Senate Dems Throw In the Towel

[Joanne98]

Last month, every member of the Senate Democratic caucus signed a letter signalling support for reforms that would end anonymous holds and force the minority to actually mount a continuous debate if it wanted to block a bill, rather than require a supermajority vote even to begin a debate:

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.
The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, to weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

What happened next? Let's see. First, Republican critics attacked the reforms for doing away with the supermajority requirement even though (sadly) they did no such thing. Then the few conservatives who actually understood what the reforms would do (which, again, was not -- NOT, Senator Alexander -- prevent the minority from obstructing legislation) admitted they actually made a lot of sense.

And, now, of course, the denouement -- Senate Democrats fold like a cheap suit:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/82031/senate-dems-throw-in-the-towel

[leveymg]

1. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - next year, we may in the minority and the current rules favor a

united opposition. Besides, nothing good's coming down the tracks from the House, anyway, this year.

Fillibuster reform makes no sense at all at this point, and would just make it easier for the GOP to rule by near-dictatorship from the Right, if Obama doesn't veto everything.

[LonePirate]

3. We need to stop fooling ourselves. The Rs will change the rules the first chance they can.

The current rules on filibusters will be history the next time they control both houses. The holds on appointments will be gone the next time they hold the Senate and White House, if not sooner.

[Armstead]

5. Bingo -- The GOP knows how to work the system. We get worked over.

[Nancy Waterman]

6. Exactly so!!

It is a fantasy to think the Dem precedent will hold the GOP back from doing exactly what they want to obstruct the will of the Dems. We should do it now and get Obama's nominees through before the GOP does yet more damage.

[quakerboy]

4. While I agree with you

do you believe for a second that the pub's won't just get rid of it anyway if they achieve a small senate majority?

[leveymg]

9. This would make it a lot easier if the GOP can say, "they did it first."

[quakerboy]

10. I again agree with you

I even suspect that if they were to change the rules significantly, it would be more likely to result in a section of Democrats working with the Pubs to pass what the Republican House wants than for the senate to actually pass anything democratically inclined.

The time to do this was 4 years ago, if they were going to do it.


That said, I don't think the next Republican majority will give a damn about precedent if it gets in the way of ramming through what they are paid to want. And I don't think that anyone will hold them to account when the run over procedure, precedent, law, human rights, or human life to get what they want.

[paulk]

2. of course the Dems folded

it's what they do...

[S_E_Fudd]

7. Dems Fold....Water Wet...Sky Blue...

It's obvious headline day here at DU!!!

[HeroTwins]

8. they had to do it the first day of the new Senate.

It was the only day that required only 51 votes to change Senate Rules.

[Thrill]

11. SHOCKER!!

NOT