Harkin considers raising bill to end filibuster. Harkin = Hero

[DrToast]

"I did a lot of research on this back in the '90s, and it turned out the filibuster is just a Senate rule, not the Constitution or anything like that," Harkin said. "The reason, as best as I can ascertain it from historians that I talked to, Senate historians, was that it came into being when the Senate ... would meet and they would pass a bill before other senators could get there."

He said it became a rule that lawmakers could hold up the bill until more senators were there to vote on it and with enough time to make the public aware of the proposed legislation.

...

"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.

He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.

http://www.thehawkeye.com/story/harkin-filibuster-121209

It's about bloody time someone took this up again.

[Turbineguy]

1. The filibuster is a two-edged sword.

Kind of like the First Amendment (and many others).

[DrToast]

4. It's the reason why so many people think there's no difference between the two parties.

Let the party in power pass their legislation and let the people decide what they want.

[Garam_Masala]

7. I loved the filibuster when dems were a minority a few years back

and so yes, I want checks and balances in senate, the more
deliberative body.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I don't think the First Amendment is a two edged sword

Having to protect hate speech is a tiny cost for having an absolute right to free speech. My only real issue with it is Buckley v Valeo but you could argue that this case was simply an improper interpretation of the first amendment.

[onenote]

2. it will never come to a vote

More than enough senators support the filibuster concept to defeat it if it came to a vote, but beyond that, it faces enough opposition to prevent it from getting to a vote in the first place.

That's just the way it is.

[DrToast]

3. You need to raise awareness of the issue

That's what Harkin is trying to do.

Also, I believe you only need a majority vote at the start of each new Congress. So they may be laying the groundwork for 2011.

[pinto]

5. Kudos, imho.

Wouldn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell, most likely, but I'd love to see it put on the Senate's floor agenda.

:kick:

[cilla4progress]

6. No - that's what I'M talking about!

(Remember the "nuclear option" discussed during Bush, when the Rethugs were in control, what was that?)

Anyway - 'bout time someone got outside the situation and got an overview. Clearly the Republicans / centrist Dems are just obstructing for their own political gain. Instead of negotiating in "good faith" over details, it's time someone saw the longer view and started shaking things up the overall context. I think this issue IS as big as civil rights or a declaration of war. It calls for proportionate action.

[Hatchling]

8. Hurrah!

:applause:

[whistler162]

9. To the Republicans..... current and future a hero he is and will be!

[lsewpershad]

10. Yes

About time this issue is revisited. Maybe it has outlived it's usefulness as it seems it's primary purpose is to hold up what's best for main-street America and doing the bidding of corporate America.

[jaysunb]

11. SOMETHING needs to be done.

I am sick and tired of Senators from states with the population of my STREET calling the tune.
While they should certainly be heard and considered, they should not be able to impose their will on the vast majority of our Country.

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. K&R

[Better Believe It]

14. What filibusters? The bogus Republican ones? The Senate can end these phantom filibusters easily

How?

By forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster on the floor of the Senate. Right now they run for the hills waving the white flag or cave in to them at the slighest hint or suggestion of a real Republican filibuster or opposition to the most tiny and almost invisible legislative reforms.

Or they can stop a Republican filibuster from starting by simply using a simple parliamentary procedure called the "nuclear option" which was used so effectively by Republicans in 1995 to stop a Democratic filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court nominations.

It appears the Democratic leadership doesn't have a backbone and will not use their control of the Senate to push a progressive agenda and force an end to obstructionism by Republicans and conservative Democrats. They would rather surrender to so-called "centrist" demands and set-up the Republicans to regain control of Congress and the White House in 2012.

The Democratic Congress will become known as the "do nothing" Congress by the time of the 2012 elections.

[karynnj]

15. Harkin obviously does not think so, nor does Reid, or many other Senators

who have disputed what you say. The fact is that it is done by insisting on procedural votes, which used to be waived, before each step on the bills. That is in the Senate rules - whether YOU say it is or not.

[Better Believe It]

16. You're mistaken: Senators Reid and Harkin have never disputed those facts.

In fact, Senator Reid has publicly admitted that he won't use his power to halt Republican filibusters, either real ones or the bogus ones which Senator Reid apparently prefers!

The Democrats make the Senates rules and they can change the Senates rules just like Republicans did when they controlled the Senate.

The Democrats have the power without any change in Senate rules to force Republicans to engage in real "on the floor" filibusters.

Senate Democrats even have the power to stop any Republican filibuster dead in its tracks just as Republicans had that power when they controlled the Senate in 2005.

Your links on what Senators Harkin and Reid have said disputing each of the above points would be of interest to all DU'ers.

Post them.

[andym]

17. Apparently it's true that a filibuster can be broken with the "nuclear option"

Here's how it works:

From about.com http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

"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:

1. The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
2. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
3. 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.)
4. The Vice President -- acting as presiding officer -- sustains the point of order.
5. A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
6. A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
7. 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).
8. 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."

On the other hand wikipedia states the following as part of a very in depth article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

"The legality of the nuclear option has been challenged. The Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was appointed by Senator Lott. Furmin is an ostensibly neutral staff member and appointed keeper of the Senate's rules, and is opposed to the nuclear option.<12> It's been reported that a Congressional Research Service report "leaves little doubt" that the nuclear option would not be based on previous precedents of the Senate.<13>"

Also, apparently in 2005 the Democrats stated that they would shut down the Senate if the nuclear option was implemented. Question is whether the Republicans can do the same.