Will The Democrats Finally Change the Senate Filibuster Rule?

[babylonsister]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/will-democrats-finally-change-senate-

Will The Democrats Finally Change the Senate Filibuster Rule?
By Susie Madrak


I really hope they manage to get a handle on this filibuster rule, because 2011 isn't going to be a very productive year if they don't:

A proposal by Tom Udall would grant the Senate majority party the option of changing any procedural rule, including the filibuster, by a simple majority vote at the beginning of each Congress. A milder version advanced by Mark Udall and congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute would restrict the use of the filibuster by the minority party, while limiting the majority's control over minority amendments.

Reid told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow in late October that he would seek changes to the filibuster rule, but Durbin said in an interview last week: "We have not decided what to do. I think we all hope everyone agrees that we have wasted a lot of time in the Senate. Many of us are impatient. We didn't run for this job to sit in our offices and watch the clerk call the roll. But what will our Republican colleagues join us in doing?"

The GOP response has been cool, but not uniformly so. Sen.-elect Dan Coats of Indiana, who served in the chamber during the 1990s, told Fox News on Nov. 6 that the filibuster "is a barrier."

"At the very least we need to remove the 60-vote rule for bringing a bill to the floor and actually debating it and voting on it," Coats said. "The American people deserve that we are transparent with them, that we take one item at a time, that we register our yeas and our nays and be accountable to the American people for what we've done."

[maxsolomon]

1. 2011 isn't going to be a productive year regardless.

given Boehner will be SOTH. time to start the 2012 campaign - what else do they have to do?

[blue neen]

2. It would be great.

I truly hope they get to change the filibuster rule...it's infuriating.

:dem:

[doc03]

3. What happens when the Democrats have 49 seats?

From what it looks like today it won't be very long.

[earthside]

4. Majority rules.

That's the American way, even when Democrats are in the minority.

While the rights of a legislative minority to debate should be protected, those with the most votes have to prevail -- otherwise we have tyranny of the minority and that is the mess the Senate has been in for the past four years.

[doc03]

5. So in 2012 and we may have a Republican majority and you

will be happy when they pass everything on their wish list?

[LonePirate]

6. I would since the rule would be in place the next time Dems control both chambers and the presidency

Hopefully that happens again in 2013.

[DrToast]

7. It's a crazy concept, but yeah, I believe a majority should be able to pass legislation

[Duke Newcombe]

11. As opposed to any other time they're in control of Congress?

Sorry, I'm not seeing the functional difference, really.

[earthside]

16. Happy?

No.

But if the Repuglicans win a majority in 2012, yes, they should be able to pass by majority vote what the Constitution allows them to pass with a majority.

Likewise for the next two years for the Democratic majority in the Senate.

[FBaggins]

17. So you favor a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, right?

They only have an expiration date because they passed through an effort that gets around the filibuster.

And, of course, all those judges that were filibustered under Bush should be seated immediately?

[LiberalFighter]

9. Majority does not rule.

If it did we wouldn't have a Supreme Court that can strike down laws that Congress passes.
We wouldn't have the requirement that vetos need 2/3 vote from Congress for an override.
We would only need simple majority of the people to amend the Constitution instead of requirements by 2/3 of Congress or the state legislatures just to propose an amendment. And require 3/4 to pass by the states.

[DrToast]

12. All those conditions are required by the Constitution. 60 votes in the Senate is not.*

*

[FBaggins]

13. Majority rules is decidedly NOT "The American Way"

If it were, the founders would have designed a very different system.

They eschewed a direct democracy and set any number of checks on the tyranny of the majority.

[Kennah]

8. Unlikely in the 112th Congress

They should have done it in the 111th when they could have made a difference.

[COLGATE4]

10. Harry has been "seeking to do things" since day one. The problem

is that he never seems to get them done.

[budkin]

14. No

[tritsofme]

15. Not really in the best interest of Senate Democrats to neuter the filibuster now.

With 47 seats, Republicans would likely be able to pick off 4 Democrats on some issues and send GOP House passed legislation to the WH.