GOP To Filibuster Filibuster Reform

[Patranus]

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) soon intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in the next few weeks intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-headed-for-senate-floor-faces-uphill-battle

The funniest part is that this would take a filibuster proof majority to pass.
Don't you just love it when a party throws a temper tantrum when they lose?

 

[theeedude]

I thought it was a senate rule, not a law that needs a legislation to be overturned.

 

[Patranus]

I thought it was a senate rule, not a law that needs a legislation to be overturned.

It would take 67 votes to change senate rules.

 

[theeedude]

It would take 67 votes to change senate rules.

According to what law?

 

[alchemize]

GOP talks about nuclear option, dems throw hissy fits. But now it's OK. LOL

 

[Patranus]

GOP talks about nuclear option, dems throw hissy fits. But now it's OK. LOL

This is why the GOP didn't use it.

 

[CrackRabbit]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-headed-for-senate-floor-faces-uphill-battle

The funniest part is that this would take a filibuster proof majority to pass.
Don't you just love it when a party throws a temper tantrum when they lose?

While I agree with you that this is simply the Democrats throwing a tantrum the filibuster rules need to be changed.
A minority party (weather it be Ds or Rs or whatevers) shouldn't be able to hold legislation hostage with the mere threat of a filibuster.

 

[theeedude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Looks like there are parliamentary maneuvers to get around this rule.

 

[theeedude]

That said, I don't know why Harkin is introducing a bill. There is no need for it to change this rule.

 

[Fern]

It would take 67 votes to change senate rules.

According to what law?

Haha. By Senate rules it takes 67 votes to change any Senate rule.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Haha. By Senate rules it takes 67 votes to change any Senate rule.

Fern

OK, so if Democrats invoke nuclear option, and change the rule with simple majority, under what law is GOP going to sue them?

 

[Fern]

Oh, look where the 60 vote rule came from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#United_States

In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democratic Senate[17] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson.[18] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting. Despite the formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in actual practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could actually be sustained against majority opposition.[19]
-snip-
Finally, the Democratic-controlled Senate[17] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senators sworn (usually 60 senators) could limit debate.

The Democrats!

Fern

 

[theeedude]

If that's true it's Democrats responsibility to correct this. Constitution > Senate Rule 22

 

[nageov3t]

it would be the height of hypocrisy for the democrats to do this.

that said, I would love love love for the filibuster to be returned to what is was, where senators had to actually filibuster something (ie: stand and talk and not yield the floor to keep "debate" open) rather than just signifying their intent to filibuster and everyone calling it a day. it would actually draw attention to it and perhaps prevent its routine use in day-to-day senate operations.

 

[Fern]

OK, so if Democrats invoke nuclear option, and change the rule with simple majority, under what law is GOP going to sue them?

You seem to think that the "nuclear option" is settled.

Read a little more closely:

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote

I.e., if the Dems invoke it in the senate it'll go to the SCOTUS (unless they refuse to hear it).

In the meantime Congress will effectively be shut down and in a Constitutional crisis.

There are a whole lot of good reasons not to do this. After MA you really think the Dems wanna pull this to ram through a HC bill?

Besides I personally don't all that many Dem senators wanna go there. They realize that when the Repubs take control of Senate (which they surely will at some point) the 'shoe will be on the other foot'. I don't think they wanna be powerless when the Repubs hold 50 seats and the VP (who would vote in the case of a tie) or 51 seats.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

The nuclear option is specifically about judicial appointments and nothing else.

The Constitution says that the President shall appoint judges with the Senates consent.

In the eyes of some a filibuster to block a vote of an appointment is unconstitutional because it prevents the Senate from doing its duty to provide consent to an appointment.

Therefore, the idea was to call for a vote on a judge and when the Dems tried to use the cloture rule someone would issue a challenged based on the idea that using a cloture rule in this manner was unconstitutional.

IMO it was never used because both sides were afraid of what would happened if it was used. Thus the gang of 14 got together and worked out a deal.

 

[Fern]

it would be the height of hypocrisy for the democrats to do this.

that said, I would love love love for the filibuster to be returned to what is was, where senators had to actually filibuster something (ie: stand and talk and not yield the floor to keep "debate" open) rather than just signifying their intent to filibuster and everyone calling it a day. it would actually draw attention to it and perhaps prevent its routine use in day-to-day senate operations.

If it only took 51 votes to change the senate rules, they could also vote to end the rules that allows a filibuster.

Fern

 

[Carmen813]

I don't support this. I do however support electing better Senators...

 

[Darwin333]

If this somehow magically happens I guarantee that the people advocating this will regret their decision eventually. Regardless of what you may think, the party you disagree with will eventually regain power and your party will be on the other side of the argument.

Grant them no powers that you would not want the people you disagree with to have.

 

[Patranus]

While I agree with you that this is simply the Democrats throwing a tantrum the filibuster rules need to be changed.
A minority party (weather it be Ds or Rs or whatevers) shouldn't be able to hold legislation hostage with the mere threat of a filibuster.

Its there for a reason. To protect states rights. Only legislation agreed to by the vast majority should pass on a federal level. Simple as that.

 

[PJABBER]

LOL. The Dems changed the rules in Massachusetts to game the system and Brown was elected. Won't they ever learn?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Its there for a reason. To protect states rights. Only legislation agreed to by the vast majority should pass on a federal level. Simple as that.

I'm sorry but that isn't how it works. If it worked the way you wanted literally nothing would ever be passed.
Bills should pass or fail based on their merits and ability to have a simple majority to pass it.
I know that is a simplistic view, but I feel the filibuster is bad for American politics as a whole.

 

[Patranus]

I'm sorry but that isn't how it works. If it worked the way you wanted literally nothing would ever be passed.
Bills should pass or fail based on their merits and ability to have a simple majority to pass it.
I know that is a simplistic view, but I feel the filibuster is bad for American politics as a whole.

You are right, literally nothing would be passed (on a federal level).

States would be able to increase their tax base and pay for programs they need, beg for federal monies as a political favor for some vote in congress.

If a state saw the need to enact some legislation their legislators would and would be held accountable by the state.

Sounds like a win/win except for those in DC.

1/2 the shit they do isn't in the constitution and would have required a constitutional amendment prior to FDR. Why do you think the federal government couldn't just pass a law using interstate commerce as a justification to outlaw alcohol?

 

[cubby1223]

I'm sorry but that isn't how it works. If it worked the way you wanted literally nothing would ever be passed.
Bills should pass or fail based on their merits and ability to have a simple majority to pass it.
I know that is a simplistic view, but I feel the filibuster is bad for American politics as a whole.

That *is* how the government was originally designed, to have more power at the state level. Prior to the Civil War, U.S. Senators were placed in power by the state legislatures not by popular vote, and back then it took 67 votes to end debate! Because of who puts them in power, U.S. Senators voted for what the state legislature wanted lest he be replaced at the end of his term.

I think U.S. Senators went to popular vote as a punishment of some kind against the southern states. And ever since, federal powers have been constantly expanding, while state powers constantly shrinking.

Today, what is the check on federal powers?

 

[Zebo]

Good! Simple majority is and has always been bullshit. If you want to change peoples lives it should have super majority... If there was one mistake our founders made was not 2/3rdsing any spending bill.