Posted on 12/31/2010 10:46:46 AM PST by presidio9
Their majority dwindling, some Senate Democrats are planning a showdown on the first day of the new Congress over limiting Republicans' ability to hold up legislation through filibusters.
"We don't want to give the minority the ability to block the majority from governing," Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., a leading proponent of filibuster reform, told ABC News.
According to Udall, momentum is building behind his effort to amend Senate Rule XXII, which allows 3/5ths of the Senate -- or 60 members -- to invoke "cloture" and end debate. Failure to clear that 60-vote hurdle leaves a bill on the table, effectively killing it, and is commonly referred to as a modern "filibuster."
Udall proposes that senators who wish to hold up a piece of legislation be required to engage in a "talking filibuster," in which they would continuously speak on the floor, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"-style, rather than simply using a failed cloture vote to kill a bill.
Udall also wants to eliminate so-called "anonymous holds" that allow any senator to issue a silent objection, freezing a bill or nomination.
In the 111th Congress, which ran from 2009 to 2010, Democrats successfully achieved cloture 63 times, breaking through more Republican-led attempts to filibuster than ever before. But 28 times, Democrats were unsuccessful, leading to the defeat of measures that had majority support -- like the DREAM Act, which would extend a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who entered the country as children.
"There's unprecedented abuse that's gone on the last two years," Udall said. "These filibusters have delayed things. They have obstructed the ability of the Senate to do its job."
Republicans note Udall, a freshman elected in 2008, has never served in the minority in the Senate. They question whether
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Dems will maneuver to get the Rinos to block a change-back. They may set it up in the lame duck to require a 2/3 majority to change rules. One thing is for sure, they will do the unexpected.
I’ll say it again, we have a banana republic system of house rules, fit for a fascist state.
Don’t be too sure....what if they put the dream act up for a vote again under this new rule?
So what is going to happen when the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2012?
The RINO’s in the GOP will agree to let them change it back to the way it was.
That sentence is not very clear. Is Udall objecting to holds in general or specifically anonymous holds?
IMHO, holds are fine. I see no reason why they should be anonymous.
We oughta be able to rout a lot of RINOS in the primary.
MSM:
NUCLEAR OPTION!!!
NUCLEAR OPTION!!!
NUCLEAR OPTION!!!
Huh? What? dems are the ones doing it?
ahem...
A change in the structuring technical procedures of blocking debate by the minority yada yada yada yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bad idea since the House has nothing to do with judicial nominations.
This is the right question, we could lose the Republic just through the packing of the court, and it takes two thirds of the senate to undo a Judge.
In the end it won't matter, we will have accepted a total tyranny.
Calling the gang of 14, hello John, light in the loafers Lindsey, you out there?
The problem is they relentlessly blocked Bush’s judges for eight years. When McConnell threatened to change the filibuster rule the Gang of Eight thwarted the plan, and got a few judges through before the Dems went back to vilifying, demonizing and blocking judges left and right. So what if the next president is Republican and gets to appoint judges? By that time Obama could have appointed every radical Marxist baby-killer in the country to the bench. It would take decades to undo the damage, if it could be undone at all.
There is no past senate. Unlike the House, the senate is a continuous body. Only 1/3 of the body is up for election at any given time
You are correct. My point was that I believe the Senate can change its rules by majority vote at any time.
It can of course. However, for as long as anyone can remember senate rule changes required 2/3 vote. As soon as that changes, the senate as we know it ceases to exist. It simply becomes another majoritarian body like the house.
I’m not sure that would be entirely a bad thing. The Constitution certainly has nothing in it about requiring super-majorities in the Senate for anything other than enumerated issues. I think the actual constitutional provisions for slowing things down in the Senate, such as the gradual replacement of members, is sufficient check on the House.
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.