Dems Vow To Push Filibuster Reform

[Tx4obama]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Leaders of the effort to reform the filibuster in the Senate are pushing forward despite the election outcome, working to gather support within the Democratic caucus while reaching out to Republicans. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said that he and a core group of members will canvass their colleagues throughout November and December.

"We'll start the informal discussion in our caucus. Are you for reform? What kind of reform?" Udall told HuffPost.

On the first day of the 112th Congress, Udall said, he will rise and make a motion to establish rules for the session, making the argument that the chamber is entitled by the Constitution to set its own rules. Vice President Joe Biden is then expected to rule -- as vice presidents have done in the past -- that the motion is in order. Senate Republicans will challenge the ruling and Democrats will move to table the objection. Only 50 votes will be needed to table the objection. If Democrats succeed, a debate would then begin over how to reform the rules.

Udall said he and newer Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) have been gradually winning support for their effort to reform the rules.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/19/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_786255.html

---

Bold added for emphasis.

[jaysunb]

1. And so it begins....

This is the start I've hoped for, as it's the only answer for Democrats ability to govern.

Here's hoping.

[jwirr]

2. If they do not do something about this issue they might as well come

home. Everything they want to do will be filibustered.

[northoftheborder]

3. This reform would have helped tremendously during this....

.....Congress, but in the next one, there will be only gridlock, with the House under control by the R's. I don't see how anything positive will pass.

[Rozlee]

11. They need 50 votes but....

They sure aren't going to get them. Too many Blue Dogs gumming up the progressive agenda. Damn I hate those bastards.

[Tx4obama]

19. There are things that the Senate votes on that do not go to the House

such as: Obama's administrative nominations and judicial nominations - I'm sure there are more but those are the two important things that come to mind at the moment.

[24601]

4. With 23 senators up for reelection in 2010 to the Republicans 10,

changing the rules this way sets up a long-term losing strategy - especially if the White House is lost in 2010. Imaging the 2003-2007 period id the Dems didn't have the power to stop things in the Senate.

[blue neen]

6. I think possibly you might mean 2012.

Just sayin...:)

[24601]

9. You'r right - more thinking - less beer! n/t

[Devil_Fish]

7. refresh my memory, what did the dems stop?? NT

[Psephos]

8. This reform effort has quite an odor of future blowback about it. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. thats exactly what I posted below..the Rethugs are loving this

[Tx4obama]

15. Please see comment #14. n/t

[David__77]

18. Thing longer term.

Majority rule is much more friendly to our side in the longer term. Our signature legislation is much more politically difficult to undo than theirs is. If we set up a public option, it would soon become sacrosanct. We must think long term. This would be a better country if there were no filibuster. Even though it allows for setbacks too, we must proceed.

[Creative]

23. Exactly...Senate rules are set up this way for a reason.

It's expected for the House to be rash and unruly, the Senate was designed to moderate the state of affairs.

[elocs]

5. "Dems vow". What exactly does "vow" mean?

That they really, really promise or that they will just "try" and then say, "oh well, we tried"?

[Tx4obama]

10. Be sure to take a look at the full article...

The article also mentions that the time that is required for debate prior to a bill's vote on the floor of the senate could be reduced or eliminated.

And that separate rules might be enacted for executive branch nominees - this would be great and exactly what Senator McCaskill has been working on. Those 'secret holds on Obama's judicial nominees have been a farce!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. yeah smart thing to do now that you might loose both houses in 12...give away your only power to

stop their insane bills.

you're playing right into their hands....they are loving this ...have you ever heard of blowback

why the hell didn't you do this 2 effing years ago when it would have help our side?

[Tx4obama]

14. Look at it this way...

if we get rid of the republicans ability to filibuster cloture then we can bring more bills to the floor for debate and for a vote.
We will be able to get President Obama's administration nominees & judicial nominees put into place faster due to getting a vote on them on the senate floor when the 'secret holds' are eliminated.

IF the republicans were to take over the senate in 2012 (which I do not believe they will) the republicans would be able to eliminate the 60 vote rule for cloture anyway at the beginning of the 2013 session of congress, there would be nothing stopping 'them' from doing so.

So, why not get rid of it now so that WE can get some stuff done?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. I see

[Kip Humphrey]

17. foot, meet bullet.

[Tx4obama]

20. Please explain why. n/t

[ProudDad]

21. Would'a been nice in 2009 but I'll take it...if it happens (n/t)

[stevedeshazer]

22. Thanks for that link.

It's more clear than mine.

[musiclawyer]

24. They should have done this in 09

1. Worrying about it being used against us is naive. Long term demogtaphics are in our favor. They win an election, we undo the next time it flips

2. More impotantly, the appearance of getting things done is vital now, as in '12
If the rules are changed, nothing gets done. And guess who gets blamed? If the rules are changed the Senate can pass things. The the GOP House will then be the one gumming things up. In '12 the Dems, straight down the ticket can say, "the GOP, first in the senate , and then in the house, prevented anything good from getting done during the OBAMA term. We need the white house in 2012. Changing the rules will secure this. Otherwise, you all mighg as well start packing because if you think we are on our way to a police state now... just wait until President Palin is in charge.

[John Kerry VonErich]

25. If the shoe was on the other foot in leadership,

would you support it then? There were cries when the GOP tried the nuclear option for fillibusters.