Senate in long recess as leaders seek to rein in Democrats' filibuster rebellion

WaPo ^ | 1/22/11 | Paul Kane

[markomalley]

Before the week is done, one of the longest single "days" in the history of the Senate is expected to finally come to an end.

Amid a long-running dispute over decades-old filibuster rules, Senate leaders have used a parliamentary trick to leave the chamber in a state of suspended animation - in reality adjourned since Jan. 5 but officially considered in a long recess that's part of the same individual legislative day.

This nearly three-week break has taken place in large part so leadership could hold private negotiations to consider how to deal with a group of Democrats agitating to shake up the foundation of the world's most deliberative body, right down to challenging the filibuster.

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

[Erik Latranyi]

This is a liberal attempt to make the Senate into a simple majority body, eliminating the 60 vote threshold to end fillibusters.

It is important to keep the fillibuster in place as liberals are planning on giving DC and other “territories” voting rights in the Senate, thereby giving the liberals 4 to 6 more votes.

[broken_arrow1]

Is John McCain reaching across the aisle now with his commie friends?

[Steely Tom]

When the rules help them, their position is "hey, those are the rules, always have been."

When the rules hurt them, their position is "hey, rules were made to be broken."

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Where is Johnny Backstabber and his “Gang of 14”?

[Brilliant]

Why not wait until just before the GOP takes over, and then abolish the filibuster?

[BobL]

It looks like the Dems are coming to their senses and realizing what is very likely to be the case, starting 2 years from now - which is a Republican Senate, House, and White House. If they change the rules in the Senate now...the Republicans will simply let the new rules stand in 2013 (I hope, at least). If they do not change the rules...then the Republicans will not change them either, and the 60 vote filibuster stands (and the Reps will not have 60 votes in 2013 - 55 maybe, but not 60).

The last thing the Dems want to do is give the Reps uncontested power in that situation.

I was hoping they’d go through with this, based on the following:
1) Nothing bad is going to get through the House
2) If the Reps in the Senate put the existing group of Constitution-hating judges on the Supreme Court, they will let ANYONE else go there - so having a filibuster doesn’t help them.
3) The reps generally (but not always) roll over for lower nominations - this is the only place where they could get hurt by a change in the rules...and I’m willing to give that one to the Dems.

Obviously, the Dem leadership figured out exactly the same, which is why they’re putting a lid on it.

[Venturer]

Our Government is a Farce.

In the House where republicans won the majority, all the Democrats can talk about is how we need to be bi-partisan.

In the Senate where Democrats rule all they can talk about is how to screw the republicans with new rules.

I don’t know why the Senate is having such a problem,There are enough Republicans such as Snowe, Collins ,Brown, Hatch, Mccain, Grahamnesty,and Lugar, that I doubt they will face any filibusters in the first place.

[Mariner]

"This is a liberal attempt to make the Senate into a simple majority body, eliminating the 60 vote threshold to end fillibusters. It is important to keep the fillibuster in place as liberals are planning on giving DC and other “territories” voting rights in the Senate, thereby giving the liberals 4 to 6 more votes. "

Only a US State can have a Senator. We are not going to make Guam or DC a state.

I have always considered the filibuster weird. It's not spelled out in the Constitution anywhere...it's just a gentleman's agreement written into the Senate rules.

I favor abolishing it. I ALSO favor abolishing the 17th Amendment to balance the energy of the mob.

[grayhog]

This has been all about the Supreme Court from the start. Ginsberg is old, in poor health and wants to retire. She has been the anchor of the far left in SCOTUS and the wing nuts are afraid her replacement won’t be as much of a socialist. Obama had 2 far left picks unchallenged, and he was going for a trifecta. You can be certain that if they succeeded and then replaced Ginsberg with another Kagan, they would admit that the idea was wrong and seek to reverse it.

In liberalism/socialism/communism - the only guiding principle is that the ends justify the means. Know what we are dealing with and don’t fall for the tricks.