Will the Senate filibuster rules change in January?

[LonePirate]

If the Republicans manage to gain control of both the House and the Senate, will they eliminate the Senate filibuster or reduce it to a simple majority vote? Or will they leave it as is given Obama's veto authority?

If the Democrats retain control of both houses (or even just retain the Senate), will they learn from two years of Republican obstructionism and do away with the Senate filibuster in order to accomplish and complete the people's work? Or will the Senate Democrats cave to tradition and keep the filibuster as is?

I honestly don't think the Senate Democrats have the courage to change the filibuster rule, despite the events of the past twenty one months. However, I think there is a even money chance the Republicans will change the filibuster rules if they control both houses. That change would allow them to ram through their agenda and set up showdown after showdown with Obama and his veto pen - a fight they would relish leading up to 2012.

Are there any other - similar or different - thoughts on this matter?

[Raspberry]

1. Probably not

Both parties know that the Senate will change hands frequently, and will not want to give the other side the power to pass legislation with a simple majority. Ever.

[rhytonen]

2. mainly agree

I agree with most of your assessment -

But Dems had better learn to stop 'showing up at knife fights
armed only with a library book,' (-A. Weiner) and change it themselves.

And they need to stop considering a Republican vote with a (D) after its name
as anything more than what it is - a corporatist spy and saboteur, in the caucus and the committees.

Proof?
Max Baucus.

[tritsofme]

3. In the off chance that Republicans were to takeover the Senate

President Obama would likely urge Senate Democrats to backoff filibusters on big items, like a potential repeal bill of the ACA, so he can deliver the veto.

Filibuster politics wouldn't be as much of a flashpoint under this scenario.

But in the more likely situation of a 51-49 type of Senate with the Democrats in charge, the filibuster would be just as important to Democrats as to Republicans. Democrats used the filibuster successfully in numerous instances to stop Republican initiatives in the 110th Congress where Democrats had a one seat advantage.

I would find it very surprising if there were any changes to the rule in the new Congress.

[Lasher]

4. They don't need to, they will use reconciliation for what they care about.

Which is tax cuts for rich people, and anything else to steer more money to the top 1%. They did it 10 years ago and they will do it again.

[old mark]

5. When the Democrats used reconcilliation the GOP moaned we were

ramming legislation down their throats. When they do it, they call it leadership.

mark

[CanonRay]

6. Harry doesn't have the cojones

and he's afraid the Rethugs will get a one seat majority in 2012

[niceypoo]

7. Ironically

The rethugs are on the verge of capturing the majority because the Democrats don't have any cojones.

[LonePirate]

9. The one thing that amazes me most about not changing the filibuster rule

Is that whichever party makes the claim that it should not be changed, they are essentially placing a priority on the fears of what the other party could do with no filibuster instead of placing it on the strength of the accomplishments they could achieve while in power with no filibuster.

I suppose there are positive and negative points to be made for keeping it or removing the filibuster rule; but I do not understand how courage takes a back seat to cowardice. This country needs bold leaders and not leaders who cower in a corner.

[ThomWV]

8. It shouldn't matter, as long as the Veto power doesn't change. But who knows?

The question becomes how willing will the White House be to wield the Veto?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Both parties like the fillibuster rule...

and will not likely move to change it.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

11. Maybe if there's new leadership with a spine?

I hope Harry Reid defeats that insane teabagging Sharon Angle. But he cannot be allowed to occupy any leadership role in the Senate again, because he has no idea what the term "majority leader" means.