Posted on 01/09/2010 8:42:57 PM PST by Steelfish
Some Democrats Want To Modify Filibuster Rules With Republicans using endless speeches to block all manner of legislation, and the prospect of fewer Democrats after midterm elections, some say it's time for a change so the majority can govern.
By Janet Hook January 9, 2010
Reporting from Washington - The Senate filibuster has emerged as the bane of President Obama's legislative agenda, igniting anger among liberals over a tactic that is now hogtying Congress even on uncontroversial bills.
The threat of filibusters has become so common that congressional leaders take it for granted that any bill of consequence will not pass the 100-member Senate with a simple majority of 51. Instead, 60 votes -- the number needed to cut off the interminable speeches of a filibuster -- has become the minimum required.
Frustration has intensified in the wake of Senate Republicans' no-holds-barred effort to block the healthcare bill, which forced Democrats to scrounge for 60 votes at every legislative turn to prevent a filibuster.
Now, facing the prospect of losing seats in this fall's midterm elections, some Democrats are seeking to change the rules.
While Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate, the 60-vote threshold for action in the Senate has become a powerful curb on the scope of the Obama agenda. To prevail over united Republicans, all 58 Democrats, including a small but influential faction of conservatives, have to stick together, along with the Senate's two independents.
The Democrats' vulnerability will be even greater given the announcements of Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that they will not run for reelection this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Democrats are funny - they never think the laws they enact will EVER BE USED AGAINST THEM...
Let’em change. It will make it that much easier for President Palin to ram through her agenda in 2013.
Time for the Gutless Old Party to “reach across the aisle” and beg the dems for some playing time.
“Let’em change. It will make it that much easier for President Palin to ram through her agenda in 2013.”
If that happens it would be an Act of God. Since Gov Palin is a believer, who knows.
The irony was that talk radio called for republicans to do the same for judges make it 51, if they did Health Care Reform would be passed last July. Because the moderates (RINOs) Gang of 14 stopped it, they had to get 60 for health reform. Moderate democrats wont dare change the rule now.
I thought talk radio was right at the time but they were wrong.
Political commercial.
Wait, okay, that's two words...
Still, this is good stuff for the 2010 elections (and this is 2010).
.
That isn’t true.
When it appears that it will be used against them, they scream about how unfair it is that it will be used against them.
They always want it both ways. When they are the majority, they are for the tyranny of the majority. When they are the minority, they are for the tyranny of the minority.
And they will change it back whenever it suits them.
Maybe they figure that with their plan to steal elections they'll never have to worry about that.
Yep
Just look at all the rationalization and obvious double standards they’ve done regarding Ted Kennedy’s seat.
Unless the GOP grows a pair, that’s what’s gonna happen.
Not quite. The proposed rule change dealt solely with the President's appointment power and the Senate's advise and consent role. It did not pertain to legislation.
The Gang of 14 thus has nothing to do with the healthcare debate.
Yes quite!
If Republicans changed the rule to pass Bush’s judges using 51 votes instead of 60, then the democrats on the gang of 14 would not have an argument against calls from the liberal house members to change it to pass health reform WITH a public option now.
In fact this is just what McCain warned of at the time. Not a McCain fan but right is right,
Even Snopes agrees that it can be done.
Claim: A clause in the document annexing Texas to the United States allowed for Texas to be divided into five different states.
Status: True.
Congress on 1 March 1845, which included a provision allowing Texas to be sub-divided into up to four more states with slavery being banned in states carved out of Texas territory north of the Missouri Compromise line and left up to popular sovereignty in states formed south of the line.
No thanks on splitting Texas, personally I prefer secession.
“I am going to Texas and y’all can go to hell” - Davey Crockett to the US Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.