Tom Harkin's filibuster idea. Check this out! I like it!

[napi21]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/14/senate-filibuster-healthcare-lieberman

The Iowa Democratic senator is floating an intriguing-sounding idea about ending the filibuster in phases, according to TPM. He originally sought it 14 years ago with a Senate colleague (named below -- interesting!). It'd work like this:

The plan he announced with Lieberman 14 years ago would have slowly scaled down the cloture threshold for legislation that had been filibustered. The first vote would require 60. If it failed to reach 60, debate would continue until a new vote, which would require 57, and so on until a simple majority could determine whether the measure lived or died.

"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said.

[timeforpeace]

1. Let me guess which party was in control of the Senate then...

[napi21]

3. I'm not so sure about that. That was the year Clinton actually took office

and I know the House was a Dem Majority. I don't recall if the Senate was or not. All the seats we lost were lowst in 19904 Nov. Election.

[no limit]

8. edit: nvm

[timeforpeace]

16. My point is that it's a popular notion when we're in control. It would pass easy peasy when the

Pukes have the majority, yet where were Harkin and Joe then? The trouble is, the Senate considers itself a collegial entity and the last barrier to bad law being enacted, and thus makes big time stuff very hard to pass. I think over the decades and hundreds of years, that philosophy has been a positive.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Va Lefty]

4. Harkin is great

I supported him in '92 for President, but this is short term gain long term pain. Bad idea.

[CRH]

5. Add this to intriguing sounding ideas for ending a filibuster, ...

There was a post the other day asking if the 60 vote cloture on a filibuster was constitutional. In researching a post I came across this link at google. The first part of the article tells about the filibuster, the history of it, and the like. Then at the bottom is a section titled, "Other procedures of Delay", posted below. The article ended there and did not say if this was ever tried and/or was successful at breaking a filibuster by using these procedures.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuste...

~~ snip ~~

In 2005, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to end Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees by something called the "nuclear option." It is actually a series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules: (cite)

The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.

At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.

The Senate Majority Leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)

The Vice President -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.

A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.

A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).

This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).

With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.

~~ end excerpt ~~

Would this work, has it been used before?

[sponge_bob_128]

6. Killing the Filibuster is a slam dunk for the "Democratic Platform"

Of course it is against the closet corporatist whores that make up many of the real Democratic Party politicians. Without the (silent) Filibuster these snakes would no longer be able to hide under their rocks.

Harkin's scheme would allow the opposition to continuously Filibuster for "around a month" which is "beyond fair".

The corporatists love the Filibuster, because they can lock in the laws in their favor by just temporarily buying off a number of politicians and the corporatists have virtually endless money and patience to do so!

Then some DLC type shadowy whore will chime in: "But Democrats may not be in a majority forever! (like they do anything for us anyway) But then let the Republicans overthrow sacred issue X (what are these in our corrupt sh*thole system??), because you can reinstate X when the public gets mad and gets the Democrats back to 51%!

[backscatter712]

7. Exactly.

Where's the filibusters when the rethugs push their assclownery? They always seem to falter.

Really, the filibuster is a powerful tool for thwarting democracy, but a lousy, unreliable tool for protecting democracy and civil liberties. It's always worked more for the Republican side than our side, no matter which side's got the majority.

It's time to do away with infinite debate in the Senate. Let the Rethugs hold up a bill for a month, and no longer. If they pass fuck-clownery, that'll just piss off the voters, and they'll solve the problem by throwing the fucktards out.

[no limit]

9. Until the republicans regain control.

[WeDidIt]

10. Nice idea, but how do you get 67 votes for it?

Cloture on rules changes can only be invoked with an aye vote from a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

[sponge_bob_128]

11. WRONG! Its called the "Nuclear Option". Wiki It.

Only requires 50 Senators and Biden.

[WeDidIt]

14. The rules are clear about changing the rules

The rules specifically state it takes 2/3 majority to end debate about a rule change.

The nuclear option only applies to appointments by the president.

Google it.

[sponge_bob_128]

15. Wrong! The Nuclear Option Applies to anything.

The Republicans only wanted to use it to only apply to appointments because the Filibuster greatly benefits them on most other issues. It is so beneficial to the conservatives that the "Gang of 14" stood against using the "Nuclear Option" because it would have hurt the Republicans in the future. Wiki it! The 7 DemoRats in the gang gave Bush carte blanche on appointments (would not Filibuster) in return they got ... nothing (rat bastards).

It just amazes me the ignorance on this point. The Filibuster rules could be gone in a New York Minute.

The only thing stopping the Democrats on all these "Democratic Platform" is themselves.

[madokie]

12. I like Harkin

but his marijuana stand is terrible

[madokie]

13. sorry

[Festivito]

17. If filibusters on both sides of issue, don boxing gloves and duke it out.

CSPAN ratings would go through the roof.

Bernie Sanders versus LIEberman. I'd pay to watch that.