Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dems signal push for filibuster reform
The Hill ^ | December 15, 2010 | Michael O'Brien

Posted on 12/15/2010 8:45:52 AM PST by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ohio; rats; sherrodbrown
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.’”


1 posted on 12/15/2010 8:45:56 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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


2 posted on 12/15/2010 8:47:14 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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


3 posted on 12/15/2010 8:48:05 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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).


4 posted on 12/15/2010 8:48:35 AM PST by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty
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.
5 posted on 12/15/2010 8:49:27 AM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty
whiny soulless b!tches....

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

6 posted on 12/15/2010 8:50:34 AM PST by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty
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.

7 posted on 12/15/2010 8:51:23 AM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
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!!!
8 posted on 12/15/2010 8:52:25 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

Clinging to our guns and religion for a reason!


9 posted on 12/15/2010 8:54:26 AM PST by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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


10 posted on 12/15/2010 8:54:44 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Excellent idea.

11 posted on 12/15/2010 8:56:48 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

.

12 posted on 12/15/2010 9:00:18 AM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty
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.

13 posted on 12/15/2010 9:00:18 AM PST by Lazamataz (Only 21 days of Democrat fascism left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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.


14 posted on 12/15/2010 9:02:14 AM PST by KingofZion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

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


15 posted on 12/15/2010 9:03:12 AM PST by Ingtar (If Washington and his peers had been RINOs, we would still be a British colony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

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


16 posted on 12/15/2010 9:03:50 AM PST by Lazamataz (Only 21 days of Democrat fascism left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
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?

17 posted on 12/15/2010 9:14:07 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
When the Republicans talk about this, they call it the nuclear option, not reform.

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

18 posted on 12/15/2010 9:15:03 AM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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.

19 posted on 12/15/2010 9:16:30 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KingofZion

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.


20 posted on 12/15/2010 9:19:13 AM PST by Mom MD (Jesus is the Light of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 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).

There is NO WAY the Dems would leave it in-place for Republicans to enjoy. Indeed, If the Dems try this they'll be brazen enough to put a conditions-limitation on it so that any filibuster "reform" exists ONLY for when control of the Senate is in their hands. I can see it now ... the change in Senate Rules might read something like this:

"(1) When the Senate Leadership is held by the Democrat Party, a Republican instigated filibuster can be overridden by either a 1/3 minority vote or by administrative determination of the Majority Leader. (2) When the Senate is held by the Republican Party, a Democrat instigated filibuster can only be overridden with a 4/5th majority vote and with the approval of the Minority Leader. (3) This rule is only revokable by a 4/5 majority vote when Democrats are in power. (4) When Republicans hold the Senate Leadership no change in this rule will be entertained or allowed."

Given their arrogance, I wouldn't be surprised to see such a brazenly audacious and unfair rule actually passed, published, and defended as "reasonable" by the current Democrat and Media pundits, with blame for it being laid squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans. And, I would expect that the RINOS would whimper and accept the blame because they weren't "bipartisan enough."
21 posted on 12/15/2010 9:20:28 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off"M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: heiss

And the bastard leftists will want it changed back to their favor when they’re out of power.

Consistency of rules is anathema to a leftist.
They get their power from unequal application of laws and rules.


22 posted on 12/15/2010 9:23:33 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traditional1
What is needed is to completely throw out the entire Congress, USSC, President, and start over.

When the country collapses, at a point that seems increasingly imminent, I expect that will be one small part of what will take place.

23 posted on 12/15/2010 9:24:47 AM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

This is funny.

I remember back down the judicial debate in Bush’s term when some of us argued the Democrats wouldn’t respect the filibuster if the tables were reversed. Infact they’d go beyond dismantling it for judges, whre at least the case could be made the filibuster had no place since their role was just to advise and consent. I said they’d see no harm in dismantling of legislatively as well. Some people here and politicians in Washington argued oh no...they couldn’t get rid of the judicial filibuster so people like Estrada could be confirmed because it would collapse our system and Democrats could make use of it in a 51/49 divided congress and they’d retaliate legistively. Better to leave it intact then risk blowing up the Senate. I said the Democrats wouldn’t respect their scruples so they should just do it. Well here we are, Democrats attempting to do just that and illegally as well since these rules changes are supposd to be at start of a new session.

I’m not sure other then confirmations what they expect to gain here. And it’s not like confirmations have all been blocked the way they exercised against Bush. The Republicans are going to control the House so after their little week long splurge without a filibuster they’ll be shut down in the cold anyway unless they can get the House back and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.


24 posted on 12/15/2010 9:26:24 AM PST by Soul Seeker ( I was there when we had the numbers, but didn’t have the principles.---Jim that leans conservDeMin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty
The filibuster dampens Congress' ability to enhance volatility in our nations economy. It should be evident to all that markets and business need economic stability from the nations laws to work efficiently whatever those laws may be.

It also limits new laws in general which has the effect of limiting government which should be the goal of every conservative.

One enthusistic vote here for the filibusters.

25 posted on 12/15/2010 9:28:21 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heiss

Agreed. But then the Dems would just demand the filibuster rule be restored because the GOP is just being a bunch of bullies.


26 posted on 12/15/2010 9:31:27 AM PST by Truth is a Weapon (If I weren't afraid of the feds, I would refer to Obama as our "undocumented POTUS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

The unmitigated hypocrisy is breathtaking, isn’t it?

Colonel, USAFR


27 posted on 12/15/2010 9:37:57 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative; Lazamataz
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.

Interesting article:

How Robert Byrd Jr. created the modern filibuster

The major change in Senate rules that made possible the modern filibuster occurred under the leadership of Robert Byrd during his first stint as Majority Leader. Byrd introduced the concept of "dual tracking" under which the Senate could have two or more bills under floor consideration at any one time. Prior to this change, a filibuster ended floor consideration of all other bills until the one being filibustered had been disposed of. No appropriations, no nominations, no unanimous consent agreements, no nothing. All Senate business came to a dead halt during a filibuster, which raised the stakes on the members conducting the filibuster exponentially. The pressure that would be brought to bear if the entire Senate ground to a halt was one of the reasons filibusters were so rare.

Once Byrd changed the rules to allow dual tracking, filibusters became almost pain free. A Senator simply had to announce they intended to filibuster and the Majority Leader would use his dual track authority to move to other business and get around the road block. Over time, most leaders simply did a whip check and declined to schedule a bill if a filibuster was possible..

28 posted on 12/15/2010 9:38:36 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

I dont think they will be dumb enough to do this. When January comes around there will only be 53 of them, 23 of whom are up for re-election in 2012. All they have to do is lose a net of 4 seats, which is highly likely, and the GOP will have 51 votes. Which means that if the rule is changed, the GOP will be in the drivers seat for whatever it wants to do, starting with the following Congress.


29 posted on 12/15/2010 10:32:38 AM PST by freespirited (This tagline dedicated to the memory of John Armor, a/k/a Congressman Billybob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
I dont think they will be dumb enough to do this. When January comes around there will only be 53 of them, 23 of whom are up for re-election in 2012. All they have to do is lose a net of 4 seats, which is highly likely, and the GOP will have 51 votes.

The Dems live for the moment and this has been demonstrated time and again. They don't CARE what things look like down the road because they know that the political pendulum swings, so when it swings toward them, they take the advantage and advance their agenda. Next year, they will still hold the Senate and the Presidency. With us holding the House, this will gum up a lot of legislation, but items such as appointing judges will no longer be filibuster proof if they engage this "reform".
30 posted on 12/15/2010 11:49:39 AM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

True, but this is not the beginning of the session. It is the end. Now, if they attempt to do it at the beginning of the next, then you will have a liberally-permissive Senate but the Congress will shut them down.


31 posted on 12/15/2010 11:56:36 AM PST by Lazamataz (Only 21 days of Democrat fascism left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

Not going to happen. The GOP isn’t going to allow Senate Democrats to run roughshod over the minority. They need 60 votes and won’t even have a super-majority in the next Congress! On what planet are they living on?


32 posted on 12/15/2010 1:32:37 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg
For Democrats, politics is always Calvinball (as in the comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes").

It used to be that a larger number was needed to stop a filibuster--I think it was 2/3. A couple of decades ago, I think, was when it got changed to 60. That meant that the minority party had to have a larger number of seats to stop the majority party from running roughshod over it--as they did between mid-2009 and Feb. 2010 when the Democrats had 60 senators.

33 posted on 12/15/2010 4:27:50 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson