Dan Coats For Filibuster Reform: Incoming GOP Senator Embraces Change

[Tx4obama]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Indiana's Senator-elect Dan Coats is endorsing filibuster reform, becoming one of the few Republicans to back a legislative proposal to change the way the Senate works.

"I think, at the very least, we need to remove the 60-vote rule for bringing a bill to the floor and actually debating it and voting on it," he said in an interview on Sunday on Fox News. "The American people deserve that we are transparent with them, that we take one item at a time, that we register our yeas and register our nays, and be accountable to the American people for what we've done. It's been too much gathering everything at the end and throwing it into one big package."

"There's just too much need for moving forward with action to address our serious economic situation and a number of other issues to not go forward on that basis," he added. "So I'm going to work to try to streamline the situation and move things forward."

What Coats supports, as he also told NPR last week, is removing the ability to filibuster the motion to proceed.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/07/filibuster-reform-dan-coats_n_780098.html

[tabatha]

1. Because they do not want the Dems to be able to do

to them, what they did to the Dems.

[Tx4obama]

3. We're talking about the Senate - we still the majority there. n/t

[tabatha]

9. They ARE talking about the Senate.

They have needed 60 votes for every bill to pass in the Senate.

That is why more than 200 bills passed in the House have not passed in the Senate.

Check your knowledge base.

[Tx4obama]

11. There is nothing wrong with my knowledge base.

Like I said we have the majority in the senate.
There is nothing new that can be done to the 'republicans', nothing in the senate as changed.
If they get rid of the 60 vote rule to bring a bill to the floor to debate - it will help us democrats.
I believe you are the one that either read my other comment wrong or are confused to what I am saying.

[tabatha]

27. Yep, I think I read it wrong. Sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Filibuster "reform" was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.

So STFU Coats, you stale retread.

[Tx4obama]

4. Huh?

Why is removing the 60-vote rule for bringing a bill to the floor and actually debating it and voting on it bad?
Please explain, because I don't understand, thanks.

[tabatha]

10. How many people are in the House and in the Senate?

[Tx4obama]

12. 100 in the senate (53 caucus as dems --- 51 dems/2 indies), 435 in the House. n/t

Edited to correct spelling of the word 'caucus'.

[CLANG]

15. Except if you're Darth Cheney, then there's 101 in the senate

[bossy22]

21. because it leads to simple majority dominance

which means whichever power is incharge can ram through whatever the hell they want. This is especially true when it comes to republicans who tend to vote lock step. imagine that the repubs take back the senate (52 to 48 for this example) and the WH 2012 and they decide to go for a gay marraige ban bill. Now under current rules- such a bill probably would not get to the presidents desk be cause the dems could probably find more than 40 senators to shut the thing down. But under a 51 vote rule it would sail through both houses with ease. Sound good to you? Not to me, it actually freaks the sh*t out of me

[Tx4obama]

23. BUT

If the republicans take the senate majority in 2012 with less than 60 senators (I think they won't win the senate) then they could vote the first day of the senate session to kill the 60 vote rule.
So, why not kill it now and let the democrats have two years of being able to get things done?

[provis99]

25. and the filibuster is undemocratic minority dominance.

The filibuster is an abomination.

[bbgrunt]

5. filibuster reform a wolf in sheep's clothing

[glinda]

8. yup

[Grown2Hate]

6. EASY filibuster reform. NO. MORE. THREATS. Either ACTUALLY filibuster, and read War and Peace

into the official record, or let the bill come to the floor. SIMPLE. DO IT.

[DCKit]

7. While they're at it, they can get rid of secret holds too. n/t

[Tx4obama]

13. Yes! With the secret holds and the 60 rule gone, we could finally have debate on the judicial noms

[AlinPA]

18. Until they take the senate in 2012.

[24601]

19. Every nominee could get an up or down vote. This would apply

for future Administrations as well if you change the rule.

[Kingofalldems]

14. Never trust a conservative--he's planning for the future

Nix this idea.

[blackspade]

16. Oh, NOW their for it!

What a bunch of schisters!

[AlinPA]

17. When the republicans take the senate in 2012, they will kill the filibuster. Then they can cram all

their right wing shit down everyone's throat. It will look like fascism. We have twice the number of seats up in 2012 than they do.

[bossy22]

20. terrible idea

as much as american people hate the gridlock which is congress- our founders made it that way for a reason. That reason was to prevent sweeping change from happening to quickly and to atleast give everyone the time to "settle down and really think". Remember all those terrible bills that got rubber stamped through congress after congress (i.e. the patriot act); imagine that every day.

[armodem08]

22. Do it now, or they'll do it when they get the Senate back...

The bottom line is if the old "somewhat close to reasonable" Republicans almost got rid of the filibuster, then you can bet your ass they'll cut it ASAP when they eventually take back the Senate. Crazy teabaggers won't take "we don't have 60 votes" as an excuse.

We either do it now, and get some good legislation passed out of the Senate to provide a good contrast with the crazy House, or do nothing and be branded as lazy legislators because the Senate won't pass anything. And the worst part of that scenario is that the Republicans will just kill the filibuster anyway! Bet it.

[David__77]

24. It must be eliminated at all costs.

Even at the risk of the right passing all sorts of odious things. In the long run, getting rid of the filibuster will enable quick, progressive change and fundamentally alter the social system.

[John Kerry VonErich]

26. Nuclear option v2.5

nt