Skip to comments.Senator Wants Showdown on Filibuster Reform
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 ...
Typical of the Rats....we don’t like the way the game is played....so we’ll change the rules.....
The risk for the Harry Reid Regime is that there might be a 51-49 Republican majority after the 2012 election.
Josef Stalin couldn't have said it any better.
So what is going to happen when the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2012?
The chutzpah of these people is unbelievable. Astonishing. They only try this stuff because they know their media mouthpieces will go out and bleat the party line like a herd of sheep. The rules they used to tie up the Republican agenda when they were in the minority are now horrible, unfair, illogical, immoral, evil. Baa-aa-aa-aa.
Somebody better tell Udall he will most likely be in the minority in two years.
Apparently, the November 2nd election taught these airhead Elitists nothing. Nothing gets through their arrogance. Millions of We The People calling them 24/7 might cause them some concern. Promising them that we will vote them out in 2012 will also cause them a moment’s pause. Power is all they care about. In my opinion, they have absolutely no moral fiber and no conscience.
How many disastrous judges would the repeal enable Obama to appoint?
Typical tactics by the dems. The filibuster is fine when it benifits the dems. When they are not the majority, all they talk about is minority rights, powersharing and compromise. The republicans had better n.ot let them get away with it...the republicans should filibuster any attept at.changing the rules!
The RATS will howl that it isn't "fair" for the majority to ram legislation through. The sword cuts both ways. Think before you make a bad decision.
What the senate votes on concerning its own rules does not involve the house. As far as passing legislation, you are correct, but the ‘rules’ are an inside game.
Can someone please tell me whether the house has any say if the Senate wants to change its own procedural rules?
If they change the rules, the Republican Senators need not show up, since their presence or absence will make absolutely no difference one way or another.
That’s the probably the intent, anyway.
> Can someone please tell me whether the house has any say
> if the Senate wants to change its own procedural rules?
House has no say whatsoever on Senate rules.
I swear, if the GOP takes both houses and capitulates to the commies and fags, I am done with this. Obama will be correct.
“This is not a Christian Nation”
IIRC only a simple majority is required to change the rules of the Senate.
Excellent post. My first thought exactly.
The state run media will suddenly discover constitutional limits for the dictatorial powers the democrats are today acquiring.