Whoohoo! "Filibuster reform headed for Senate floor."

[Clio the Leo]

Filibuster reform headed for Senate floor; measure faces uphill battle.

By J. Taylor Rushing - 01/22/10 06:00 AM ET
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) soon intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in the next few weeks intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move.

Harkin’s bill would still allow senators to delay legislation, but ultimately would give the majority the power to move past a filibuster with a simple majority vote.

His staff said the bill would be introduced sometime before the Senate’s current work period ends on Feb. 13.

Democratic leadership aides say Harkin’s bill is unlikely to succeed and that the idea hasn’t been seriously considered in light of Brown’s victory.

“In light of the fact that it takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules, it does not look likely that a rule change would happen any time soon,” said a senior aide.

Speaking to The Hill, Harkin said use of the filibuster has ground the legislative process to a halt.

“While there are reasons to slow bills down and get the public aware of what's happening, there's no excuse for having a few people just stop everything with a filibuster,” he said.

Several liberal activists as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this week have called for filibuster reform to make it easier for legislation to pass.

In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.) this week introduced a resolution urging the Senate to lower the filibuster threshold, adding in a statement that the legislative tactic “has begun to erode the integrity of our Democratic process.”

Under Harkin's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/77479-filibuster-reform-headed-for-senate-floor-faces-uphill-battle

A follow up to ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=138560

[rockymountaindem]

1. I'm not sure this is the best way to fix the problem

I think the filibuster serves a useful purpose sometimes, and everybody would want to use it if we were in the minority. However the 60 vote threshold seems too high. Maybe if they just lowered it to 55, or ended the procedural filibuster that might be better. I mean, think how compelling it would be to see Jim DeMint actually have to stand there and read from the phone book!

[Lasher]

2. No, it's time to just end the filibuster.

Republicans are abusing what was intended to be a rarely invoked provision. This polarized climate will get worse. There has been a political war for the past 30 years. Democrats have so far been too dumb to know it but I'm hoping that will change now.

[Clio the Leo]

3. lol, you did read the last paragraph right? :-)

I think it's a good solution. It keeps the overall spirit of the rule, making sure any legislation has had time for sufficient debate, but preventing anyone from abusing it. Read the other thread I linked to if you haven't already.

The down side of course is that it would take 67 votes to pass so if they ARE able to pass it, I'll be surprised.

But I can hope.

[DrToast]

13. I believe that's mid-sesssion only

At the start of the session it only takes a majority vote.

[Clio the Leo]

20. That explains the discrepancy then, thank you.

[TankLV]

6. Umm - WRONG - WE WERE AFRAID TO USE IT WHEN WE WERE IN THE MINORITY!!!

because the repukes TOLD US TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP or they'd REALLY get mean...or something...

Dems NEVER used it "in the interest of fucking "bipartisanship" and all the other EXCUSES!!!

[BklnDem75]

12. What are you talking about?

Look... I can tell you're pretty angry about something from your posts, but let's try not to make up stuff in the process. Dems successfully blocked Bolton and Meiers among many Bush appointees. Pubs were on the verge of using the 'nuclear option' until the Gang of 14 stopped that in it's tracks.

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

[timeforpeace]

26. Thank you. Selective memory loss is an epidemic around here.

[burning rain]

31. I'd have had no problem with Republicans being able to confirm Meiers or Bolton by majority vote.

Bush got elected in 2004 as a warmonger; there's no reason he shouldn't have been able to get the equally gruesome Bolton if there were 50+1 votes. We don't have a 60% threshold for electing presidents, senators. or congressmen, and those are pretty important positions.

[BklnDem75]

34. It's much easier to say that now...

when we no longer have to deal with that asshole Bolton. Back then, it was a major problem and I'm more than happy the Dems held their ground. Are you really serious in saying you would've been ok with Meiers going to the high court? Really? Look, I'm in favor of changing the rules on filibusters, but in those two instances, THANK GOD for the filibuster.

[burning rain]

36. Did not confirming Bolton stop Bush's warmongering?

Scarcely. Bolton's a big asshole, but in the world of policy it mattered little except to put a finger in Bush's eye. And who took Harriet Meier's place? Alito. She couldn't have been worse. What was more crucial than Democratic objections in her case, was that she didn't have the confidence of conservatives.

[BklnDem75]

40. Did not confirming a Bolton stop Bush's warmongering?

It surely stopped us from ending up in Iran and that's a fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__jVRnmmHJs

As bad as Alito was, he's heads and shoulders better than what we would've had with Miers who would've been a direct mouthpiece for Bush. She was completely unqualified for the job and I can easily see cases such as roe v wade being overturned long before now if she ever made it. I'm sorry, you're just wrong in both these instances.

[burning rain]

47. I'll agree that Bolton was & is a warhawk re. Iran...

but Bush was himself highly resistant to the pro-Iran war faction. There are degrees of awfulness even among warmongers. Now, if McCain had gotten in, we almost definitely would have ended up at war in Iran.

Meiers would have been an awful Bush toady, and completely unqualified, but she couldn't have been more anti-Roe than Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. She was actually a cipher on Roe, although the right did not trust her on that issue (despite her membership of an anti-abortion church). At any rate, though, I have a hard time she could have outdone Alito's odious Gitmo dissent and claim that innocence does not exempt one from the death penalty. Plus, Roe is secure for the time being with Kennedy on the Court.

[bornskeptic]

39. Neither Miers nor Bolton made it through committee hearings.

Miers withdrew before hearings even started. She was opposed by several Republicans, and couldn't have been confirmed even by a majority vote. Bolton couldn't make it through committee hearings, because Lincoln Chafee joined Democrats in opposing him him, so the committee was deadlocked. The Democrats did stop some nominations through the filibuster, but not those two.

[BklnDem75]

44. Same difference.

As is true today, the threat of a filibuster is just as effective as the filibuster itself. It effectively ended debate on both Bush nominees. The threat alone keeps the process bottled up in committee until the majority has enough votes to overcome the filibuster.

[earthside]

4. Reid Must Go

From the same article:

" Reid shot down the option in his 2008 book “The Good Fight.” Recalling the “nuclear option” debate in 2005, Reid compared lowering the filibuster threshold to “opening Pandora’s Box.”

“It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business,” Reid wrote. “And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate… A filibuster is the minority’s way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.”

The Majority Leader is so much a product (or captive) of the current Senate "good ol'boy" system that he won't allow real change. But under the current version of the filibuster rule, it is not delay for debate that is the problem, it is that the filibuster now means 'no vote' ... period!

That is un-democratic, it legitimizes a tyranny of the minority, it is unconstitutional in that in completely eviscerates the legislative function of the U.S. Senate.

So, while Harkins' intentions are good, it sounds like until Reid is booted out as Majority Leader, every good piece of legislation is going to die merely because the Republicans now have 41 Senators in their caucus.

The Senate Democrats should use the 'nuclear option' and restore majority rule democracy to their body. Until they do, we all might just as well watch movies and play video games until the Republicans take back the Senate in November.

[tledford]

15. "[...] the end of the United States Senate [...]"

Excellent idea! Maybe we could try democracy instead of plutocracy.

[Phx_Dem]

5. Sounds like a reasonable and sorely need approach.

The GOP has forced our hand and we have to do something! The obstruction is ridiculous.

[Jennicut]

7. It is a very good solution allowing reasonable debate and delay but not obstruction

But with 67 votes it has a flying pig's chance of passing. :(

[timeforpeace]

27. This is a great example to use when someone asks "Why do Dems always screw up?" Short term thinking.

[SwampG8r]

8. yeah you do that

but in november when we lose both houses of congress is this still going to look like a good idea?
short term thinking defined what a dumbass harkin must be

[quakerboy]

24. You thinking of some other countries senate?

Cause in the one that "represents" the good ol USA, Lincoln and Lieberman and Landrieu, et al will be voting with the rest of the right to break any pesky liberal filibusters anyway. Theres money to be made and corporations to be represented, by God!!

[last1standing]

9. I'm not sure how helpful this will be.

The general rule is that republicans ALWAYS use the filibuster but Democrats NEVER do. My fear is that with the filibuster gone, the republicans will just have it that much easier when in the majority while the Democrats will come up with new ways to derail the legislation they claim to be in favor of.

[NYC Democrat]

11. well the dems actually do try to fillibuster quite a lot

Its just that the blue dogs always side with the republicans in those situations and the bill passes anyway.

[last1standing]

22. A filibuster generally can only succeed if the Minority Leader (Reid/Daschle) mount it.

Since neither of these two ever wanted to join in there was never a unified force to get a filibuster going. Our leadership has been screwing us over for the last 30 years. Unless we realize this and take steps to correct it, no change in filibuster procedure will help.

[secondwind]

10. I'm not in favor of ANYTHING that will delay HCR any longer than we have to........

like I've been saying for weeks now, Robert Byrd and Frank Lautenberg are not getting any younger.

[LiberalFighter]

19. They need to bite back at anyone that says they are trying to rush HCR through.

I wonder how many bills have gone through the Senate that have taken longer than what this bill is taking?

[WI_DEM]

14. Won't this get fillibustered?

[no limit]

16. Lol, yeah. But it looks nice on paper (or a liberal message board)

[Hosnon]

17. I thought the Senate rules could be changed with a simple majority vote?

Thus the "Nuclear Option".

Am I wrong and, if so, what the hell is the nuclear option?

[DCBob]

21. Nope.. need 2/3 (of those present)

The nuke option is no longer an option. The congresscritters agreed not to use it for fear of causing the universe to implode.

[Hosnon]

35. I think we're both right. The current rule is 2/3 but the nuclear option is a

procedural challenge to the constitutionality of that rule. The Constitution does not specify what percentage of Senators is required to pass legislation and this silence implies no more than 51% (according to the nuclear option argument - which I think has merit).

[TheNev]

18. blustering is an art form

67 votes to pass...

I think of the words of some republican, "When they were in the minority they blamed us for not being able to get anything done. Now they're in the majority and they're blaming the minority? Seriously?"

Here's a thought, try passing actual bi-partisan legislation. I know it's kind of a weird notion for a Senator to do what is best for his or her states voters first (rather than special interests or party), but try it. Stop locking the doors when bills are being created. Yes, I know...kind of a revolutionary idea here. It might scare people into flaming me for perceived trolling but i'm willing to live with that.

Not to mention that congress is cyclical and 2010 ain't shaping up to be a good year for Democrats. I'd hate to think what Republicans would do with this kind of power...

Beware what you wish for.

[quakerboy]

25. Been there done that

The president and the majority leader tried bipartisan. They got spit on by your side. I hope that they didn't care for the experience enough to take the lesson.

[Jersey Devil]

23. No problem for GOP - They will filibuster the filibuster bill

See how easy it is?

[RememberWellstone]

28. Remember Massachusetts

Be careful what you might get stuck with in the future...it may sound a like a good idea today. But if the rethugs ever got back, they would hammer more bullschit with the same rule.

[FrenchieCat]

29. I thought you wanted your Democrats big, bad and bold?

Are you getting skeetish?

[Juche]

30. Reid & Obama oppose it

Reid shot down the option in his 2008 book The Good Fight. Recalling the “nuclear option” debate in 2005, Reid compared lowering the filibuster threshold to “opening Pandora’s Box.”

“It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business,” Reid wrote. “And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate … A filibuster is the minority’s way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.”

Even Obama, referencing the 2005 debate, is on record opposing the idea during a speech he gave as a senator that year.

“The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse,” Obama said in the April 2005 speech in Washington.





Pathetic. If Reid thinks the GOP is using this for 'debate' purposes he is a moron. And Obama doesn't speak for me, despite me being a member of 'the American people'. I want more partisanship. I want the GOP steamrolled and destroyed.

[HillGal]

32. Why are you woohooing? It takes 67 votes to pass. NT

NT

[Bill McBlueState]

33. "Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move."

Of course they have.

Until 2007, you never heard this talking point that 60 votes were required to do *anything* in the Senate.

There were never more than 55 Republicans from 2001-2007, and they did whatever they wanted.

[akel21]

37. use

nuclear option pls


contact ed schultz

[jenmito]

38. Welcome back m448/Teddykin/NewLifeArea/hotfile.

:eyes:

[janx]

42. You forgot 360girl ! Also,

you have a PM.

[jenmito]

43. That's right!

Thanks.

[donco6]

41. It would take real backbone to push this through.

Hence, it will never happen.

[Arkana]

45. I LIKE this idea!

60 votes, then 57, then 54...Republicans couldn't hold out forever!

[CK_John]

46. This is Harkin playing to the peanut gallery for something that needs 67 votes to pass. n/t

[AlinPA]

48. Any attempt to change the filibuster rule is a black hole. No way it will happen.