They could have passed all the progressive legislation they wanted to. Think about the mass amounts of nation saving legislation that they could have passed if they had ended the filibuster. IMO, we probably would not have lost the House if Democrats had the spine to do what was right for the people of his country rather than what is right for multinational corporations and their bottom line. They flat out should have ended the filibuster.
When the status quo becomes lethal to democracy and the welfare of the people, there is no sense in preserving it whatsoever.
It comes down to this for the Senate: Either take away republicans' power to bully you and be free to to what you want, or let republicans bully you and keep you locked and handcuffed in the Senate basement.
Changing Senate rules is not something that should be done on a whim. But even my dog knew that the republicans were going to filibuster everything after the election of 2008. And that is exactly what they did. And they are still doing it. When a situation becomes impossible, and you have an effective way to change it constructively, than that's what you do.
I refuse to give Sen. Reid/Senate leadership a pass. And so does my dog, BTW. If politics is the "art of the possible", than Reid and the crew should quit politics and go get lobbying jobs for whichever industry they currently primarily represent, because they apparently either don't understand what is possible or don't care to do what is possible when it comes down to doing the possible right things for the welfare of the majority of Americans.
How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary Hart
Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.
snip--
The Times and others are right about the power of the simple majority—more about why in a minute—but wrong about the Cinderella power of the Senate's opening day. A simple majority of determined senators may lawfully change the filibuster rules, even if the existing Senate rules say otherwise, at any time.
snip---
Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.
snip---Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.
snip--
In fact, neither house has ever formally prescribed a supermajority rule for formal amendment of its rules. Not even Senate Rule 22 has the audacity to openly assert that it cannot be repealed by simple majority vote. Rather, the filibuster rule says that debate on its own repeal cannot be ended this way. If Rule 22 simply means that it should not be repealed without a fair opportunity to debate the repeal, then it is fully valid. But insofar as Rule 22 allows repeal opponents to stall interminably so as to prevent a majoritarian vote from ever being held, then Rule 22 unconstitutionally entrenches supermajority rule. It's a question for each senator to decide for him- or herself—and then to act on, by simple majority rule, just as the framers intended.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280238