61 Senators sign letter to preserve filibuster rules

[Miles Archer]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) A bipartisan group of 61 senators sent a letter to Senate leaders Friday urging them to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation, which they said is needed to ensure bipartisanship remains a component of passing bills through the chamber.

The move comes in the wake of a contentious battle this week in the Senate over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch when the Republicans who control the chamber used the "nuclear option" to neutralize the filibuster for nominees to the Supreme Court.

"We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate," said the letter that was spearheaded by GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. "Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor."

In the days leading up to Gorsuch's confirmation, Collins and Coons led bipartisan negotiations to try to head off the nuclear option, which changed the Senate rules over the objection of Democrats in the same way that in 2013 Democrats used the nuclear option to make it easier to confirm President Barack Obama's executive branch and lower-court nominees.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/senate-filibuster-rules-letter/index.html

[ck4829]

1. Illegetimate Senate says what?

[forgotmylogin]

37. WHAT'S THE POINT NOW?

They gave us an easier job of outnumbering them next time.

[underthematrix]

53. They know they're gonna lose the senate in 2018

[Yupster]

56. Have you looked at the lineup of who's up for reelection in 2018?

It will be a tough year to gain seats.

[BigOleDummy]

70. I agree

Where the hell was this newfound concern for 60 vote threshold a fricking week ago?! 61 Senators NOW think its a bad idea for the nuclear option?! Disgusting.

[DrToast]

2. Get rid of it

Let the chips fall where they may. I'm for more democracy.

[grantcart]

8. absolutely

[Igel]

60. Pure democracy is majoritarianism.

It's great when you're part of the 50% + 1. It sucks if you're a minority.

For example, in a pure democracy 50% + 1 could vote to overturn emancipation of slaves. That's some democracy.

Most liberal democracies take into account minority opinions. Most people suck at doing this. Obama did. Bush II did. Clinton did. Trump certainly does. That's what Robert's Rules stipulates with quora and privileges and supermajority votes needed to break a filibuster. This is not exactly a modern idea but one that's in keeping with many modern words (but not so much modern actions); Robert's parents took him to Ohio because of their opposition to slavery; he served Lincoln's army. He may have written his rules 140 years ago, yet he's more progressive and enlightened than many a college-educated American in 2017. Then again, he modified the Congressional rules of orders for private citizens.


Note there's also a hue and cry that "the president represents all of us"--or a justice, or a senator, or a representative. I've heard this from a lot of people recorded going to town hall meetings at which (R) politicians are invited. It's a cry for having minority views taken into account.

At least that's the claim when it's a ruling "representative" of the opposing party. As soon as one of our guys is in office, well, elections matter. He owes those who voted for him. Sounds very Tea-Party-ish to me. They demanded Obama/etc. take them into account, and got scorned. But they'd be first in line to say that if their people are in office, well, they represent those who voted for them.

Sounds like just being human, to me. Yet one of the first things we due is deny the humanity of our personal "other". Sad, really. Converts us all from "we the people" to just "wee people."

[stuffmatters]

62. No representational democracy with 2 Senators per every state.

Californians, New Yorkers get fractional representation (what like 1/10th compared to South Dakota and other sparse Red States?)
and people in DC.P.R don't even get a Senator.

Lowering tp fifty one votes the standard to pass legislation in such an already Conservative("rural, landowners&quot tipped system just further underscores the Senate's fundamentally antidemocratic (one person, one vote) composition.

[KPN]

68. And the fucking electoral college!

[PoliticAverse]

3. "28 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent" signed the letter. n/t

[rurallib]

7. been nice if they showed the names

[PoliticAverse]

16. Here's the list of 61 Names:

From: https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-coons-lead-effort-preserve-60-vote-threshold-legislation

Susan Collins (R-ME)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Luther Strange (R-AL)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
John Thune (R-SD)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Kennedy (R-LA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Ben Sasse (R-NE)
Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Todd Young (R-IN)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Bill Nelson(D-FL)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

[rurallib]

18. Thank you very much, PA. I was looking to see if my repuke senators

Grassley and Ernst were among the 61.

And there he is proud as can be Chuckles Grassley, the man who stood in the proverbial schoolhouse door and stopped the constitutional process for appointing a SCOTUS justice.

Old Chuck, he don't give a fuck about the constitution, does he? But Iowans love that apparently.

[BumRushDaShow]

47. Note the irony of the biggest blowhard user of it not signing on.

[MurrayDelph]

51. I'm disappointed (but not surprised)

that the Senators from my former state (California) are on the list.

And pleased that my Senators from Oregon are apparently in the you can't nuke the filibuster when you don't want them but keep them for when you do group.

[Amaryllis]

61. My senators too. I like your take on why Wyden and Merkley didn't sign. Figured they have a good

reason since they are both very progressive and never afraid to stick their necks out, and I nearly always agree with their position on issues. What you said totally makes sense: you can't nuke the filibuster when you don't want them but keep them for when you do group.

[red dog 1]

46. Thanks for that

[cstanleytech]

4. To those Senators that voted to do away with it for SCOTUS nominations, Fuck off!!!!

When this comes to back to bite you in the ass it will be you and your parties fault and the 60 vote for stuff would have been perfectly preserved had you not started your shit with the majority of President Obamas nominees and all because a black man beat your candidate in a fair election.

[old guy]

6. This.

[Honeycombe8]

25. True. But...can the Repubs now reinstate the filibuster, after they removed it?

They might just do that. Maybe it was their intent all along to remove it just for this one vote.

[cstanleytech]

57. They can try but the Democrats can just take a page from the Repugnant book and reverse it

if the Dems have enough seats and then they can and should fuck the Repugant assholes right back like they deserve and pass things like higher wages for workers and then strip the raising and lowering of it as a power of Congress and shift it over to the CBO.
Next single payer healthcare then laws making abortion a federal right for any women who seeks one and thats just for starters.
From there they open up an independant commission charged with investigating politicians involved in corruption and other crimes thats not under the heel of any political party and then they can move onto other things like filing federal cases over the gerrymandering the Repugnants have done in varies states.
In summary as soon as the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate and the House (and they eventually will) the gloves come off and the let the prosecutions (and no plea bargains allowed) commence and that goes for both current and former politicians even retired ones.

[Afromania]

34. This right fucking here

RIGHT FUCKING HERE. The Republicans won't hold onto this forever because they don't know how to govern. The only thing they know how to do is figure out new ways to punish anybody making less than six figures. Without the Democrats and Indies keeping their stupid in check they'll break everything. Once they get voted out, and they will, this will come back to bite them in the ass.

[red dog 1]

48. + 1000

[harun]

63. +1

[rurallib]

5. were this to happen, would Gorsuch be unconfirmed and start all over?

If not, fuck 'em.

Repubs want to make rules as they go.

[cstanleytech]

10. Exactly, the Repugnants are trying to cover their ass now and it was not the Democrats that let this

genie out of the bottle it was the Repugnants when they started blocking multiple nominations made by President Obama and all because they were butt sore over their candidate losing a fair election to a black man.

[bucolic_frolic]

9. Where were these 61 when the filibuster was expanded to not doing your job?

Violating one's oath to perform the duties of office is not in the Constitution

[FakeNoose]

69. Exactly. They took a gov. paycheck for 8 years

... and did nothing!

[old guy]

11. Too little and too late.

The damage has been done as Gorsuck is going to adversely affect millions and millions over the decades he will be enthroned.

[Augiedog]

12. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle always works out well. Genie don't like it in there.

[Kablooie]

13. I'll bet hideous turtleman feels too much power ecstasy to give in to reason now.

He'll be dancing around and singing about how he's turned the whole Senate into a Republican dictatorship.

[diva77]

35. Actually, he appears malnourished -- should cut back on that cannibal diet of his

[mdbl]

66. Yertle the turtle would make a better Senate leader

and he's better looking!

[Le Gaucher]

14. what they are really trying to say is that ONLY Republicans get to use. Dems get Nuked

[SharonClark]

73. Bingo

[SunSeeker]

15. Nope, too late. McConnell killed it. nt

[tomp]

17. if they want to preserve the 60 vote rule....

...all the have to do is VOTE AGAINST THE FUCKING NOMINEE! what sort of disingenuous theater is this? how many republicans signed the letter and then vote for the illegal nominee anyway?

[tomp]

19. or they could change their affiliation until garland gets a vote. nt

[yallerdawg]

20. While cabinet picks and most judgeships...

could be considered the spoils of war, lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and federal legislation should have some bipartisanship, some higher threshold. Otherwise, every two to four years we could be spending all our time repealing and replacing the same laws over and over, with no progress ever!

Even the Constitution enshrines super-majority on big things - like constitutional amendments. There's our precedent!

[beachbum bob]

21. obviously AFTER gop got what they wanted...

I say, filibuster is dead for good.....and those who lived by ending it will find out how its like in 2021

[myrna minx]

22. The republicans know the wind is not at their back and they're on the wrong side of history.

A Dem will return to the WH and hopefully sometime soon the Dems return to power. McConnell lived for the filibuster during Obama and now he nuked it. Be bought this as did ALL Senators who voted to do it.

I guess the filibuster is to be an exclusive tool for republicans only.

Screw all of them and especially whiny, blustery McCain.

[Honeycombe8]

23. So...remove filibuster for Gorsuch only? And return to filibuster so the Dems can't use

the majority-only rule? I hope the Dems aren't stupid and fall for that.

But then, the Republicans are in power.

[PoliticAverse]

26. The letter was about keeping the filibuster for passing legislation, not nominations.

The filibuster is still in effect for legislation.

[Honeycombe8]

28. Ah...I see. Thx. nt

[groundloop]

24. fuck em.... when Dems have control 50 votes for everything

If that were the case a few years ago we'd have likely had single payer healthcare.

[jaysunb]

27. Kinda reminds me of Bush v Gore when the SCOTUS said

it was just a one time thing.

[dalton99a]

29. The GOP's days are numbered. Get rid of the filibuster.

[roamer65]

36. I agree. Force the Rethugs to nuke it completely.

Then we can blame them for it and not put it back.

[Baitball Blogger]

30. What good is a rule that can be ignored whenever it is convenient for Republicans?

Look. This is like a virgin saying the first time was a one off.

[former9thward]

64. Did you say that when Reid eliminated it for appointments?

I didn't think so....

[rpannier]

65. Not the same thing and you should know it

The Republicans had prevented almost every nominee that Obama put up for any federal court spot by filibustering
The3 Republicans had abused the filibuster time and again for everything and anything
This was the first time the Dems had filibustered and they changed the rules
The Senate Democrats were patient with the obstruction and finally got tired of it

[former9thward]

71. You have simply re-wrote history.

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade. Obama did not make any recess appointments to the federal courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

Almost all of Obama's judicial appointments were confirmed including two of his Supreme Court nominations, 68-31 and 63-37.

[Freethinker65]

31. Is this some sort of sick joke?

[world wide wally]

32. So it was changed for just one vote?

So they could take advantage of the luminaary vision of Donald Trump and now the GOP can go back to filibustering anything a Dem President might want to do again?
This must be McConnells proudest day.

[PoliticAverse]

41. No, the letter was about keeping the filibuster for passing legislation.

The filibuster for legislation is still in effect. The filibuster for nominations was eliminated by
Harry Reid (except for Supreme Court nomination which was just eliminated by Mitch McConnell).

[cstanleytech]

59. But the Repugnants cant be trusted honor their word, they proved it multiple times that they will

lie and cheat to win no matter what.
If they see a chance to kill or weaken Social Security and or Medicare they are going to take it regardless of any agreement the Dems might sign and the Dems will end up getting the blame for being to weak to stand up to the Repugnants so no, it might be better to force the Repugnants hand now and let the Dems work to help the voters to blame the ones who are truly at fault..........the Repugnants and let the Repugnants enjoy the benefits of the crop they will have sown in the next election.

[Marthe48]

33. anyone who voted to remove filibuster, voted for gorsuch, signed

the letters are hypocritical russian puppets and everyone who voted for gorsuch are russian traitors. I hope they all go to hell.

[unblock]

38. to be clear, they only "nuked" the filibuster for supremos; this is about the filibuster for bills.

reid nuked the filibuster for judicial nominees other than the supreme court.
mcturtle nuked the filibuster for supreme court nominees.

we still (technically) have filibuster power for ordinary legislation, and that's what this is all about.



that said, given that republicans were willing to "go nuclear" in the case of gorsuch simply because they could, that means they could do the same for the filibuster for legislation, which means the filibuster power is an empty threat, which means the filibuster power doesn't really exist anyway.

once they came up with the means of "going nuclear", the filibuster power exists only as long as the majority party respects the minority party. given that republicans have zero respect for democrats, the power only exists on paper.

[dalton99a]

39. Exactly.

[MontanaMama]

40. Well said.

Gawd I hate repugs. I HATE them. There's not a good one out there any more. There just isn't. Nothing they say can erase what they do day in and day out.

[PoliticAverse]

42. Given that 28 Republicans just signed the letter to keep the filibuster for legislation...

I think the filibuster for legislation is ok for the near future.

[unblock]

43. well, the *pretense* of the filibuster for legislation is ok for the near future....

but i think all that remains is to find out just how important to republicans a bill needs to before it's toast.

[PoliticAverse]

44. Indeed, only time will tell, but if only 3 Senators of the 28 feel strongly enough about the issue

the filibuster for legislation will remain.

[turbinetree]

45. BS

Now they want to play nice in the sand lot after everyone else has to play by the rule of the Constitution, when Article II Section 3 was just disregarded


BS it can not be said enough, BS this letter just pisses me off to know end, Susan Collins could have joined the filibuster and she did not this is just BS

At the about the 40 second mark in this video, there are two American soldiers getting shot and killed while storming the beach during the invasion of Normandy, those two men raised there hand to defend the Constitution, and when they swore to defend the Constitution they swore to uphold Article II Section 3 of the Constitution, and if you look through the entire video everyone of the dead and living swore to defend the Constitution in it's entirety that day, and if memory serves me the Constitution on that day hasn't changed.

Now ask yourself did the republicans swear to defend the Constitution when Merrick Garland was nominated------------no, and those two men and the 2,500 that died that day are what in the eyes of Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley and everyone that voted and supported the antics of what has been transpiring for over a year and now has been completed in this disgusting act, that is the question

[pecosbob]

49. All I can say is

Last edited Fri Apr 7, 2017, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

f*ck that. Collaborate at your peril. So Dems are holding the shit end of the stick again. Maybe they (we) might focus on issues that are important to working people instead of what's good for Monsanto and Colonel Sanders. Dems need to stop trying to be the Republican Party Light with a smiley face. Chomsky's right...the whole world's laughing at us because we got punked by the Russians doing the same thing we've been doing for generations...f*cking around with other country's elections.

[elmac]

50. no way

its duke nukem time, all the time, fuck the fascist pigs, they broke, they own it!

[Hulk]

52. Is this a joke? Are we supposed to be amused by the shiny object?

Sure....we'd like to preserve the fillibuster rules...so long as it applies to OUR side of the aisle. What a bunch of asinine idiots. Honest to God, I have lost ALL respect for gop congressmen, and many of the Democrats as well.

Since the advent of fox-propaganda and the reich wing talk radio, this country has gone down the shitter when it comes to honesty and integrity. We know damned well from the first days of President Obama, when turtle-head mcConnell pledged to obstruct ANY progress for this country in an all out effort to cripple the Democratic Party, days of respect and integrity were indeed dead....and long gone.

Since the early days of the Clinton administration, accelerated by fox and reich wing talk propaganda, this country has been totally political. It often works the other direction too; as though there would be a choice. You don't "turn the other cheek" when the opposition party is playing filthy dirty and your shear existence is on the line.

Fook these clowns. The repuKKKes pushed the button, and there is NO TURNING BACK. Fooking cowards!

[Xipe Totec]

54. Hypocrites, Toadies and Inebriates nt

[red dog 1]

55. Before Obama's 1st term was over, GOP used the filibuster over 400 times as an obstruction tactic

Now, thanks to the fucking Turtle bowing to Trump's desire to use the "nuclear option" to confirm Gorsuch, the term "supermajority" is totally meaningless.

Obama never had a supermajority...the closest he came was having 59 votes in the Senate, which is one vote shy of a supermajority.

(From Huffpo, Oct. 1, 2012)
"Don't forget, the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic - they've used it more than 400 times."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obama_b_1929869.html

[PoliticAverse]

58. He had a super majority for a brief time (including Independents that caucused with the Democrats)

that's how the ACA was able to be passed (it passed with 60 votes, 0 Republicans).

[red dog 1]

72. You're absolutely right!

I think the Huffpo article I cited in my reply was incorrect.
It said that Obama only had a "supermajority" of 60 votes "on paper" because besides the 2 Independents, the only time Obama had 58 Dems was when Sen. Harry Byrd (D-W-VA) was in the hospital, and unable to cast the 60th vote.

Interesting to note that the reason we never got the "public option" was because of Joe Lieberman's demand that the ACA not include a public option, and his Independent vote was needed to get to the 60 vote threshold.

(Thanks a lot Lieberman, you bastard)

[PoliticAverse]

74. Yes, since the ACA passed without a single vote to spare any of the 60 Senators....

could have prevented the legislation from passing unless some portion they objected
to was removed. Not surprising that the person some identified as Lieberman (I - Insurance Industry)
would stop a public option.

[Calista241]

67. This is a good thing IMO.

If anyone's forgotten, they currently occupy the House, Senate, and White House.

Preserving the legislative filibuster while they're in power gives us some control of legislation that makes it to Trump's desk. Unless of course, you want this travesty of a tax reform package to pass. Throw in national concealed carry, English as the official language, the demise of Sanctuary cities, and any other fucked up wet dreams the Repubs can think of.