Filibuster Reform: Is 52 a workable number?

[denem]

Or 51 for that matter, subtracting Lieberman?

How about 51 Republicans? Flip DE, CO, NV and WA for example.

As Senators Castle, Buck. Lowden, and Rossi prepare to take their seats,
how aggressive do you think Filibuster Reform should be in this term?

[Deep13]

1. How many do we need for a rule change? nt

[Vincardog]

6. 51 when the New Congress convenes a simple majority vote sets the rules

[CJCRANE]

2. This seems like a new talking point.

What's the reasoning for this?

[vaberella]

3. I say we let 3 Dems go to the side of Repubs and we let Biden do the last vote and I'd say yes.

We have enough.

[Lochloosa]

4. 50 + Biden for a rule change. It can be done.

[Lochloosa]

5. I see the Unrec ghost are busy

[CJCRANE]

7. Unrec'd because it seems like a strange idea to push

just when the Republicans have won the House!

[stopbush]

9. Exactly. It's a recipe for disaster now that the Rs control the House.

Rs would need 14 Ds to side with them to reach a 60-vote Senate super majority. Lower the threshold to 52 and they need only 6.

Is that what Ds want when the Rs pass legislation in the House to criminalize gays and to make it mandatory that the Genesis story be taught in history and science classes as fact?

Killing the filibuster right now is the WORST thing the senate could do.

Elections have consequences. What looked good a week ago looks very bad now.

Think, people. Jeebus, you've checked your reason at the door on this one.

[CJCRANE]

11. My cybersenses tell me...

this a new meme being rolled out.

[denem]

13. Huh? I was speculating the results could have been 51 GOP.

What's the meme?

[CJCRANE]

15. Okay, maybe I misread your OP...

but it seems like bad timing to speculate on filibuster reform now that the Repubs have the House.

On edit: And even more so if the Repubs had the majority in the Senate, unless you are arguing *against* filibuster reform.

[denem]

16. Exactly.

[CJCRANE]

20. Ah..I get it!

I was partially reacting to another OP as well which seriously suggested filibuster reform.

[denem]

24. Angle and O'Donnell were flukes.

Filibuster reform at present is as brain dead as they are.

[Lochloosa]

26. Fine. Then nothing gets done.

[stopbush]

32. Sometimes nothing getting done is better than disaster getting done.

The Rs are like Thelma & Louise - they've got a plan, and they're sticking to it, even if it means driving over a cliff.

[Deep13]

8. Do it! Kill that unconstitutional POS rule! nt

[FBaggins]

43. Lol! Now the filibuster is unconstitutional?

When did that happen?

I could have sworn that the Constitution says "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"

[Deep13]

46. It says that each Senator has one vote and that ...

...no amendments may be enacted that alter the equal representation of states. That assumes that there is presently equal representation of states. This rule gives the minority in essence more votes than the majority making a pro-filibuster vote worth about twice of a cloture vote.

[FBaggins]

48. "In essence"?

That's your opinion... not fact. "In essence" is irrelevant when "in reality" it isn't true.

Each senator DOES have one vote. But there's nothing in the Constitution that keeps the Senate from passing a rule that says "we only hold votes on alternate fridays" either. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that they have to HOLD a vote if they choose not to (except arguably for those functions that the constitution requires them to perform).

Your "in essece" argument means that Senate committees are unconstitutional as well. It gives each senator on the committee the effect of TEN votes (since 90 senators don't even vote on the bill until it makes it out of committee).


There's certainly nothing wrong with keeping a rule that "in essence" goes back to the founding fathers.

[Deep13]

51. I don't really really give a shit that you don't agree. nt

[FBaggins]

52. Sorry... am I supposed to care?

The simple fact is that the filibuster is not in any way unconstitutional.

You don't think that someone would have said something in 200+ years? :rofl:

[Deep13]

53. You're the one arguing it and pretending to laugh.

So you obviously do care.

[FBaggins]

55. Sorry... let me make that a bit more clear

Am I supposed to care whether or not you give a sh1t?

You were wrong... I pointed out that you were wrong. Now nobody will stumble into ignorance by reading the thread.

Whether or not you agree or "give a sh1t" is entirely your own problem.

[totodeinhere]

44. It is not unconstitutional.

The Senate has the right to set it's own rules.

[Deep13]

47. Suppose it passes a rule saying it has the power ...

... to pass bills of attainder. Obviously, there are limits to its rule-making power and altering the equal representation of states is one of those limits.

[onenote]

10. Since we no longer control the House, what is the benefit to us from filibuster reform?

Even if it made it easier for us to pass legislation in the Senate, that legislation will die in the House. And if a bad bill comes over from the House, the filibuster rule might actually serve our interests in preventing it from getting to a vote.

[Sirveri]

12. I'm pretty sure Obama still has the ability to veto bills...

Which would then force it back to a more difficult vote in the Senate anyways.

[bornskeptic]

22. The only real benefit for us in the new Congress is for appointments.

There are dozens of positions in the Executive branch and in the Judiciary that need to be filled.It's ridiculous to have the functions of government held up by the silly 60 vote requirement.

[WI_DEM]

14. won't it be 53 in the end?

[Pryderi]

17. 55

[Pryderi]

18. How about eliminating secret holds?

[onenote]

30. that actually might be more important and effective than filibuster reform

If repubs had to vote to block "up or down" votes on nominees, the message of their obstructionism might finally start getting through. Secret holds make the process so opaque the average person doesn't even know its happening.

[AlinPA]

54. With the crazy teabaggers thiis is even more important. They will stop everything. nt

[flpoljunkie]

19. Read somewhere Dem leadership thinking of filibuster reform to take up a bill-not once it's on floor

Something to consider when Republicans modus oerandi has been to keep legislation from even being taken up at all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. By all means. It's important that we fast-track anything the House dreams up. n/t

[MurrayDelph]

23. The way I heard it suggested

It takes 60 votes for cloture the first time a bill is presented. A failure for cloture prohibits the bill from being brought up again for at least a week.

The next time the bill is brought up, it takes 55 votes. Failure to achieve cloture again prohibits the bill from being considered for at least a week.

The third time a bill is brought up, you have to by-gum stand and debate (On the merits, no reading phone books). As long you can outlast the 53 votes for cloture, the filibuster holds. Once you're done, it's done.

Alternate suggestion: each Senator has X number of filibusters/holds allotted to them at the beginning of Congress. If they're used up, too bad.

[no limit]

25. If they couldn't get reform with 60 dems in the senate, how are they going to do it now?

You're in lala land. Nothing useful will come from this congress.

[DrToast]

27. They don't need 60

That's been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

[no limit]

29. Again, if they didn't do it with 60 senators what makes you think they will do it now?

I swear, I feel like I'm a different planet than some of you at times.

[DrToast]

37. Are you genuinely puzzled why they might pass filibuster reform after the last session?

And by the way, they didn't have 60 votes when they voted on the rules for this session.

[no limit]

41. I'm puzzled why any of you would think that they would. The filibuster has been a issue long before

they never even suggested they would change it. Now that it is totally unrealistic to change it you are telling me it might happen? Please.

[totodeinhere]

45. The point is that with 46 GOP senators, all it would take is five Blue Dogs to join the GOP and kill

it. It's not gonna happen.

[denem]

28. They could have changed the Filibuster rules in 2009.

How much difference? Reid had sixty votes for a Medicare Buy-In for over 50s then Lieberman backed out. Thats how much.

[Lochloosa]

31. We never had 60 Dems in the Senate. I am so tired of correcting people about that.

[Pryderi]

Why can repugs pass legislation with 54 Senators and Dems can't with 59?

[Lochloosa]

38. Because of the filibuster. And LIEberman...or Nelson....or....

should I go on

[no limit]

40. Right, because the republicans didn't have "centrist" members in their caucus.

[Pryderi]

50. Olympia Snow among a couple of others. Or is it because Repug leadership knows how to keep their

members marching in lock step when they really want to?

[no limit]

33. Whatever number you agree we had you can't dispute we have many less now

so if you are making the argument that the democrats are now going to grow a pair I have a bridge in New Mexico to sell you.

[Lochloosa]

36. I'm not making any argument. I am stating a fact. We never had 60 Dems in the Senate.

Prove me wrong.

[no limit]

39. I never said you were wrong. You're being petty

we had 60 senators that caucused with the democrats. That's what I meant. If you want to be technical fine, I just don't see what it has to do with the point I am making.

[denem]

34. Lieberman !!

The man who single handedly killed the Medicare Buy-In for over 50s.

[Lochloosa]

35. Thank you. And he is NOT a fucking Democrat

[denem]

42. He's a master at fucking over Democrats.

Slime.

[BootinUp]

49. I suspect they will reform the rules on when, how or how long it can be done.

not necessarily the number required to override it.

[AtomicKitten]

56. Patty Murray was declared the winner. That makes 53 Dems.

http://www.keenobservers.com/5311/washington-state-election-results-2010-murray-wins-the-race/

[FBaggins]

58. Deleted.

On edit - She was declared a bit later.

[golfguru]

57. No! I like 60.

When we have less than 45 in the senate, I want a check
on far right legislation.

[Exilednight]

59. Here's a better idea .............

Make them actually filibuster. Make them stand up and talk until they are blue in the face. If our Senate majority leader has any balls, he would call for a debate and not close debate until they are willing to vote.

[Mr. Sparkle]

60. The Filibuster is of no use to the republicans now, since all the legislation coming from the house

will be from republicans. It will be useful to the democrats who can block their bat shit crazy ideas , so I think it is imperative that we keep it.