Reid nixes filibuster reform effort

[jefferson_dem]

Reid nixes filibuster reform effort
By Paul Kane

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday dismissed an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber's procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules.

Minutes before a pair of colleagues formally unveiled their proposal to eliminate filibusters, Reid told reporters he adhered to the long-standing Senate rule that only a two-thirds majority could change the chamber's rules. This high hurdle -- established decades ago in an effort to prevent a party with a simple majority from ruling the chamber with an iron fist -- would require eight Republicans to join the 59 members of the Democratic caucus to alter the rules, something Reid said is not going to happen.

"I'm totally familiar with his idea," Reid said of the latest filibuster-reform resolution, from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). "It takes 67 votes, and that, kind of, answers the question."

Later, Harkin and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced their resolution that would change the Senate procedure -- officially amending what is known as Rule 22, outlining the requirements to choke off a filibuster -- to allow a four-step process that would eventually allow a majority of just 51 votes to end debate and move to final passage of a bill. The first such vote, known as a cloture motion, would require 60 votes; if that failed, the next cloture motion on the same legislation would require 57 votes and then, if that failed, the next hurdle would require 54 votes, and the next would require 51.

"In the 71 years since Hollywood filmed 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington', the aim of the filibuster has been turned completely upside down," Harkin said.

<SNIP>

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/reid-nixes-filibuster-reform-e.html

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Filibuster is okay,

just MAKE THEM USE IT. Make them stand up there for hours reading phone books or whatever so the American people can clearly see how they're obstructing votes on matters that are important to all of us.

[cilla4progress]

3. Yeah, what you said!

Why the hell won't they DO it?

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Mike Gravel made that point

this afternoon on Shannyn Moore's show, and he knows a thing or two about filibusters.

He said what the Democrats need to do now is bring up bills that very few people could disagree with, even if that means breaking big bills down into smaller portions (like the health care bill, for instance), and then force the Republicans to show their true colors.

Imagine if the Democrats put up a little bill saying that insurance companies could no longer terminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, just that by itself. Could the Republicans withstand the scrutiny of their constituents if they actually filibustered such a thing? Of course not. The people need the VISUAL of the Republicans blathering on and on preventing a vote, not just this procedural 60-vote bullshit. I'm so sick of spineless Democrats.

[Armstead]

12. Gravel's a loose cannon but I agree with him on that idea

Break the damn bill inrto smaller parts and call the bluff of the GOP on things like pre-existing conditions.

[earthside]

9. No it isn't.

Not the way it is currently being used.

When it was originated it was meant to slow things down to create more time for deliberation, to persuade other Senators or the country that the legislation being considered was bad (Mr. Smith goes to Washington).

It wasn't meant to impose a 'tyranny of the minority' to such an extent that a vote on a bill could never take place. But that is what the filibuster has morphed into in the past forty years.

Harry Reid has got to be the worst, worst Democratic majority leader ... maybe ever. If the reactionary Republicans decide to stay on the course they are now on (and why wouldn't they, they're getting what they want), then the Senate might as well adjourn until the new Republican majority Senate takes its seat next January.

Reid has just doomed everything ... really.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. You missed my point.

MAKE THEM USE IT. Let the people see them being obstructionist.

[earthside]

21. But under the interpretation Reid supports ...

... they don't have to do anything but file an intent to filibuster.

There's no way out. In the old days once the filibusterer stop talking and lost the floor, the vote could take place -- but it's not like that anymore.

I get your point, I agree, but the 'Majority Leader' does not, so the minority, reactionary, Constitution-hating Republicans have won control of the United States Senate. It's as if the 2008 and 2006 elections for the Senate never took place.

I think what Reid has said is truly catastrophic, he has given it all away ... without even the threat of changing the rules, the Republicans now have ZERO incentive to do anything but keep filibustering every single bill and appointment.

[SanchoPanza]

22. Using a traditional filibuster is at the discretion of the minority.

The cloture rules were changed in 1974, and this was part of the package. The majority cannot mandate that the minority stand up and do anything, only the minority can. All the minority has to do, technically, is have one of its members monitor the Senate floor and note the absence of a quorum whenever the majority tries to push a vote. Turn on CSPAN2. If you see a shot of the Senate chamber with classical music playing in the background and nothing apparently going on, that's what a modern filibuster looks like. The minority can speak for hours on end (and so can the majority), certainly, but that's at their discretion.

So in 2003, when Reid was standing on the Senate floor for 9 hours and read from a book he wrote about his hometown of Searchlight, it wasn't because Bill Frist made him do it.

[DrToast]

25. No it's not

I prefer to live in a Democracy. I don't think legislation should hinge on whether or not someone has a large bladder.

[Dr.Phool]

2. Enjoy your retirement Harry.

But, then again, you've been retired for a long time now.

[Better Believe It]

4. K & R Fake (procedural) filibusters can be ended under current Senate rules.

[wroberts189]

5. The pubs were going to do it..... until the dems said they would not use it....

The pubs did not believe it took 2/3. Always a double standard.


--------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

The theory behind the "nuclear option" was that the Senate had the right to determine its own rules and that those rules could be determined on the basis of a majority vote. Democrats objected, arguing that the Senate's rules could not be changed without a 2/3 vote as stated in the Senate Rules themselves. Republicans countered that the Senate's power to govern itself was founded in the Constitution itself and that internal Senate Rules could not deny that power. <2>



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

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.

[rhett o rick]

6. Harry seems happy with the status-quo. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Take the rule to the Supreme Court and see what it says...

I suspect that this SCOTUS would stop any attempt to change the rule, considering their leanings. But it would be an interesting case to watch.

[earthside]

11. Can't be done.

Separation of powers means that the Supreme Court has absolutely no jurisdiction over Senate rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. That is an interesting fact....

[quiet.american]

10. I would like to hear Harkin and Shaheen's plan for getting the 7 add'l GOP votes to pass this thing.

"This high hurdle -- established decades ago in an effort to prevent a party with a simple majority from ruling the chamber with an iron fist -- would require eight Republicans to join the 59 members of the Democratic caucus to alter the rules, something Reid said is not going to happen."

On the one hand, good for them that they wrote the legislation. But on the other hand, this kind of pie-in-the-sky thing is a total waste of time since Dems don't have a large enough majority to pass it on their own without the punks across the aisle -- not to mention the pox of the ConservaDems within their own ranks.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems to have been a complete waste of time.

[Armstead]

13. Let me get this straight.....We don't use the filibuster when we're in the minority, but...

we allow the GOP threats to use it stop us from doing anything when we have the majority.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Better Believe It]

15. Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can rule that 51 Senate votes can end filibusters

If the Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above options whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing these options. By BBI.


---------------------------------------------

During the filibuster, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as President of the Senate, ruled that the debate over a rule change could be ended with a simple majority. Mansfield opposed Rockefeller's ruling and introduced a motion that was quickly tabled, 51-42, thus endorsing the majoritarian decision of Rockefeller. Conservatives were outraged and Mansfield, Byrd, and Minority Leader Robert Griffin attempted to overturn the precedent. Ultimately a proposal by Sen. Russell Long to change the cloture limit to 3/5 for two years and then revert back to the original 2/3 limit led to a compromise between the two factions to overcome Rockefeller's ruling.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

----------------------------------------------



The Case for Busting the Filibuster
By Thomas Geoghegan
This article appeared in the August 31, 2009 edition of The Nation.

In 1975 Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that just fifty-one senators could vote to get rid of the filibuster entirely. A simple majority of liberals could now force change on a frightened old guard. But instead of dumping the filibuster once and for all, the liberals, unsure of their support, agreed to a "reformed" Rule 22. It was this reform that, by accident, turned the once-in-a-blue-moon filibuster into something that happens all the time. The idea was to reduce the votes needed to cut off debate from sixty-seven, which on the Hill is a big hill to climb, to just sixty. Liberals like Walter Mondale wanted to make it easier to push through civil rights and other progressive legislation. What's the harm in that?

The only problem is that, because the filibuster had rendered the chamber so laughable, with renegade members pulling all-nighters and blocking all the Senate's business, the "reformers" came up with a new procedural filibuster--the polite filibuster, the Bob Dole filibuster--to replace the cruder old-fashioned filibuster of Senate pirates like Strom Thurmond ("filibuster" comes from the Dutch word for freebooter, or pirate). The liberals of 1975 thought they could banish the dark Furies of American history, but they wound up spawning more demons than we'd ever seen before. Because the senators did not want to be laughed at by stand-up comedians, they ended their own stand-up acts with a rule that says, essentially:

"We aren't going to let the Senate pirates hold up business anymore. From now on, if those people want to filibuster, they can do it offstage. They can just file a motion that they want debate to continue on this measure indefinitely. We will then put the measure aside, and go back to it only if we get the sixty votes to cut off this not-really-happening debate."

In other words, the opposing senators don't have the stomach to stand up and read the chicken soup recipes. We call it the "procedural" filibuster, but what we really mean is the "pretend" filibuster.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/geoghegan

[Jennicut]

33. Exactly. Which means Harry Reid is both corrupt and spineless.

I am actually hoping he loses in Nov. We need a new majority leader badly, if we still have the majority that is.

[bvar22]

17. Not a chance.

The "Centrists" NEED the filibuster for an excuse to NOT pass Democratic legislation.

[QC]

18. Bingo! n/t

[Better Believe It]

19. Senator Reid forced Republicans to engage in a traditional filibuster in 2007!

There were only 51 Democrats plus two independents in the Senate that year.

--------------------------------------

Reid forces traditional filibuster

During the summer of 2007, Senate Republicans were successfully filibustering the Levin-Reed amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Department authorization bill that would set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a statement saying:

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.” But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces. I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down. If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

----------------------------------------

After Republicans filibustered for 24 hours, Senator Reid, as one would expect, caved into the Republicans. -By BBI

Democrats Won't Force War Vote
Effort Halted After GOP Blocks Proposal
By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 19, 2007

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

The vote followed 24 hours of Iraq speeches on the Senate floor, stretching from 11 a.m. Tuesday until yesterday's 11 a.m. vote. Cots that had been brought in for the overnight session were wheeled back out to a congressional storage facility, after being used by just six senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071800482.html?hpid=artslot

[iceman66]

20. Lots of good info in this thread.

I'm starting to wonder if Reid hasn't literally sold us out!

Maybe he's counting on losing this fall's election because he has some cushy lobbyist job already lined up?

[Kitsune]

23. Fine. We can wait ten months for his idiot ass to get thrown out of office and do it THEN.

Christ, what a useless lump Harry Reid is.

[BootinUp]

24. Someone bonk him on the head...hard. nt

[Better Believe It]

28. President Obama and his chief bonker, Rahm "Sharp Elbows" Emanual could do it, but they won't.

Unless there is enormous pressure to challenge Republican "pretend" filibusters.

[Clio the Leo]

26. Which is why the vote won't happen until January...

.... when Senate rules require only 51 votes and Leader Durbin (DUrbin?) will allow it.

[Better Believe It]

27. But will there be 51 Democrats in the Senate in January?

[Clio the Leo]

30. Yeah .... we have too much time to catch up.

They peaked too soon. (The GOP that is.)

Or is it piqued?

Whichever peek it is. (I"ve been watching too much Palin coverage and am getting more dumberer.)

[grantcart]

29. Senator Reid is incorrect

It takes 66% of the Senators on the floor not 67 votes.

If you make the minority conduct an actual filibuster and any of the Senators leave the floor then you would only have to get 66% of the Senators that are on the floor.

[krispos42]

31. They had better fucking fix this in the next Congress...

...when they're setting the rules in January 2011, they'd better take out the filibuster rule. You abuse it, you lose it.

Let Obama veto any damn shit the Repubs try to force through.

[JCMach1]

32. Enforce a REAL filibuster not the threat of one!

[depakid]

34. And in other news: Nelson joins Republicans to filibuster Obama NLRB nominee

The US Senate's unconstitutional usurpation of power is going to be the the final nail in he coffin of American economic and geopolitical dominance.