Dems signal push for filibuster reform

The Hill ^ | December 15, 2010 | Michael O'Brien

[Eagle of Liberty]

Democrats will make an attempt to reform the Senate's filibuster rules, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Wednesday.

Brown joined other members of his party who have been signaling, in the closing days of the lame-duck Congress, that their party is likely to seek changes to longstanding Senate rules that require 60 votes (instead of a simple majority of 51) to advance most pieces of legislation in the chamber.

"I think you're going to see attempts to do that," Brown said Wednesday morning on MSNBC, referring to the prospects for filibuster reform.

The filibuster, or at least the implied threat of one, has been used to great effect in the past two years by Senate Republicans to slow down or flat-out block pieces of legislation favored by Democrats.

[Eagle of Liberty]

THE IMPLIED THREAT OF A FILIBUSTER STARTED WITH YOU RAT BASTIGES way more than two years ago, "Senator" Brown!!!

Democrats revive filibuster threat

One Republican senator and potential 2008 presidential contender, Sen. George Allen of Virginia, scoffed that Reid “doesn't have the votes to filibuster.”

Reid would need 40 other senators to join him to keep a filibuster going.

“The architect of this filibustering of judges, Tom Daschle, is a former Democrat leader,” Allen noted. (Daschle lost his seat to Republican John Thune in last November’s election.) “The people of America think justices ought to have deliberation and examination, with dignity in the process, but ultimately senators ought to get off their cushy seats and vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”

[Dr. Sivana]

When the Republicans talk about this, they call it the nuclear option, not reform.

[screaminsunshine]

How about a better idea for reform. Repeal the 17th Amendment.

[heiss]

If dems are dumb enough to do this, it is not too bad. In 2012, we can simply continue it and repeal every liberal piece of legislation. We can easily get 51 votes then (I expect GOP to have around 57 votes then along with GOP president).

[FrankR]

If you're not up to the race...shorten the track.

This is why they don't like the Constitution...it doesn't change to give them the advantage.

I hope the GOP blocks this...with a FILIBUSTER.

[Vaquero]

whiny soulless b!tches....

....whats good for the goose is good for the gander, there Dhimmicrats.

[traditional1]

How about if Dem Senators votes are counted as 1/2, consistent with their half-assed socialist crap? What is needed is to completely throw out the entire Congress, USSC, President, and start over.

I.E.; we need a do-over.

[Eagle of Liberty]

When the Republicans talk about this, they call it the nuclear option, not reform.

All news is written from the Dem point of view, whether it benefits the Dems or harms the Dems politically. It is never written PRO-Republican and rarely written Pro-American People.

And SENATOR BROWN, in an interview with my local radio station went on and on about how awful the Republicans were because they wouldn't act on a "tax cut" (which its not) unless it included the beloved rich. He said he could not believe that Republicans would harm a large segment of the American population simply to hold out for the rich.

SHERROD BROWN HAS GOT TO GO IN 2012!!!

[broken_arrow1]

Clinging to our guns and religion for a reason!

[Lazlo in PA]

NOW they want to do this. They obviously see their fortunes in the future eroding dramatically. They can screw.

[Lurker]

How about a better idea for reform. Repeal the 17th Amendment

Excellent idea.

[Seaplaner]

"Reform" is the current code word for confiscation of freedoms and/or corruption of democracy.

.

[Lazamataz]

RIIIIGHT.

Now I KNOW they are blowing smoke.

You're gonna get this kinda RULE CHANGE done in the next 21 days (including Christmas and weekends) and pass EVERYTHING ELSE TOO.

Not realistic, even for you f***ing fascist bastards.

[KingofZion]

What goes around comes around. If Dems change filibuster rules I guarantee they will regret it two years down the road when the GOP takes command of the Senate.

[Ingtar]

They’ll just bury it in one of the bills that the majority of Senators do not read.

[Lazamataz]

By the way, it takes 67 votes to change this rule.

[CA Conservative]

When the Republicans talk about this, they call it the nuclear option, not reform.

Not exactly the same thing. The "nuclear option" involved having a senator raise a point of order that the filibuster of judges was out of order, and then having that point of order upheld by the president of the Senate. What the Dems are proposing is changing the rules of the Senate, which must be approved every 2 years at the start of a new Congress, and are approved by a simple majority of senators.

However, the Dems might want to think about the fact that they will likely be in the minority in 2 years, and they will have to live with the consequences of no filibuster. Do they really want a GOP house, GOP senate and GOP president, with no chance to filibuster?

[Steely Tom]

When the Republicans talk about this, they call it the nuclear option, not reform.

Post-of-the-day potential here, folks.

[CA Conservative]

By the way, it takes 67 votes to change this rule.

Not exactly. It takes 67 votes to change it during the Congressional session. However, at the beginning of the session, when the Senate approves the rules for the upcoming session, it can be changed with only 51 votes.

[Mom MD]

You don’t know how dems work. Their last act in 2012 will be to change back to the old rules. You see, rules are whatever dems want them to be.