Senator Harry Reid blocks action on filibuster reform move by Senate Democrats

Filibuster Reform Delayed but Not Defeated
By John Nichols
January 5, 2010

Filibuster reform never comes easy, as Senate Democrats who had hoped to address abuses of the parliamentary procedure on the opening day of the 112th Congress were quickly reminded.

Instead of the quick and efficient reworking of Senate rules that some of the more naïve reformers had hoped for, opening day will not see a change to the filibuster rules that thwarted so many Democratic initiatives in the last Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, effectively blocked action on the reform move by bringing the Senate in and out of session so quickly that no time was available for the rules debate.

That does not mean, however, that the push for filibuster reform is dead.

Democrats, after a brief show of unity in opposition to the existing rules, are now showing signs of division. Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, has been warning that any move to limit the filibuster could blow up on Democrats if they find themselves in the minority position after the 2012 election. Arguing for a "pretty modest effort," McCaskill says "no one is naïve here...we have a very evenly divided Senate now and I don’t think any of us think that it’s beyond the possible that the Democrats can be in the minority in a couple of years."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/157476/filibuster-reform-delayed-not-defeated


----------------------------------------------




Democrats face delays on filibuster reform
By Michael O'Brien
January 4, 2010

Democrats face delays in their effort to reform Senate rules to weaken the filibuster, a leader of that effort acknowledged Monday night.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said Democrats' attempt to adopt new Senate rules would wait until later in January, when they would try to execute the so-called "constitutional option" to change Senate rules with a simple majority.

It is at that point — not on Wednesday, as had been originally thought — that Democrats will attempt to modify Senate rules to weaken the filibuster, one of the principal tools of the minority in the chamber.

Democrats have argued they have the power, under the Constitution, to change the Senate's rules with only a simple majority on the chamber's first day of operations. To execute the plan in later January, they would have to technically extend the current session until later this month, and officially begin work on the next term on Jan. 23 or 24.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135789-senate-dems-face-delays-in-effort-to-reform-filibuster

If the Republicans win control of the Senate.

And they won't have to change any Senate rules to do that.

The Republicans won't hesitate to use the "Constitutional Option" or end the "dual-track" "procedural filibuster" which doesn't require a change in Senate rules.

They could use the "Constitutional Option," but that option is used to change Senate rules. So the idea that "they won't have to change any Senate rules to do that" is false.

... for strictly political election reasons.

And there are those who wonder why so much cynicism exists in the land and why politicians are hated.

There is precious little democracy in the way the Senate is structured by the Constitution, ie., California has two Senators just like Wyoming. But foisting upon that body the necessity for a super majority to get anything done, well, look how well that worked out for the Democrats in the last election.

Isn't at some point the will of the people supposed to matter in a representative democracy? Yes, it would be a tragedy of the Repuglicans won House, Senate and Presidency in 2012 -- but if that is what the majority of voters want, then that is supposed to be what we get.

I'll guarantee you one thing, though ... if the Senate Democrats don't change the filibuster rule to allow majority votes on all bills and nominees -- then they will be in the minority for sure in January 2113.

And -- you can bet then that the Repuglican majority will dump the filibuster!

government that actually represents the voters - no matter how pig-headed those voters may be! As long as it doesn't matter who gets elected, half the voters will continue to sit out elections!

Something to consider

Seems to me like everything the Republickers wanted from 2001-2007 got passed. Am I forgetting something?

Oh, and I also recall distinctly how Republickers demanded up or down votes on all of Bush's judicial nominees who Dems were blocking and when they didn't get it they threatened to use the 'nuclear option' and gut the filibuster. That's when the 'bipartisan' group 'compromised' by allowing votes on every single nominee.

Republickers will use the filibuster at every opportunity and ignore it at their whim.

And if the Republickers do win back the Senate, they are free to set their own rules then anyway so all we are doing is giving them the easy filibuster and letting them do as they please in 2 years.

and it looks like those balls are still missing.....

We have to make sure that filibuster reform doesn't shoot us in the foot. It's not like we'll have the majority every time and I'd hate to see a Bork Jr. up for Supreme Court nomination and we have no choice but to accept it.

In fact, 7 Senate Democratic leaders reached a "bi-partisan" agreement with 7 Republican Senators to not filibuster Bush's Supreme Court nominations!

Remember that?

they will scream about up and down votes, Ds will piss their pants and vote ...

Seriously, this is 4 stinking years late, and definitely two years too late ...

during filibuster reform pushes in the 70s) so that they can develop support for a rules package. This is what Merkley wanted.