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.

[TexasGreg]

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."

[MrB]

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.

[madprof98]

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.

[Soul Seeker]

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.

[jwalsh07]

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.

[Truth is a Weapon]

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

[jagusafr]

The unmitigated hypocrisy is breathtaking, isn’t it?

Colonel, USAFR

[Eagle of Liberty]

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..

[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. 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.

[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.

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".

[Lazamataz]

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.

[goldstategop]

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?

[Verginius Rufus]

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.