Reid Makes Commitment on Filibuster

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/7/25/15021/9975

Reid Makes Commitment on Filibuster

by BooMan
Sun Jul 25th, 2010 at 01:50:21 AM EST


Harry Reid confronted the progressive blogosphere last night at the Netroots Nation conference, and he made it clear that he's heard our advice on the filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Saturday that Democrats will try to change Senate rules on the longstanding practice of filibusters.

Reid said that while Democrats were still looking at options as to how they would change the filibuster, Republicans' use of the rules to force a 60-vote majority on most items before the Senate meant that a change was needed.

"This Republican Senate has started abusing the rules, so we're going to have to change it," Reid told liberal bloggers assembled in Las Vegas for the "Netroots Nation" conference.

"We do not have a plan fully developed yet, but we're looking at ways to change it," Reid said.

The Hill is factually inaccurate in saying that we need 67 votes to change the Senate rules. That's true once rules have been adopted at the beginning of a new Congress, but the vote to establish the rules in a new Congress is by simply majority (51) vote, and the vice-president can break a tie. So, we can change the rules next January provided we still have 50 senators. If we don't, we will have lost control of the Senate anyway.

I like the way Reid stated the case for filibuster reform. "This Republican Senate has started abusing the rules, so we're going to have to change {the filibuster rule}." There's no equivocation in that statement. It gets right to the point and it doesn't leave any room for backtracking.

I've seen Harry Reid break speed records for backtracking, but this locks him in nice and tight, and he seems to actually agree with our argument against the filibuster.

The Republicans may have created quite the quandary for themselves. They've obstructed so abusively that they might discover they have dramatically less power with 47 senators than they had with forty-one. That kind of makes their fall campaign an exercise in futility. Good for them. It couldn't happen to a lousier group of people.

[Lifelong Protester]

1. wow, at a single rec you are still at zero...

[babylonsister]

2. We have faux Dems here; has gone with the territory for awhile. nt

[elocs]

7. Wow, this thread is so important that someone had to use the very first response

to point out the Rec situation. You should have waited because it's doing fine now.

[JDPriestly]

22. I'm beginning to wonder whether there is some little glitch in the

programming of the unrec and rec features. Does the program register which DU member unrecs? That would be helpful. If the same member unrecs a lot of new posts, that member may be a troll.

I can't think of more than maybe two posts that I have intentionally unrec'd. I did unrec a couple by mistake. Maybe that is what people are doing. If a different member unrecs frequently it might be a problem in using the unrec correctly. I just think the unrec should be used very sparingly. I come here to listen to different voices. Diverse ideas are a good thing.

[The Magistrate]

3. Mr. Reid Had Better Follow Through, Ma'am

[babylonsister]

4. I hear you, The Magistrate, as did booman. He's been less than

trustworthy at times, so I'm a tad skeptical myself.

[Warpy]

26. Enforcing the rules would be easier than changing them.

Should a Republican threaten to filibuster and the vote fall short of 60, Reid needs to tell the Republican to take the floor and start talking. A dramatic snap of the fingers and the appearance of cots would soon discourage him.

As long as a threat carries the same weight as an action, the threats will continue and business will not proceed, at all. It's easy to make an empty threat. It's much more difficult to carry it out when it involves sleep deprivation and laryngeal stress.

[jwirr]

5. And if by some chance we cannot change it then let them filibuster

themselves into the ground. At the very least we can let the American people see what is going on - should have done it long ago. The party of no needs to be clearly exposed.

[Lifelong Protester]

6. I couldn't agree with that more

call their bluff... let them filibuster... a bunch of old geezers... they couldn't put their bladders where their big mouths are.... (sorry, that is a horrible image...)

[Peacetrain]

8. K&R.. and about time.. we have been held hostage to the Republicans long enough

We won the election already..

[Exilednight]

9. Here's the problem............

Changing the filibuster rule will work in our favorite in the short term, it will hurt us in the long term.

Eventually, repugs will regain control of the Senate, and when they do they will ride roughshod over us.

Yes, it's a pain in the ass when you're in power, but it's great when you're out of power.

On the other hand, not having 60 votes never stopped the rethugs before.

[dorkulon]

18. As I recall, they ran roughshod over us anyway.

Although honestly, the smart thing would be to force their hand, and make them filibuster for real on unemployment benefits, for instance.

[Lucky Luciano]

23. As you say, the thugs will eventually regain power.

It will be then that they remove the filibuster. If it is going to be removed, it should be done under democratic control.

[niceypoo]

10. Lets hope this comes true

In the meantime they need to start forcing the GOP to physically filibuster.

[awoke_in_2003]

11. Just return the filibuster to its original state...

you have to actually stand there and talk and talk, read phone books, whatever. It is a great tool, and it will make the news so americans can see what assholes most republicans are. Yes, one day we will be in the minority and will have to do the same thing, but our senators are supposed to have convictions (sorry, choked a bit on that one) and should have no problems doing the right thing (damn, almost lost my spleen on that one) :)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. I hope it's not too late...

...for us AND for Mr. Reid. :(

[jefferson_dem]

13. I'm not sure I could support this.

We all know the decrepit gNOp has abused the frick out of legislative procedure these past two years. They should certainly be held accountable for that...by voters this FALL. Why rank political obstruction is not a bigger political issue is beyond me.

However, I rather like having the 60 vote requirement in place as a "fail safe" for extreme circumances...at least for when (sadly, not "if") the Dems are again in the minority.

[rhett o rick]

14. I dont understand your logic. The republicans are current causing great damage by

abusing this rule. The Dem's should give them the option of using the rule appropriately or changing the rule. You like the rule because maybe someday, the Dem's might need it. First of all, that's a maybe someday. We are sinking as a Democracy today. Second, when the Republicans did have control, they severely limited the use of this rule by the Dem's by threatening to change the rule. There is no guarantee that if we keep the rule, until we need it someday, that the repukes would not change the rule. Third, for some reason, the Dem's have not made a campaign issue out of this obstructionist method.

[DCBob]

20. I think its worth the risk.. we cannot afford 2 more years of obstruction.

I do wonder though if this will actually happen. The rules are not clear. It may come down to a ruling by the Senate Parlimentarian and I think he has already suggested he thought it was not within the current rules.. but the Dems could ignore his ruling. Then it might get really really ugly. I imagine it could end up with SCOTUS. Of course we already know how they will rule.

[treestar]

24. The Dems don't abuse it

Though if there is ever another R Senate with less than 60, I hope the Ds do the same thing to them.

The trouble is there are few things the Rs want to get through, except tax cuts, which seem to be able to go through reconciliation.

[rhett o rick]

15. Bravo Sen Reid, but why have you waited so long? nm

[DailyGrind51]

16. It's about time, Harry, what took you so long?

[Fearless]

17. Let's not impale ourselves on the double edged sword.

I don't know how this will play out, pass or not, but we need to remember that this cannot be done because it's a political ploy. If it is, the Repubs can then use it against us when they, eventually, regain power. And we all know that they have no hesitance to use it against us if they could.

[DCBob]

19. Go for it Harry!!

:headbang:

[hulka38]

21. Nice Harry. Change it after hir, financial reform

the climate bill and as we're getting ready to cough up the House. Our leadership is as inept as it is cowardly.

[ChiciB1]

25. ONLY TIME WILL TELL!! I NO Longer HOPE, His Re-Election Is On The

LINE, but IF this is true, I will be so GRATEFUL & SO VERY PROUD to be a Democrat again!!

All I will say is this... HARRY, don't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this one, because it's MUCH TOO IMPORTANT! And if this is just "talk" in the end not only YOU, but most Democrats and THIS country looses because so many of us are pretty FED UP NOW!

Making promises never meant to be kept will just keep us SLIDING DOWN HILL!!

[Jester Messiah]

27. It's going to be a delicate business.

The filibuster exists for a reason, and our side has used it in the past. I fully agree that it needs to be re-done to prevent this constant abuse, but I hope they exercise caution and wisdom.

Who am I kidding. Caution and wisdom from politicians? *facepalm*

[thereismore]

28. So we can gain filibuster-proof majority by losing seats in the new Senate. Bizarre,

but I love it!

[SILVER__FOX52]

29. Holy Moly, I didn't know that..........

Now I'm excited. Let's hold em to that. God, can you imagine not needing 60 senators. Wha hoo!