Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:56 PM Mar 2013

Filibuster Reform Back On The Senate (WH) Agenda?

Talking Points Memo ?@TPM
Durbin threatens to revisit filibuster reform: http://bit.ly/XT7KTZ

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) is signaling that Democrats may revisit filibuster reform in the wake of high-profile Republican filibusters including the Chuck Hagel nomination, the plan to avert sequestration and the judicial nomination of Caitlin Halligan.

According to Roll Call, Durbin said the existing rules change agreement doesn't seem to be working.

“I hate to suggest this, but if this is an indication of where we’re headed, we need to revisit the rules again,” the Illinois Democrat said. “We need to go back to it again. I’m sorry to say it because I — was hopeful that a bipartisan approach to dealing with these issues would work.”

“It’s the best thing for this chamber, for the people serving here and the history of this institution,” Durbin said of the bipartisan arrangement. “But if this Caitlin Halligan nomination is an indication of things to come, we’ve got to revisit the rules.”


related:

President Obama ‘Deeply Disappointed’ By Halligan Filibuster

President Obama issued a statement Wednesday after the Senate failed to reach a required 60 vote threshold on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia:

I am deeply disappointed that despite support from a majority of the United States Senate, a minority of Senators continues to block the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nearly two and a half years after being nominated, Ms. Halligan continues to wait for a simple up-or-down vote. In the past, filibusters of judicial nominations required “extraordinary circumstances,” and a Republican Senator who was part of this agreement articulated that only an ethics or qualification issue – not ideology – would qualify. Ms. Halligan has always practiced law with the highest ethical ideals, and her qualifications are beyond question. Furthermore, her career in public service and as a law enforcement lawyer, serving the citizens of New York, is well within the mainstream.

Today’s vote continues the Republican pattern of obstruction. My judicial nominees wait more than three times as long on the Senate floor to receive a vote than my predecessor’s nominees. The effects of this obstruction take the heaviest toll on the D.C. Circuit, considered the Nation’s second-highest court, which now has only seven active judges and four vacancies. Until last month, for more than forty years, the court has always had at least eight active judges and as many as twelve. A majority of the Senate agrees that Ms. Halligan is exactly the kind of person who should serve on this court, and I urge Senate Republicans to allow the Senate to express its will and to confirm Ms. Halligan without further delay.


read: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-deeply-disappointed-by-halligan-filibuster
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Filibuster Reform Back On The Senate (WH) Agenda? (Original Post) bigtree Mar 2013 OP
Who would have thought that Republicans would continue to obstruct? It's mind-boggling. denverbill Mar 2013 #1
who would have thought you'd be shocked? Utterly shocked? bigtree Mar 2013 #2
They can't change the filibuster rules again until the start of the next Congress in 2015. Pararescue Mar 2013 #3
Yes they can. It's called the constitutional option, which Republicans stated was allowable in 2005 denverbill Mar 2013 #5
Thats right and they called it the nuclear option madokie Mar 2013 #6
I didn't know this. Pararescue Mar 2013 #7
They can do whatever they like by majority vote. bemildred Mar 2013 #8
I've already been corrected, Pararescue Mar 2013 #9
Likewise. bemildred Mar 2013 #10
Little late for that! demwing Mar 2013 #4
constitutional option bigtree Mar 2013 #11
Thanks. nt bemildred Mar 2013 #13
The day Harry Reid drops the nuclear option on the Republicans demwing Mar 2013 #14
bookmarked bigtree Mar 2013 #15
It would be just like Reid to make me eat a bug demwing Mar 2013 #16
I'll go with gummy worms bigtree Mar 2013 #17
You should read the FDA's "Defect Levels Handbook" HereSince1628 Mar 2013 #18
Hey! demwing Mar 2013 #20
But have you tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe? riqster Mar 2013 #24
With Harry Reid in charge, you'll NEVER have to eat that bug. But, ChisolmTrailDem Mar 2013 #19
Mmmmm... demwing Mar 2013 #21
Ok, but... ChisolmTrailDem Mar 2013 #22
Talk is cheap. I'll be happy to see such reform if and when it happens. n/t winter is coming Mar 2013 #12
Replace Harry Reid with Durbin. Cali_Democrat Mar 2013 #23

denverbill

(11,489 posts)
1. Who would have thought that Republicans would continue to obstruct? It's mind-boggling.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:03 PM
Mar 2013

I'm shocked, utterly shocked.

 

Pararescue

(131 posts)
3. They can't change the filibuster rules again until the start of the next Congress in 2015.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:06 PM
Mar 2013

Harry Reid is going to have to live with his bad deal until then.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
6. Thats right and they called it the nuclear option
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:13 PM
Mar 2013

Cat killer, remember him?
the dickhead rip-off doctor speaker
my apologies for using the word, none other fits in this case

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
8. They can do whatever they like by majority vote.
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:16 PM
Mar 2013

All of the rules that create and defend the filibuster are passed by majority vote, and can be rescinded by majority vote, done in the right order. The filibuster is not a law, but a rules agreement. That would of course put paid to the "collegiality" of the Senate, but that died some time ago anyway. If fact, it would be a very Republican-like thing to do to just say fuck you, these are the rules now. They brought it on themselves

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
11. constitutional option
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:25 PM
Mar 2013
First, a Senator would raise a point of order to close debate. For
example, a Senator could state, “Debate on this matter having
proceeded for ‘x’ hours, I make the point of order that any further
debate is dilatory and not in order.”

Under Senate Rule XX, points of order not referred to the Senate are not debatable except at the sufferance of the Presiding Officer, although debate may generally be had on appeals. If the Presiding Officer sustained the point of order, he would set a new, binding Senate precedent allowing Senators to cut off debate. That, however, would not end the matter.

The minority could (and likely would) appeal the Presiding Officer’s ruling. In a final step, the majority could move to table the appeal. The tabling motion would be non-debatable and subject to immediate vote.

If a simple majority voted to table the appeal, the Senate would
affirm the Presiding Officer’s ruling and thus allow Senators to cut
off debate under the terms of the point of order.


http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/353/353Assignments/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
14. The day Harry Reid drops the nuclear option on the Republicans
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:43 PM
Mar 2013

is the day that I'll eat a bug.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
18. You should read the FDA's "Defect Levels Handbook"
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:53 PM
Mar 2013

FDA doesn't require zero contaimination, just contamination below certain levels for particular products.

You, and I, have probably eaten very many bug equivalents already.

Did you or do your kids fight over the cherries in fruit cocktail? Some fraction like 1/5 of marichino cherries can contain maggots and still be considered Ok.


http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/sanitation/ucm056174.htm


 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
20. Hey!
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:57 PM
Mar 2013

You got maggots in my peanut butter!
And you got peanut butter on my maggots!

WHAT?

Two great tastes that taste great together!

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
19. With Harry Reid in charge, you'll NEVER have to eat that bug. But,
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 02:57 PM
Mar 2013

if by some miracle his nuts drop into his sagging sack and he actually gets it accomplished, I will join you in eating a bug.

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
22. Ok, but...
Wed Mar 6, 2013, 03:08 PM
Mar 2013

Ewwwwww!

BTW, speaking of filibusters, that fucker rand paul just filibustered Brennan nomination.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Filibuster Reform Back On...