If we hold the senate this year might as well kill the filibuster in January

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

An incoming senate can change the rules. (By simple majority.)

I doubt we will hold the senate forever and if the filibuster could be guaranteed in perpetuity I'd probably be okay with that because a day may come when it's all that stands between us and the abyss.

But it cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity.

And if the Republicans ever do regain the senate the filibuster will go the way of the dodo.

These new-fangled republicans will do anything. (Hell, they probably would have eliminated it at some point under Bush had Dems not been so compliant that they didn't need to.)

So, on the theory that the filibuster will survive only as long as Dems control the senate anyway, the right move is to eliminate it in January.

In practice I doubt we could change the rule because a few traditionalists like Byrd would block the move, but it wouold be correct strategy.

(Ironically, if we lost seven seats--a bad result--and ditched the filibuster the senate would be slightly more progressive in practical terms. Most of the losing Dems will be blue-dog types so the core 52 Dems would be about as progressive as the current most progressive 52 Dem senators and those 52 would be able to pass a few things.)

[Clio the Leo]

1. Or amend it according to Harkin's bill....

... works for me.

[Bitwit1234]

2. The republicans will want to change it. They know the democrats

at least most of them are very frustrated with their actions and if they take over they will be sure they stop the democrats from letting them do everything they want. The only way will be to do away with the filibuster and the 60 vote cloture.

[DFLforever]

3. I wouldn't try any sooner than next January

Because we'll lose at least 3 - 4 seats.

I don't think the Dems will get any more liberal or progressive though.
Losing seats doesn't seem to work that way for them.


They'll be even more worried than they are now about right wing inroads on the independent voters in their states. Especially the senators up for re-election in 2012, like my own Amy Klobuchar who moves incrementally more to the right every day.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. I dont' think the Senate standing rules can be changed at the start of a new session

The only thing that is passed is the organizing resolution.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. When then?

I believe the rules are set and voted on at the beginning of each new congress. (Which in practice usually means rubber-stamping the existing rules)

If I am not correct in that (I am 99.9% sure) then when?

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I believe they can only be changed with a 2/3rds vote (at any time)

I think the House has to vote on its rules every congress because its members have to be re-sworn in every two years and on opening day they are all members-elect. The majority of the Senators are still Senators and not Senators-elect on opening day of each Congress and thus I think the standing rules still stand. They just vote on an organizing resolution.

[old mark]

5. I think we might actually pick up a couple of seats, but that's just me. nt

[AlinPA]

9. Sounds good, but where?

[4lbs]

6. I don't know about totally killing it, but institute a multi-phase filibuster that weakens the more

it's used on a bill.

The main reason for a filibuster is to stall a bill as long as possible.

So, the first time it's used on a bill, you need 60 votes for cloture.

After it's done that first time, you wait a month and can re-present the same bill if you didn't get 60 votes. If the filibuster is used again, you only need 58 votes for cloture now.

Then, the third time for this bill, 56 votes, then 54 votes, then 52 votes.

At which point the filibuster can no longer be used on that bill.

So, the maximum any side can filibuster a bill is 5 times, and delay it an additional 6 months or so.


Thus, with that type of gradually weakening filibuster in place, HCR with a public option would have been passed already. Might have even been able to do single-payer.

They could have presented HCR+PO in, say, July 2009.

No cloture with 60 votes? Wait a month. Present that same bill again in August 2009.

No cloture with 58 votes? Wait a month. Present again in September 2009.

No cloture with 56 votes? Wait a month. Present again in October 2009.

No cloture with 54 votes? Wait a month. Present again in November 2009.

No cloture with 52 votes? Wait a month. Present again in December 2009.

The bill has been delayed by the filibustering side for about 6 months. From July 2009 to December 2009.

Since all the filibusters have now been used on this bill, it goes to a straight up-or-down vote, requiring 51 Senate votes to pass.

[MadHound]

8. Or geez, the Dems could simply grow a spine,

Force the 'Pugs to actually do a real live talking filibuster and beat them about the head and shoulders for being obstructionists. But that would actually require the Dems to stand up and fight, something that they are notoriously reluctant to do. But you don't go around changing the rules because your party is a wuss. You insert your backbone and fight.

Sorry, but changing the filibuster rule because the Dems are afraid of a fight is simply a chickenshit move, and one that could have grave results in the future when Dems are in the minority.