Tom Harkin May Reintroduce Legislation To Kill Filibuster

[Swede]

With the news that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) plans to filibuster the current health care bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) options are looking increasingly limited. But one Democratic senator may introduce legislation that would make health care reform a lot easier.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa told reporters this weekend that he might reintroduce legislation to end the filibuster, something he first proposed in 1994.

[bemildred]

1. Good idea, change the rules. nt

[meow2u3]

3. One problem with filibuster rule changes

The pukes can use the rule against us if they get the majority back. Be careful, Sen. Harkin.

[Tesha]

7. That might be a concern if the Democrats ever managed to sustain a fillibuster.

But they pretty much failed at that, too. :-(

Might as well end it.

Tesha

[bemildred]

8. The filibuster is not in the Constitution.

The Congress makes it's own rules. The filibuster is anti-majority rule, and hence anti-democracy, a barrier to reform and the exercise of the will of the voters, even the exercise of the will of the majority in Congress. And that is exactly how it is used, and how it has always been used.

But this change is unlikely, it requires a super-majority IIRC to change the rules.

[FBaggins]

9. Well... Yes and no

It's not directly in the constitution... But the principle is.

As you noted, it's "anti-democratic" - which describes the Senate itself. The rule was implemented
quite early to reinforce that characteristic. The senate does
serve as a foil to the will of the majority.

[napi21]

2. I have a suggestion for how Harkin could improve on his old

proposal of eliminating the fill. and MAYBE get it passed.


In his old one, he more or less said each time a cloture vote was called & failed, the next cloture vote would require one less Senator to pass. ie: 1st vote requires 60, 2nd needs 59, 3rd. needs 58..... One of the reasons his bill only got 19 votes back then is because each Senator wants to keep his power to fill. if & when they are in the minority. If this had passed, after enough votes, any bill that got to 51 would pass. When Rachel discussed this last night, she said it made sense when there were only 39 fill's each term, but that has turned into 139! and nothing gets passed!

My suggestion is to keep the fill. as it is needing 60 votes, but limit the # to say 25 or 30 each term! THAT would force each side to think a little before they auto filled EVERY BILL! It wouldn't do much for the HC bill today, but it would enable it, or any bill, to be revived later when the Pubs used all their fillabusters for the term.

[DerBeppo]

4. What comes around...

Short sidedness has a way of biting people in the ass in these situations. What happens when time passes the GOP find themselves in a similar numerical majority? These "roadblocks" are a layer of much needed internal legislative checks and balances. Sometimes it works for, sometimes it works against, but how about waiting until the repugs actually USE the filibuster (instead of threatening to use it) before we start talking about major structural overhauls of the process?

[earthside]

5. Time for 'The Lieberman Option'

It was called the 'nuclear option' when the radical Senate Republicans wanted to change the rules to stop Democrats from filibustering Bush judicial nominees.

A law to change the rules could itself be filibustered leading to only more defeats for the Senate Democrats.

Since he is causing this legislative crisis, let's call it 'The Lieberman Option' and kill this anti-democratic and un-Constitutional filibuster tactic once and for all.


From Wikipedia:

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

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

[FBaggins]

6. Dumb idea... Can itself be filibustered (likely with many democrats)...

And I don't think it's a coincidence that this was proposed in 1994. Such thinking cost us many seats that year.