We Should End The Filibuster

[dtotire]

Krugman suggests a way to end the filibuster--by majority vote on the first day of a new session. Obama should request Senators to do this on the first day of the next session. When will the next session begin?




"But if such legislation is itself blocked by a filibuster — which it almost surely would be — reformers should turn to other options. Remember, the Constitution sets up the Senate as a body with majority — not supermajority — rule. So the rule of 60 can be changed. A Congressional Research Service report from 2005, when a Republican majority was threatening to abolish the filibuster so it could push through Bush judicial nominees, suggests several ways this could happen — for example, through a majority vote changing Senate rules on the first day of a new session."

What are the other ways ?

[MineralMan]

1. It's important to think about what you ask for.

The filibuster is a very valuable tool when you're the minority party. Without it, many unpleasant things would have been passed in the past, when GOOPers were in the majority.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. But the Democrats are afraid to use it.

We should have filibustered most of Bush's agenda, but didn't. It's anachronistic and should be killed.

[lapfog_1]

3. Yup, even more important to maintain the Presidency.

Veto is a constitutional authority and requires 67 Senate votes to override.

The next session starts in January, 2011.

[sellitman]

6. It's only a good tool if you have the balls to use it.

From what I see only the Rethuglican's have those.

If we didn't use it with Bush then ....well you know.....

[ixion]

4. no

thanks for playing.

[closeupready]

5. The fililbuster was never the problem.

Please do not buy these contrived arguments about Lieberman, filibuster-proofing, etc.