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 ...
Heh, this simple scumbag Janet Cook (wasn’t she the plagiarist who got fired from somewhere...?) never worried about the filibuster while the Republicans controlled the Senate.
Secession would be better for Texas.
But for America’s sake, we desperately need eight more Republican Senators from Texas.
And that can be done this year! And it can be done without a secession fight.
Oops, nevermind. I was thinking of Janet Cooke, the Washington Post disgrace who made up the story ‘Jimmy’s World’ back in the ‘80s. The author of this LA Times column is Janet Hook.
Not accurate. The role of advice and consent for appointments is a mandatory duty of the Senate. The so-called "nuclear option" was not to reduce the number needed for filibuster, but rather to require a full Senate vote on appointments, because filibuster unconstitutionally prevented the Senate from doing their sworn duty. The nuke option was to force a Constitutional crisis that would require a SCOTUS ruling. Day-to-day legislation would still have been subject to normal filibuster rules.
BTW: the cloture vote used to be 66 votes. The Dems reduced it in the 70's in a power play.
Not accurate. The role of advice and consent for appointments is a mandatory duty of the Senate. The so-called "nuclear option" was not to reduce the number needed for filibuster, but rather to require a full Senate vote on appointments, because filibuster unconstitutionally prevented the Senate from doing their sworn duty. The nuke option was to force a Constitutional crisis that would require a SCOTUS ruling. Day-to-day legislation would still have been subject to normal filibuster rules.
BTW: the cloture vote used to be 66 votes. The Dems reduced it in the 70's in a power play.
I know lots of people here wanted to go “nuclear” on the judge issue when Republicans controlled the Senate. In hindsight, that gang of 14 agreement allowed the confirmation of a number of Bush appointees to the courts. A few were still filibustered or not given votes at all, but most were confirmed. Yes, if they had just done away with filibusters then, we would have already seen Obamacare passed. The threat of filibuster has been the only Republican weapon against a Democrat president combined with strong Democrat control of Congress.
I agree. Eight more senators is ridiculous. It will with some of the legislative machinations and gerrymandering put some Dems in office.
Secession is the preferable response.
-PJ
Democrats are funny - they never think the laws they enact will EVER BE USED AGAINST THEM...The same can be said for Republicans. When the GOP had a majority in the Senate, they almost used the "Nuclear Option" to break some filibusters by the Dems.
I thought the Founders said that the majority couldn’t rule.
They have always wanted one party rule. Why do think people keep calling them commies?
Where’s the clip of Chuckie Schumer explaining how the Senate is the “saucer that cools the coffee”
bookmark.
don't you get it? that will never happen because they will just want to go back to the 60-vote rule, and the GOP--who would be in charge--will cave in to "them."
Texas will never, ever avail itself of its right to split. If you think they will, you don’t know Texans.
No mention, of course, of the eight years the Democrats tried to stall everything the Republicans sought to do, especially when it came to judges. Some Bush nominees were delayed 5-6 years by an obstructionist Democrat Party. But, somehow, such history vanishes from the liberal mind and they can only remember what was done to them, totally forgetful of who first used the procedure or how often their party engaged in the same stalling tactics.
Of course by them they will inform us that the filibuster is an honored American tradition, and they will produce eminent law professors who go on CNN and insist that the filibuster is part of the Constitution.
If you could boil down all of Saul Alinsky--the guiding spirit of the modern Democrat party--into one sentence, it would be: Have no shame about anything, ever.
Ditto. But that doesn’t mean we can’t split into five states AFTER we secede.
This is fantastic for the dems. They’ll have easy power and they know Republicans are too cowardly to fight back for the Republic, let alone undo anything that they have forced into place.
It’s perfect for them.
Why would you want to split? Texas is awesome. :)
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.