Reid Dismisses Harkin's Bid to Change Filibuster Rules

[No Elephants]

Source: The Hill

Reid dismisses Harkin's bid to change filibuster rules
By Michael O'Brien - 02/11/10 03:50 PM ET

<snip>

"I love Tom Harkin. I'm totally familiar with his idea," Reid said during a news conference on the Capitol on Thursday. "It takes 67 votes, and that, kind of, answers the question."

Harkin, along with other senators and a number of liberals in the House, have expressed frustration at the current filibuster rules, which require 60 votes to end debate on most matters before the Senate. They introduced a measure to change the rules on Thursday.

<snip>

Unlike the House, though, which requires the adoption of new rules at the beginning of each term, Senate rules provide that their rules be used continuously unless changed as prescribed -- which requires a 67-vote majority.

While Senate Democrats had 60 votes for several months, they were unable together on several important issues, like healthcare and climate change legislation.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80803-reid-dismisses-harkins-bid-to-change-filibuster-rules

---

Make 'em either vote or filibuster, dang it!

This article states the current rule: It takes 50+1 votes to pass legislation or change a Senate rule. HOWEVER, ending a fillibuster against a proposed rule change requires a 2/3 vote and ending other filibusters requires a 3/5 vote.

IMO, anything over 50 +1 has, in the past decade or so, been serving the Republican base a lot more than it has the Democratic base. I'm willing to have a democracy within a republic, instead of one House that is representative of the voters and one Club House of Lords.

This is HUGH. I'm calling my Senators' offices--Brown included!!111!!!!

[earthside]

1. Reid is a Secret Republican.

That is the only explanation.

The minority, reactionary Republican Senators now control the U.S. Senate.

It's as if the 2006 and 2008 Senate elections never took place.

Reid has just said that there will be no challenge to a 'tyranny of the minority'.

A gang of 41 Republican Senators have subverted the legislative branch of the federal government and rendered it effectively impotent.

Something is desperately wrong.

[JDPriestly]

10. Agreed. Reid should not be the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

There are enough moderates and liberals in the Democratic caucus to replace him.

The bullies on the right need to be replaced by compassionate, cooperative people.

[burning rain]

16. He almost certainly won't be, come next January.

I won't miss him.

[defendandprotect]

20. And when the situation was reversed, Dems leadership did NOTHING . . .!!

[Jim Sagle]

21. Not so secret, actually.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

2. Wow Reid capitulates

never saw that one coming!

[bc3000]

3. It takes 67 votes to change the rule? Sounds like Reid is right... why even bother?

[salib]

5. It only takes 50 +1 votes

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

For Reid to say what he said is to be disingenuous. He was there when the Repugs threatened this. He knows.

[No Elephants]

7. Not to change the rule, but to end a filibuster about changing a rule.

Why bother? Let America see them filibustering a rule change. And, if they don't filibuster, let America see who votes against a rule change.

I am tired of the club members hiding behind the rules and letting each other off the hook so America won't see those things.

[Jefferson23]

25. Same here, let the votes be known.

[budkin]

4. The Filibuster will only die once a party has a MEGA-MAJORITY.

[Scruffy1]

6. This is baloney

the rule can be changed anytime by a majority-however if you do it opens up all rules to change and stops the senate for awhile-but they've been stopped for years unless you are rich and powerful then they leap into action at a blinding speed. Compare the tarp bailout to the healthcare reform.

[ramapo]

8. If the Senate stopped, would anybody notice?

What a sorry joke they are.

[Sgent]

27. Constitution requires

2/3 majority vote to change the rules.

[bemildred]

28. The Constitution requires nothing of the sort.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

[JDPriestly]

9. Make them do a real filibuster.

I found a reference to a rather old legal decision that said the rules could be changed with 50+1. I wonder whether the Senate has bound itself to the 67 rule and what it would take to change that?

[AlbertCat]

30. Make them do a real filibuster.

This is the key. No one even mentions that no one actually filibusters. They just threaten to... and everyone throws up their hands and goes home. Make them stay up all night and read from the phone book. Get the cots and blankets out. You'll see the filibuster used much more sparingly.

[bertman]

11. I hate to lose another Democratic Senator, but I will be so frickin' glad to see Reid lose

the Majority Leader's post. He has been the Republicans' ally in more ways than one. Fuck him.

Rec this post.

[gkhouston]

12. To quote KO, "Here, kitty, kitty..." n/t

[Amonester]

13. All those words to avoid revealing the truth: Reid is bought...

and paid for (to NOT 'change' anything).

[JDPriestly]

14. Some background on Senate rules

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare the filibuster unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005;<1> prior to this it was known as the constitutional option.<2>
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

. . . .

n 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change. "When the Constitution says, 'Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,' it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules," Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh's "Constitutional option" would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon issued an advisory opinion stating that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.<5> Nixon's advisory opinion, along with similar opinions by Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller, has been cited as precedent to support the view that the Senate may amend its rules at the beginning of the session with a simple majority vote.<6>

The nuclear option was officially moved by Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM) (1963), Senator George McGovern (D-SD) (1967), and Senator Frank Church (D-ID) (1969), but was each time defeated or tabled by the Senate.<7> The option was adopted by the Senate three times in 1975 during a debate concerning the cloture requirement. A compromise was reached to reduce the cloture requirement from two-thirds of those voting (67 votes if 100 Senators were present) to three-fifths of the current Senate (60 votes if there were no current vacancies) and also to approve a point of order revoking the earlier three votes in which the Constitutional option had been invoked. (This was an effort to reverse the precedent that had been set for cloture by majority vote).

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

Is this why the Democrats don't invoke the nuclear option:

The Democrats in Congress are scrambling. With Scott Brown now the 41st vote for a filibuster, the path for getting health-care reform passed is unclear. At this point, pretty much the only option is for the House to vote on the Senate bill unchanged, with the promise that alterations will be passed via the budget reconciliation process — which requires only 51 votes in the Senate — immediately after or even immediately beforehand. It's unclear whether Congressional Democrats have the stomachs for the bill at all any longer, so haunted are they by the Brown victory. But if they choose this route over resigned defeat, one little-known, unelected Senate employee will become more important and fall under greater scrutiny than he probably ever has in his life. His name is Alan Frumin, the Senate's parliamentarian — the chamber's expert on its many arcane rules and procedures — and his rulings on what can be voted on using the budget reconciliation process could make or break health-care reform.

. . . .

He hails from New Rochelle, New York. His father, Harry, who died in 2003, was an internist and cardiologist. He graduated from Colgate University in 1968 with a double major in economics and political science, and from George Washington Law School in 1971. In 1981 he married Jill Brown, at that time a trial lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission. He began working in the parliamentarian's office in 1977, and first became Senate parliamentarian in 1987, before being replaced by Robert Dove in 1995 when Republicans won back the Senate, at which point he served as the assistant parliamentarian. In 2001 he was reappointed parliamentarian by Majority Leader Trent Lott after Dove made some decisions displeasing to the Mississippian. He currently makes $170,000 a year.

. . . .

More to the point, in 2005, Harry Reid claimed that Frumin opposed attempts by Republicans to bypass a filibuster of judicial nominees — the so-called "nuclear option" that never came to pass — perhaps indicating a reverence for the filibuster in general. But most saliently, last April, Frumin reportedly told Senator Kent Conrad that health-care legislation "passed through the reconciliation process may end up looking like 'Swiss cheese,' because certain provisions of a bill may survive while others are stricken," according to The Hill.

Read more: New Yorker Alan Frumin, Senate Parliamentarian, Back in the Hot Seat Once More -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_yorker_alan_frumin_senate.html#ixzz0fHVxn0RT

Read more: New Yorker Alan Frumin, Senate Parliamentarian, Back in the Hot Seat Once More -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_yorker_alan_frumin_senate.html#ixzz0fHVgS1Bc

Read more: New Yorker Alan Frumin, Senate Parliamentarian, Back in the Hot Seat Once More -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/new_yorker_alan_frumin_senate.html#ixzz0fHVAspJ5

[AlbertCat]

31. The Democrats in Congress are scrambling.

The Democrats in Congress are scrambling. With Scott Brown now the 41st vote for a filibuster, the path for getting health-care reform passed is unclear.

**********

Well, Dems may indeed be scrambling, but this health care fiasco isn't the only reason. The Repugs are filibustering EVERYTHING and clearly abusing the rule and not using it in good faith. (quell surprise!)

I don't like the ideas of scraping the filibuster altogether. A limit on the number of filibusters might be a better choice. I wonder if they could pass such a "nuclear" tweak to the rule with 51? And of course require that the opposition actually fulfill the filibuster instead of just threatening to..

[bemildred]

15. The rule that says you need 67 votes to invoke cloture to change a rule ...

Must have originally been passed by majority vote, eh? Or somewhere back there anyway, all of this crap was first passed by vanilla majority vote. And somewhere back in the mess the Congress has made it is in its power to go back and fix it the same way. The Congress cannot hamstring itself unless it chooses to hamstring itself, NOBODY else can question it when it comes to how it does its business.

[burning rain]

17. "It takes 67 votes."

How sad that in addition to his other faults, Reid's a liar. It's inconceivable that he's just ignorant on that score.

[BobMackenze]

24. Right: Reid shows himself against majority rule (Filibuster "Nuclear Option")

His argument is pretty much that it would not be "nice" to change Senate rules
(a "long standing" Senate rule that it takes an unachievable 67
to change a rule).

He doesn't seem to recognize/acknowledge that the Senate is pretty much currently
a total clusterf*ck and really there is very few Senate traditions worth preserving.

I will not bother wasting space arguing that a 67 rule rule change requirement is logically insane
(it is) and not in the US Constitution.

With respect to the Filibuster, I read a "game theory" style analysis with respect to progressive issues and basically it was: With 60 Filibuster: No possibility of positive change and less chance negative change versus a chance of positive change and more chances of negative change. Personally, I see the current system as a total despicable craphole, so I would prefer some chance of positive change.

This pronouncement just shows that Reid is a major impediment to any reform of the Senate. With his impending loss in Nevada in November, I don't understand why he is still majority leader. Its just crazy. He is almost single handedly destroying the Democratic Party.

Another thing I do not understand is why (in general) someone who is a total incompetent at a job to the point of being the "worst X in history" wants to keep holding that position. Pride? Delusion?

[wisteria]

18. Reid doesn't want to have to work the bill. n/t

[villager]

19. "Reid dismisses last chance to salvage own legacy; embraces defeat and historical dismissal"

"...while grinning ear-to-ear, saying 'capitulation, collapse, and forfeiture -- while standing for no real ideals -- are the best I can do!'"

[PJPhreak]

22. Make them Filibuster...

give 'em quart mason jars to pee in,sleeping bags to lay on the floor in and MRE's to eat.

Hand the Pubbies the NYC Phone book if need be.

Let the country see who is obstructing EVERYTHING!!

If some of these old farts in Congress are like a lot of middle aged and older folk that I know (myself included) lets see how long these "Swollen Prostate Bladders" can hold out...If they are like Me,Trust me it won't take too long before the pee is dribblin outta their ears and their eyes are turning yellow!

[PSPS]

23. Reid is lying - a simple majority is all that's needed.

It takes a simple majority to get rid of the filibuster rule and Reid knows it.

[Old Codger]

26. Built in

Logjam, idiocy at it's finest.

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Harkin = Soul.... Reid = Souless and a disasterous Harvey Milk Toast

Step aside, Harry. I'm getting tired of all those e-mail about you giving people Hell. If you've given any American anything, it's yet one more leader who can't lead.