Skip to comments.Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters
Posted on 11/07/2012 12:13:12 PM PST by Nachum
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOPs ability to filibuster bills.
Speaking in the wake of Tuesdays election, which boosted Senate Democrats numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he wont end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often.
I think that the rules have been abused and that were going to work to change them, he told reporters. Were not going to do away with the filibuster but were going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.
Republicans, who have 47 of the chambers 100 seats in this current Congress, have repeatedly used that strong minority to block parts of President Obamas agenda on everything from added stimulus spending to his judicial picks.
A filibuster takes 60 senators to overcome it.
Leaders of both parties have been reluctant to change the rules because they value it as a tool when they are in the minority.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There is a solution to this threat: NO MORE UNANIMOUS CONSENTS!
Have the senate vote on absolutely everything. Get these people on the record for every single vote they take. No voice votes. Yeas and Nays for everything.
And an extra check is the House. No negotiations with the senate before they pass something. Let them pass a bill, get their members on the record, and then the negotiations with the House begin (as is the proper legislative conference process).
Harry Reid hates to have to take votes. He hates having to put his members on the record. And he hates not knowing whats going to happen ahead of time. He wants himself, Boehner, and Obama to get together, decide whats going to happen, then ram it through.
The answer to tyranny is regular legislative order, each House acting on its own issues, holding votes on them, then going to conference, agreeing on one common piece of legislation, passing it and THEN sending it to the president. There should be lots of votes, lots of conference committees and lots of votes. Make the senators work for their pay!
Harry would sing a different tune if we had taken the Senate yesterday. What a real pathological d$%^che.
I told the Republicans the same thing when they held the majority, but I wouldn't expect the Dems to fold that quickly.
When was the last time the GOP actually did a real filibuster?
good, let them have their way...and when things fail, they own it.
That is exactly what I was thinking
0m0slem can declare them in recess at will.
not gonna happen
We have two legislative bodies for a reason. The House has an enormous amount of power. But it takes a peron of determination and will, such as a Gingrich, to wield it. Boehner seems to have ceded all legislative authority and power to the senate and specifically, to Harry Reid. Reid can’t do crap without the House acting, either before or after the senate. The House conservatives need to have the balls to start voting down bills, and furthermore, sending to the senate, bills whose funding is well below the senate’s desired levels.
Leave the president completly out of it until the legislative process is oomplete. The Speaker of the House is a far more powerful position than the Senate Majority Leader. Boehner needs to be willing to use that power, or step aside for someone who is.
Abuse of the filibuster process? Does anyone remember the Bush years?
What is the job of the (R)s in Congress? They are the other faction in the corrupt "Two-Party Cartel". In the end the elites get whatever they want & you lose your money & liberties.
8:45AM? Does Congress start at 8:30? My guess is it’ll end at 3:30PM, the filibuster having started after lunch at 1:30. It’ll start after lunch, so there’s time in the morning to tell everybody not to show up in the afternoon. 3:30 leaves time to get to the bathroom, before the slow stroll to happy hour at the bar.
How many seats did we lose yesterday??
I see the root cause of this division pointing directly at 50+ years of conservatives being far too flexible. Only in the past 10-15 years have they finally started pushing back and digging in their heels. It does not work both ways for these people, they have a very successful method of distributing misinformation and painting conservatives with descriptions that mush-headed voters actually believe. I mean, some of this sh#$@ is downright ridiculous...
I mean, I'm a VERY conservative republican and I don't drag black people from the bumper of my truck and I'd stand in the path of anyone who thinks it's ok. I have no interest in "setting women back 100 years", I have no interest in telling them how to manage their bodies and reproductive organs... I don't bully homo's at work, I don't want poor people to starve, rich people to have 99.9% of all the wealth, I don't' want people to die for lack of healthcare, I don't hate people because of where they were born... this list is miles long and neither you nor I look like the picture these demons have painted.
But unfortunately, they have succeeded. They have done major damage to our country and our individual sovereignty all in the name of winning the football game. I mean, it is SO out of control, Obama could literally commit murder, admit it live on CNN and his polling numbers wouldn't change. Look at Jesse Jackson Jr. The man is a mental disaster, unable to serve anyone right now including himself. He's most likely committed several felonies and is under investigation for them... he just won an ELECTION.
I've completely lost faith at this point. It's not humiliating, its actually very sad. But the reality is, they now outnumber us and there is no reversing it. When blacks vote at a rate of 94% based on skin color, what are we to gain? People are uninterested in the final score, they only care about what they can get right now. Politicians see us as idiots, and for the most part, we are. We just re-elected a president who is projected to be running a 20 TRILLION dollar deficit by the end of his term and all they were interested in was Romney's dog riding on top of his car and what tax rate he paid on his personal income. Face it man, we are done.
What goes around!!! (See my Tagline)
We used to say that that amnesty would not pass because:
1) The GOP would not pass it in the House
2) It would be filibustered in the senate.
Now, Boehner says he will make a “comprehensive immigration” deal with Obama and Reid is working on the filibuster rule
#1 Bohner is a very weak leader who's track record the past two years as Speaker is pathetic. It has been a disaster. In comparision Look how Pelosi handled a similar situation for her in 2005 and 2006.
#2 Republicans got their clocks cleaned last Tuesday not only Romney but the House AND Senate when they original expected to take control of the Senate.
Keep in mind and you know it, many Republicans thought they were going to get huge win on election night till Hume and Ingraham on FNC started talking about a possible defeat election night. Although at least one here told me he only said it but he never believed it ??/
Now the talk is about stolen votes (all the swing states??) and possible impeachment.
the party is in complete disarray. Don't expect anything good anytime soon. I cant be optimistic at the moment.
BTW : You were NOT one of the Pollyanna's, your expectations were more realistic,
Technically Reid would need 60 or 2/3rds to change that rule as I recall. Plus it would backfire if the GOP won the Senate back next year.
Back around 2006 Levin argued that the GOP should declare the filibuster of judges unconditional and change the rule with only 50+. But the gang of 14 killed that bad idea and they lost the Senate soon after anyway.
Two thirds of those present and voting. The "60" is three fifths of members sworn, and is a fixed number.
There is a good argument that a simple majority can change the rules, at the beginning of a session. The nuclear option that was bandied about in 2006 was a parliamentary move, other than at the start of a session.
It's funny how the headline is phrase in terms of limiting GOP obstruction. Am I to take it that DEM obstruction is to continue unimpeded?
Anyway, the Senate is an utterly dysfunctional legislative body.
Thanks, I couldnt remember which it was and was too lazy to look it up.
The contrary argument I heard is that the Senate never starts a 'session' because the terms are overlapping 6 years, versus the House where the terms are 2 years and everyone has faced the election.
In any case changing this rule is shortsighted for either party. Dems used it all the time against Bush.
This is a murky legal question. The 60 vote rule is not in the constitution.
But what if Reid accepted a simple majority vote to change the rules? What would the GOP do about it? The SCOTUS has been very reluctant to accept such cases lately.
It's possible that even very leftist senators would vote against such a rule change, because it would make the senate just a second House whose menbers are elected in a different way.
See post #24.
See post #24.
As Cboldt helpfully pointed out it is 2/3rds now.
Legally the Senate makes their own rules so the majority can technically do anything they want. That is why Levin recommended that Republicans take such an approach ~ 2006.
So if Rs have the House but filibusters are more difficult then what does that really do, assuming they disagree and still cant stuff to Os desk?
It allows Reid to force Republicans to vote 'no' rather than vote block. Those voters can be used against them I suppose. It also makes the Senate look more functional than it has been by ‘getting stuff done’ when Senate Republicans are scared to go on the record as 'no ' and Bills get to House.
Now if the problem is the bohner Republican House than there are few solutions. We got the wrong party to depend on.
Technically the US constitition requires that all tax bills originate in the house but they ignore that, so the senate extended some of the tax cuts and is calling on the House to do the same.
Technically, a simple majority always carries. The issue is how long debate goes on, before the vote is taken. The Senate operates on unlimited debate, and the "60" number is how many it takes to put a time limit on the debate. When the debate is a rule change, it takes 2/3rds of those present to agree to limit the debate.
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.-- What would the GOP do about it? The SCOTUS has been very reluctant to accept such cases lately. --
There is no such thing as a trustworthy branch of the federal government. They all aim to maintain concentration of real power with the federal government. SCOTUS won't (and shouldn't) endorse or reject a legislative body's deviation from the organic principle that a majority rules.
Anyway, to answer the question, if Reid creates precedent, that precedent can be used by his opposition in the future.
-- It's possible that even very leftist senators would vote against such a rule change ... --
All of the senators are individually arrogant, and you are right, none of them wants to give up the individual power of control that flows from dysfunctional abuse of the rules.
Ingraham on Special Report predicted that amnesty would pass this time. I hope she is wrong but Boehner is not hiding his madness, and he seems determined to infect others.
After Hannity's flip on amnesty, I wonder if he will take the backlash calls on his radio show :)
isnt that 2/3 of present members ???
which begs the question of whether or not the commprogs believe they really will face another electorate after bambamII...???
reid has been pretty much playing 2nd monkey to the bambam for a long time, simply being the blocker...he may just decide that he can get a lil of the glory, and maybe even a statue or three ifn he goes all-in and ramrods some agenda...not to mention the possibility above concerning another election, if bam tells him the final push is going *forward*...
i dont put anything past these scumbag csers...
Doesn`t that contradict Mason's Manual? "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."
Or does that apply only to the vote itself, and not to rules which could delay a vote forever? I am getting dizzy :)
I don't think so. A properly functioning deliberative body will give the minority the power to extend debate in order to obtain the opportunity to persuade, etc. Under Roberts Rules of Order, a Motion to To Suppress or Limit Debate requires 2/3rds to carry.
-- Or does that apply only to the vote itself, and not to rules which could delay a vote forever? --
Yes, Mason's Manual is referring to the ultimate vote on the issue before the body.
Inaction is different from taking an action. Failing to vote on the issue is inaction.
I think the Senate's use of minority veto on advise & consent is unconstitutional, as it disrupts the balance of power between the senate and the president. But for legislated points, the failure to get to the vote is simple dysfunction, without any constitutional ramifications.
I believe that we do need the 60 vote rule to stay in place. Now that the SCOTUS (yes, even the "conservative" Robert court) has allowed the commerce clause to be used for just about any purpose. Of course, I could speculate that such laws theoretically could be overturned by the congress.
But even worse is amnesty, which makes citizens, eventually, of people who will make whatever party the Left identifies with, to be the government itself. Amnesty would make several disastrous trends permanent, and, if it became law, I don't see how this process could be reversed.