they'll have to update the filibuster rule and vote

on it.

I would rather they use that vote to send the filibuster back into the whale-oil lamp age forever.

[Sirveri]

73. That's when a group of the younger dems grab him and throw him out of the room.

Then lock the door, then vote. If they don't like it then I guess they can come in and all of them sit there themselves.

[catfish57]

37. Filibuster process

I fully agree.

[Recursion]

58. That's never been required. People who did it, did it because it was politically popular

The Strom Thurmond reading from a phone book thing was always just a gimmick

[moose65]

26. The sad thing is...

I think that basically your average voter (tm) has no idea really what a filibuster is! All they hear is that Obama can't pass this or that, and the failure gets hung on the party in power... in this case, the Democrats. I think the rules need to be changed so that the filibuster is still there, but can't be used for routine things like Motions to Proceed. They also need to get rid of that ridiculous 30-hour post-cloture debate nonsense. IF they have voted to end debate, then it needs to END immediately. Maybe there could be a limit placed on the number of filibusters that the minority can use. The Republicans have taken the filibuster to new heights over the past few years, but I still think there's a place for it - it just shouldn't be used for EVERY bill.

[Plucketeer]

56. I agree

It's that same sorta ignorance that permeates the populace regarding a president's ability to control gas prices. So many think: "Well, he's the top dawg - why can't he just whip out a pen and dicate lower prices???" I finally made my own son - who's a pretty smart cookie in his field of expertise - listen to the facts about a GLOBAL oil market that this country has limited influence on. I finally got the light bulb to come on.

[kag]

34. Problem is...

the Dems don't use the filibuster they way the R's do. The Dems actually compromise and bargain, and would rather get things done than stop any progress whatsoever. So, I'm with the OP on this one. Get rid of it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. What makes you think Republicans won't do away with it on day one if they gain power?

[Euphoria]

28. totally agree with BlueCaliDem

Reid's has his chances and he didn't show any leadership to move things along.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Absolutely. Enough is enough.

[libtodeath]

3. K&R

miserable pukes that care more about politics then this country.
I am still feeling good that we take the house back too!

[BlueCaliDem]

23. It would be a shocker if we keep the House.

Then again, minorities have been under-polled, far below their numbers should give them, so we'll just have to wait and see.

It would be nice to see Issa booted. His district has a LOT of Mexican-Americans and there's a powerful anti-Republican sentiment here in CA ever since SB1070.

[HereSince1628]

4. Just making it more difficult to use would be OK with me.

It's clearly way too easy for lazy obstructionists to use to abuse.

[BlueStreak]

67. Definitely. There is some validity to the idea of the Senate being "more deliberative"

But the intention was never to have everything decided by 60 votes.

There are common sense things that can and should be changed, particularly when you consider that the GOP almost certainly will make changes to the rule the next time thy get a majority in the Senate.

It is better to adopt new rules now that are closer to what the GOP would be inclined to do when they next have that power. If we adopt reformed filibuster rules now, then the GOP might leave them in place when they are in control. Some of the changes should include:

1) Completely eliminating the secret holds. Anybody doing a hold should have to do so publicly, or else there should be a very limited time for secret holds -- say no more than one week. And there should be a time limit on all holds by a single Senator. It makes no sense for one Senator to block 99. This is traditionally used for extorting more pork for that Senator's state, so the GP should join with us to get rid of that corrupt practice.

2) Force any filibuster to be a real filibuster -- requiring the entire Senate to stop its business while the filibuster actually takes place in on the floor of the Senate. That will shine the spotlight of public opinion on the party doing the filibuster. if the public is with them, then they should be allowed to continue the filibuster indefinitely.

3) Change cloture to 55 votes instead of 60.

[rtracey]

5. Filibuster

Filibuster is part of the foundation of the House and Senate, it should stay in place but with that said, it should be enacted as it was when it was put in place. The politician wanting to filibuster must talk for 55 min out of the hour continuously until the filibuster is ended by vote or the person gives up. The problem is the ease of just saying sorry, you dont have 60 votes, will not cut it this year. I encourage EVERYONE reading this thread and all DUers to write Harry Reid and have him require the filibuster rule be enforced s it was before....

[rhett o rick]

9. What makes you think Sen Reid will listen now when he hasnt to this point? nm

[longship]

14. There is no, and has never been, a filibuster in the House.

It is an animal unique to the U.S. Senate.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. There *was* a filibuster rule in the House.

House of Representatives

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#House_of_Representatives

It's time the Senate follow the House of Rep's example.

[longship]

38. I stand corrected.

Thanks for that update. I guess I should have qualified my post, instead of "never".

My bad!

[gordianot]

15. The filibuster was created by Aaron Burr and its use to stop legislation was purely uintentional.

Gentleman of the Senate should know when to be quiet and be orderly when speaking. Burr managed to make that point personally with his peers in another means go ask Alexander Hamilton. The Filibuster was never intended to deadlock the Senate. Just get rid of the Filibuster even if Senators beat each other to death with clubs in the Senate Lounge and restrooms.

[Buns_of_Fire]

63. The Senate will have to make provisions for clubholders and caneholders to be installed

in the cloakroom, the lounge, and the restrooms.

However, on the floor, I believe anything more substantial than balsa wood canes should be prohibited. Killing each other right in front of the C-SPAN cameras would probably adversely impact the ratings -- but it would be highly entertaining to watch a senator sneak up right behind Yurtle the Senator while he was spouting his crap and give him a good THWACK! right in the back of his head.

Naturally, Senators can choose to wear suits of armor if they wish. Broadswords, though, are obviously out of the question. The dignity of the Senate must be maintained.

[gordianot]

64. They could use bags of cash to thump each other limited to $10.00 bills in memory of Hamilton.

That way they could honor a founding father and limit bloody clean up.

[moose65]

22. Just the Senate

There are no filibusters in the House.... majority rules there!

[Volaris]

6. Agreed...

absence (or re-structuring) of the Senate Filibuster needs to happen. Let Party obstruction happen the House, where it's easier for We The People to kick out the loons if need be.

[MuhkRahker]

7. Reid is a dog. Hope he gets hos head straight...

Ugh!

[rhett o rick]

8. Please clarify. Dump Reid or the filibuster? or both? nm

[PuppyBismark]

10. It is Real Easy to Change the Filibuster.

At the start of each Senate Session (every two years) operating rules are adopted by a simple majority. Included in that set of rules is the cloture (filibuster) rule including the number of votes needed to stop debate. All the Democrats have to do is propose a new limit of say, 51 votes and it is a done deed. Look it up and you will see in this century the number was less than 60.

The supreme court and other appointments are too important to ignore.

This is the single change that we can make that will make the most memorable difference. This is Change We Can Believe in!

[Stevepol]

12. I like it!!!

[silvershadow]

31. 51 is what I grew up with. nt

[soryang]

46. That's too easy

We have to make government as undemocratic as possible. That way the politicians have dozens of excuses for not doing what they promised. "Oh, we had to have sixty votes. It's not our fault."

[Recursion]

59. That's not entirely clear; the Senate is a continuous body

And there would be a parliamentary argument about that (it's already being made whenever somebody brings this up)

[Daayyummmboi]

11. The Dems will be keeping the Senate. I have no doubt about that.

[MadHound]

16. And the next time we have Republicans in power, we will die due to lack of a filibuster.

Always remember, Democrats aren't going to be in power, and checks and balances are a good thing. Long term thinking vs. short term thinking.

[geek tragedy]

19. Probably a good idea to keep a watered down filibuster for legislation, but scrap it for judges. nt

[MadHound]

21. No. No, no, no, no.

Don't water it down, don't scrap it for judges, just leave it as it is. Otherwise we will wind up with RW whacko judges that will do much harm.

[geek tragedy]

30. We wind up with them anyways. Obama will be President and benefit from the

opportunity to nominate a bunch of judges for life tenure. Including 1-3 SCOTUS justices.

[MadHound]

32. No, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face,

Sure, it smooths the path for Obama for the next four years. But after that, it means the path is clear for the 'Pugs to destroy the judiciary. Can't support that at all.

The one change that I think would make a world of difference is to revert back to the filibuster as it was, talk all night, pee in a cup, keep going until you drop, in other words a real live filibuster. Forcing Senators to endure such an ordeal always seemed to limit the use of the filibuster before, it should again.

[LonePirate]

33. I would rather get things done when we're in power than fear what might happen if we lose power

The filibuster needs to go.

[MadHound]

42. And thus, when 'Pugs get into power, they can rip out everything that was done,

And impose even more draconian legislation unimpeded. Sorry, but the smart thing to do is think for the long term. We suffer from far too much short term thinking as it is.

The best thing to do is revert the filibuster to what it once was, force the senator to talk all night, go without food, pee in a cup, and keep going until they dropped. This seemed to work just fine before, it should work again.

[PuppyBismark]

43. The current rethugs would change it in a heart beat!

Maybe in past years the rethugs would keep it, but today's rethugs would hardly care to make things fair. Their greed and disdain for anything that stops them from pushing their agenda will just fall by the way side. It really is time for some bold action.

The Supreme Court is just too important. Once we have a chance to fix the balance of the court, no court nominee will be approved and there will be 8 judges until the next president is elected in 2016. We are just kidding ourselves to expect any other behavior.

[geek tragedy]

17. Get rid of it for executive and judicial appointments, keep it for legislation.

Honestly, executive appointments and judges SHOULD get an up or down vote, even during a Republican administration.

[Eric J in MN]

18. The only reason Joe Lieberman's cyber-security bill which violates privacy didn't pass

...this year is that it would have taken 60 votes.

There may be another vote in the lame-duck session.

[SWTORFanatic]

25. I say make a filibuster a filibuster. Make them stand there and talk. It was ridiculous when

John McCain was saying "I filibuster the don't ask don't tell bill" and sat down.

[AndyA]

29. I think the secret holds should be done away with as well

Let everything come to the floor to be voted on, and let members be held accountable for their votes.

[raouldukelives]

35. Make them watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

You stand and speak. It means so much to you that you are willing to "Occupy!" the floor. Problem is it doesn't mean that much to them. They have too many extracurricular activities now. With all the free trips, luncheons, golf games and fundraisers its wonder they find time to ponder the future of the country sometimes. Or at least, with the intensity which it commands and we deserve.
Keep it, make em stand, make em speak.

[michael811]

39. unless Dems take the house too i don't see the point nt

[PuppyBismark]

45. All appointments by the President only need concurrance from the Senate, the House has no say.

So the difference is large. The House has no say on court or cabinet appointment approvals.

[Horse with no Name]

40. Amen to that n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. Why wait??? Reps havn't controlled the senate since 2006 nt

I don't get the If we win. Like we havn't controlled the senate all this time. Granted only a year with a filibuster-proof majority.

[plantwomyn]

50. Actually

it was only 72 days of a "filibuster proof" majority. Of course than you have to "assume" that the Blue dogs would vote with leadership.

[ieoeja]

60. Ted Kennedy died 49 days after Franken was sworn in. His last vote was months before that.

So we officially had a filibuster proof majority, on rare instances where 100% of Democrats agreed, for 49 days. But we did not have a real such majority even one day.

[NYC Liberal]

44. I agree. Doesn't matter if we lose control at some point in the future...

that's the way it should be.

The House doesn't have it and it works fine.

[DireStrike]

47. While I don't particularly care about the system, this is way too dangerous. -nt-

[still_one]

49. It is way too dangerous if we have four years of republican obstructionism

[Xyzse]

51. I don't know... I rather something else.

I say, keep the filibuster, however, the threat of one should not gum out the process. Meaning, if they say they will filibuster, they better damn filibuster. I want to know, who, where and why.

They can't just threaten without having to show who they are.
There are too many cowards who do it secretly and stop legislation before it goes through.

If they want to stop it, they better come up in front and show themseves. Have some integrity and accountability. What they do is disgusting. This way, people could actually tell who these punks are.

[1ProudAtheist]

52. What Is Being Overlooked Here

Is the fact that if and when the Thugs gain control of the US Senate once more, they will have the very same opportunuity to change the Senate rules with regards to the fillibuster. Changing those rules for this term only applies to this term. They can be changed by a simple majority vote at the beginning of any new session.

The argument of being afraid of what may or may not happen in the future does not hold water in this instance, as the fututre rules are wide open no matter what the rules are for this session.

[still_one]

54. exactly, that is why the keeping the "tradition" arguments are nonsense

[99Forever]

53. Not. Gonna. Happen.

it's the excuse for not ever being able to actually work for We the People. The 1% would never stand for such a corruption of THEIR wholly owned government.

Sorry.

Don't like it?

You wouldn't like the only other option.

[brooklynite]

55. I have discussed this with him personally...

...also with McCaskill, Schumer, Brown, Kaine, Tester, Berkely, Carmona, Heinrich, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Hiron, Warren, Begich, Blumenthall and Cantwell.

There will be changes in the rules. I do not think they will get rid of the filibuster completely, but will probably severely restrict its applicability and require the minority to actively and publicly carry it out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Why?

The only laws that will be passed are those acceptable to the house of representatives.

[sally5050]

61. Sen. Maria Cantwell Confirmed in Rally Yesterday... Filibuster on Chopping Block

when they all return to DC as their FIRST priority.

She did not go into details but it made me smile that they are going this route. We need it to only require 50% to pass things in the Senate, I think we'll be just fine without the filibuster.

[still_one]

62. excellent

[gordianot]

65. Just imagine a co equal branch of legislation amazing.

[sally5050]

66. Just imagine

obama getting to pass things that the Rethugs block like funding for returning veterans for job training..

jeez, imagine the world we'd live in if the filibuster was dead and both houses were controlled by Dems..


now if that happens, we have to lobby like hell the democrats to stop allowing wallstreet and Rich people to skip out on paying their fair share of taxes..

[Liberal Veteran]

69. Keep the filibuster with this change....

.....the person who filibusters is strapped to a chair each time the cloture vote comes up and dangled 10 feet above a pit of rattlesnakes or ravenous honey badgers.

Each cloture vote over 50 drops the person by foot (ie, if there are 53 votes, they drop 3 feet).

Next time the cloture vote comes up, they start at the same place as they left off before.

Lather, rinse and repeat.

[sally5050]

70. Oh Noooooo....

not the honey badgers..

[hughee99]

71. For 200 years we've had the right to extended debate [i.e., filibuster].

It's not some procedural gimmick. It's within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. … They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control.

Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they're wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that's true."