Filibuster Reform

[dayman]

Thoughts? Personally I think it's rather ridiculous for McConnell to (with a straight face) be so opposed to this and pretend it isn't a short sighted party tactic on his part and claim that is what it is on Reid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/full-speed-ahead-on-filibuster-reform/2012/11/26/69a38b5a-380f-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_blog.html

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/filibuster-reform-mitch-mcconnell_n_2193840.html

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned senators Monday to oppose the growing momentum for dramatic reform of the filibuster, saying, "It may be the most important thing you ever do."

Use of the filibuster to stall legislation -- when the minority party refuses to end debate on a bill unless 60 senators vote to do so -- has escalated in recent years, rising from a rarity to the norm. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been signaling his readiness to curb the tactic, often noting that he has faced 385 filibusters during his leadership while Lyndon Johnson had to deal with only one when he ran the Senate.

A number of proposals are under consideration, including a bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and others that would essentially require an old-fashioned "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"-style filibuster: Minority opponents of a measure would actually have to take the floor and hold forth for hours, rather than simply signal their intent to obstruct.

Making such a rule change in the Senate would normally require a 67-vote majority. But when the Senate comes back into session in January, Democrats could use a set of procedural rules often called the "nuclear option" and pass the changes with a simple 51-vote majority.

It is that possibility that McConnell targeted in his Senate floor speech, saying such a move would be a pure power grab that would only make partisanship worse in the upper chamber.

"The American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope we can disagree without being disagreeable," McConnell said.

"What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet," he said. "The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."

None of the proposals for filibuster reform have actually called for ending the practice, and lawmakers from small states are especially wary of giving up the ability to check the majority.

Some reformers have suggested ending the filibuster for procedural actions like motions to start debate and motions to appoint senators to conference committees, which work out differences in legislation passed by the two chambers.

McConnell, while not specifically addressing whether the filibuster needs to be fixed, has said that any fix must be based on bipartisan discussion. Using the nuclear option, he said Monday, would be an attack on the entire country.

"Let's be clear: The rules change that's being proposed is not an affront to me or to the Republican Party. It's an affront to the American people," McConnell said. "It's an affront to the people who sent me and the other 46 Republicans here to represent them in the Senate, but whose voices would be shut out if the majority leader and this cohort of short-sighted Senate sophomores have their way and permanently change this body."

A Democratic Senate staffer whose boss backs a rule change argued that Republicans have already permanently altered the Senate by obstructing just about everything.

"It's frankly unbelievable after this historic abuse of Senate rules that Republicans would cry foul over attempts to make the Senate work," said the aide, who spoke anonymously because the boss is still negotiating details of a reform proposal. "Senator McConnell had the chance to work with Senator Reid to bring bills to the floor under the gentlemen's agreement of 2011, and he failed to do so."

The "gentlemen's agreement" refers to Reid's pledge to abide by normal Senate rules as long as McConnell stuck to a more traditional wielding of the filibuster.

McConnell and other Republicans have argued that they have to filibuster so much because Reid does not let the Senate take votes on their proposed amendments.

The minority leader argued Monday that the Democrats' efforts to get things moving again will only make matters worse.

"In the name of 'efficiency,' their plan is to use a heavy-handed tactic that would poison party relations even more," McConnell said. "In the name of 'efficiency,' they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like pillow fights."

McConnell pointed to Reid's past comments opposing the nuclear option, which Reid once described as "breaking the rules to change the rules."

However, that was before Reid had to deal with nearly 400 filibusters.

[dayman]

Also there is a lawsuit. Interesting standing issues and a point about majority rule and the strength/weakness of that doctrine in the constitution.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyle-denniston/filibuster-constitutionality_b_1523875.html

 

We checked the Constitution, and...

Under Article I, Section 5, the Senate and the House is each given the authority "to determine the rules of its proceedings." But the new lawsuit, Common Cause v. Biden, Vice President, filed in Washington this week proceeds on the theory that this provision is only the beginning of the constitutional conversation, not the end of it. As long ago as 1892, the lawsuit notes, the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Ballin declared that the Senate lacks the authority to write rules that conflict with other parts of the Constitution.

As this lawsuit proceeds before District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a judge who has a reputation for bold decision-making, it has real promise. But it will have to overcome some potential obstacles perhaps more daunting than what Article I says about congressional rules.

The most significant of those is whether, in fact, this challenge is a "live controversy" -- that is, whether it is a genuine legal dispute, not simply an abstract exploration of an idea about the right way to run a government. The Constitution's Article III allows the federal courts to decide only "cases or controversies," and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the only people or groups allowed to sue in federal courts are those able to show that they face a genuine injury, that their harm was caused by the government action they challenge, and that the courts can fix it.

That is what is called "standing to sue." The courts are generally not open to hear claims by members of Congress who lost battles in the legislative halls, and turn to the courts for relief, so lawmakers who feel frustrated by Senate Rule XXII probably can't complain on that basis alone. And the courts look with disfavor on lawsuits by individuals who only have a civic grievance that they share with many others in the political community.

But this lawsuit, reflecting attorney Bondurant's extensive research on the subject, is based on claims of more direct harm to Common Cause and those who joined it in the lawsuit: four Democratic members of the House and three young adults who were born in Mexico but have grown up in the U.S. and would like to become citizens in order to avoid deportation.

Each of those suing claims that the filibuster, and its practical effect of requiring 60 votes to get virtually anything done in the Senate, has had a direct, negative impact on them.

The lawmakers' strongest claim to injury is that a filibuster barred the passage of a new law to force disclosure of the identities of corporations and wealthy individuals who are spending heavily in federal election campaigns, and as a result the lawmakers and their constituents have no way to track the sources of financial influence on campaigns.

The House members' separate claim of injury -- that bills they had supported in the House died due to Senate filibusters -- appears to be weaker.

The three young Mexican nationals claim a very specific injury from a filibuster: that their path to U.S. citizenship has been closed by a Senate filibuster that prevented the passage of what is called the DREAM Act to facilitate early entry into a legal status in the U.S. Those three would have benefited personally if that measure had passed.

The Common Cause claim to injury does not seem as compelling, or as direct: It claims it has had to spend money and energy trying to get new campaign finance disclosure bills through Congress. That, however, is the fate of anyone who wants a bill passed, but doesn't get it enacted.

There is another potential question hanging over this lawsuit: is there really constitutional status for majority rule? The lawsuit, of course, contends that, when the Framers wanted more than majority rule in Congress, they spelled it out explicitly (a two-thirds vote, for example, to override a presidential veto or to propose a constitutional amendment). And there is language in Supreme Court opinions (and in the Federalist Papers) lauding majority rule, but it may not be so firmly embedded in the structure of the Constitution that it can be enforced by the courts.

Moreover, while the lawsuit argued that there was a clear majority in favor of each of the bills that did not get passed and that would have benefited the members of the House and the three young Mexican nationals, the proof of that -- usually, the number of votes cast on a failed motion to move the bills forward -- might not be interpreted by the courts as proof of what the tally would actually have been on final passage, had the measures come to such a vote.

The lawsuit, though, has yet to play out, so its chances cannot be gauged definitely at this stage. It at least serves, though, to highlight the increase in filibustering at a time when legislative gridlock is widely recognized as a problem.

[Doc]

Not gonna happen. Dirty Harry is a moron.

[dayman]

Not gonna happen. Dirty Harry is a moron.

 

And why are you so opposed? He's not trying to eliminate the filibuster fyi....just put it back together.

[Cinga]

this will be fun to watch if nothing else...

 

A Senate, that can't pass a budget resolution, and hasn't in YEARS!!! because the only ones Dirty Harry has allowed to come up for a vote, were PBOs, all of which failed without a single "Ay" vote from either party...

 

But it's the GOPs fault of course, so lets do away with the filibuster, which can't be used on budget issues, to pass a budget they could with a simple majority anyway??? Do away with filibusters when Barrack, Joe, and stinky Harry have argued against it in the past?

 

Changing the Senate rules, also requires a 67 vote majority, but I see Harry plans to negate it with a simple majority...

 

You Go Stinky!!!!

Edited November 27, 2012 by Cinga

[dayman]

this will be fun to watch if nothing else...

 

A Senate, that can't pass a budget resolution, and hasn't in YEARS!!! because the only ones Dirty Harry has allowed to come up for a vote, were PBOs, all of which failed without a single "Ay" vote from either party...

 

But it's the GOPs fault of course, so lets do away with the filibuster, which can't be used on budget issues, to pass a budget they could with a simple majority anyway??? Do away with filibusters when Barrack, Joe, and stinky Harry have argued against it in the past?

 

Changing the Senate rules, also requires a 67 vote majority, but I see Harry plans to negate it with a simple majority...

 

You Go Stinky!!!!

 

Well obviously it isn't "for the budget"...it's for general senate business. For instance the law suit attempts to use the Dream Act for standing...

[Cinga]

Well obviously it isn't "for the budget"...it's for general senate business. For instance the law suit attempts to use the Dream Act for standing...

 

that's not what Dingy is claiming... It's for budget crap from everything I've seen and read. When the buffoon argued against doing away with it, was over court nominees, that he disagreed with, and Bush had nominated. The GOP suggested they might do away with the filibuster for it, and your buddies argued against....

 

Now that the shoe is on the other foot???

 

Edit to remind....

 

PBOCare, was passed through the Senate by this sort of maneuvering. As a new law, it was subject to filibuster, remember Brown as the 40th vote??

Reid attached it at the last minute, to a continuing resolution bill, making it part of a budgetary vote, that didn't need to pass filibuster...

 

a bullsh1t move still winding it's way through courts.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Cinga

[dayman]

This isn't a shoe on the other foot..this just a basic observation that it should be changed. I really could care less who is in power I would easily support the change regardless.

 

Senate maneuvering "BS" moves are all over the place it's a procedural mess and the filibuster is exhibit A...so fix it...

[B-Man]

Oh for the good old days of the democrat senate minority .............................when the filibuster was a noble, good thing.....lol

 

 

Reid wants to weaken the Republican senators’ ability to filibuster legislation. But since he can’t get Republicans to vote for a rule change that would empower him at their expense, he may decide to change the filibuster rules with a 51-vote majority, despite a rule requiring that rule changes need the support of 67 senators to pass.

 

“What’s being proposed now would undermine the very purpose of the Senate as the one place in our system where minority views and opinions have always been respected and heard, and, in most cases, incorporated into law,” McConnell said on the Senate floor today.

 

McConnell a reminded the Senate that Reid has taken to writing all bills in the manner that he wrote the health care law; the rule change would strengthen his ability to do so, according to the Republican leader.

 

“[Reid has] preferred to write legislation in the confines of his conference room, rather than in the public eye, as he did most famously with the drafting of Obamacare,” McConnell said.“And I say to everyone: if you want more legislation around here crafted the way that bill was crafted, you’ll support what the Majority Leader is proposing now. Because that’s where this is headed: more authoritarianism, more secrecy, and even less input from rank and file members on both sides of the aisle.”

 

Reid blames Republicans for blocking too many bills. “They have made it an almost impossible task to get things done,” he told Politico. Republicans filibuster Democratic bills because Reid won’t allow them to offer amendments. That is, if Republicans let Reid bring a bill to a vote, then the Democrats could pass their ideal legislation, rather than having to compromise with Republicans before passing the bill.

 

 

In any case, McConnell noted that Reid’s rule change is a dramatic departure from his past promises. “The Senate was not established to be efficient,” Reid said in a 2006 speech that McConnell quoted. “The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks, but I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country.”

 

Harry is a hypocrite and a liar

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/mcconnell-reids-flip-flop-to-weaken-minority-will-produce-more-laws-like-obamacare/article/2514364?custom_click=rss#.ULQnUWfe9Cq

[Koko78]

 

Harry is a hypocrite and a liar

 

Also known as a Democrat.

[dayman]

Typical PPP...talk about something...instant turn to talking about hating someone

[3rdnlng]

Typical PPP...talk about something...instant turn to talking about hating someone

 

You have to understand the contempt many of us have for Harry & Nancy. The things that come out of their mouths are outrageous. Harry, wanting to change anything makes us suspicious. He's just one nefarious person.

[dayman]

You have to understand the contempt many of us have for Harry & Nancy. The things that come out of their mouths are outrageous. Harry, wanting to change anything makes us suspicious. He's just one nefarious person.

 

Either way it is more interesting to talk about policy and procedure than just repeat the same topics about the same 5 people even when no elections are being held. Boring PPP...booorrrringgg...

[TakeYouToTasker]

Typical PPP...talk about something...instant turn to talking about hating someone

I don't follow. The first time I've seen the word "hate", which is very strong and specific language, was in your post.

 

I will, however, echo the "hypocritical" sentiment; and I say this without having a dog in the fight, being a libertarian equally horrified both wings of the ruling party.

[B-Man]

NB, I didn't say I hated anyone. That knee-jerk response is tiresome

 

I said that Harry was a hypocrite and a liar...................and offered his own words to demonstrate why

 

“The Senate was not established to be efficient,” Reid said in a 2006 speech that McConnell quoted. “The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks, but I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country.”

 

but if you just want to dismiss criticism of his motives as HATE (as the left loves to do)

 

by all means do so.........................

[dayman]

lol ok now we can shift to to me and how sacred the term "hate" is..."hate on" then happy? who cares the point stands...boring as always

[B-Man]

lol ok now we can shift to to me and how sacred the term "hate" is..."hate on" then happy? who cares the point stands...boring as always

 

Thanks for the gibberish............................

 

 

 

 

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/briandarling/2012/11/12/filibuster_reform_is_power_grab_by_harry_reid/page/full/

 

 

 

“Filibuster Reform” Is Power Grab By Harry Reid

 

 

The Washington Times reports, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills.” Reid argued at his post-election press conference that he is intent on changing the rules to prevent the minority party from slowing passage of legislation and nominations.

 

Reid showed his true motivations when argued that he will continue to prevent votes on “same-sex marriage and abortion” because “I mean, the American people aren’t interested in that.” This is further evidence that reforming the Senate’s rules is merely a means to stop difficult votes for the majority party on revenue-neutral tax reform, gun rights, entitlement reform and traditional family values.

 

Over the past few years, this is a Majority Leader who has acted tyrannically to restrict the rights of all senators to debate and offer amendments. He has used a parliamentary tactic called “filling the amendment tree” to block a free-flowing amendment process and used a procedure to eliminate amendments after the conclusion of debate. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) appropriately referred to the “charade and farce” of debate in the Senate under the tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid.

 

en. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) argues that “if Reid wants to do more in the Senate he should reform his own behavior before making radical, unprecedented changes to take away the minority party’s ability to debate and amend legislation.” DeMint argues that “when Leader Reid talks about ‘filibuster reform’ what he really means is that he is ready to do away with the minority’s historic rights, which were exercised with fervor by the Democrats when they weren’t in the majority, because they are an inconvenience to his hard-left, uncompromising political agenda.”

 

When controlling the Senate, both parties have been guilty of trying to limit the participation of the minority party. Republicans tried to expedite the consideration of judges during the Bush administration and Reid has implemented tactics that have squelched debate during his reign.

[Rob's House]

Typical PPP...talk about something...instant turn to talking about hating someone

Go !@#$ yourself you !@#$ing piece of ****.

[dayman]

If you want to filibuster...then filibuster in person at least...and don't both doing on the motion to proceed if you have a problem with a bill show it in debate it's that simple. Simply informing the majority leader you have an intent to filibuster a motion to proceed is garbage.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

Either way it is more interesting to talk about policy and procedure than just repeat the same topics about the same 5 people even when no elections are being held. Boring PPP...booorrrringgg...

Then leave. If you can't accept that you were the only one to bring up the word "hate," then don't make foolsh statements and them whine about the responses.