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

Skip to comments.

Senator Wants Showdown on Filibuster Reform
ABC News ^ | Dec. 31, 2010 | STEVEN PORTNOY

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: democrats; filibuster; filibusters; nuclear; rules; senate; udall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2010 10:46:47 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Typical of the Rats....we don’t like the way the game is played....so we’ll change the rules.....


2 posted on 12/31/2010 10:49:27 AM PST by illiac (If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The risk for the Harry Reid Regime is that there might be a 51-49 Republican majority after the 2012 election.


3 posted on 12/31/2010 10:49:52 AM PST by FormerACLUmember (Character is defined by how we treat those who society says have no value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Let them do it , anything the leftists pass in the Senate is dead on arrival in the new tea flavored House of Rep. Then when the republicans pick up the majority in the Senate in 2012 , we can use their new rules to cram through repeals and our Tea Flavored legislation!


4 posted on 12/31/2010 10:50:24 AM PST by RED SOUTH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"We don't want to give the minority the ability to block the majority from governing,"

Josef Stalin couldn't have said it any better.

5 posted on 12/31/2010 10:51:29 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("The Dems have a 'war room' for everything but war..." - Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So what is going to happen when the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2012?


6 posted on 12/31/2010 10:52:12 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

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.


7 posted on 12/31/2010 10:52:34 AM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Somebody better tell Udall he will most likely be in the minority in two years.


8 posted on 12/31/2010 10:53:26 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

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.


9 posted on 12/31/2010 10:53:31 AM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

How many disastrous judges would the repeal enable Obama to appoint?


10 posted on 12/31/2010 10:53:55 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

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!


11 posted on 12/31/2010 10:54:45 AM PST by alienken (2010 is done. now looking forward to 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
So what is going to happen when the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2012?

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.

12 posted on 12/31/2010 10:54:46 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

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.


13 posted on 12/31/2010 10:55:23 AM PST by JPG (YES SHE CAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH
Let them do it , anything the leftists pass in the Senate is dead on arrival in the new tea flavored House of Rep.

Can someone please tell me whether the house has any say if the Senate wants to change its own procedural rules?

14 posted on 12/31/2010 10:56:46 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

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.


15 posted on 12/31/2010 10:57:47 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

> 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.


16 posted on 12/31/2010 10:58:23 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

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”


17 posted on 12/31/2010 10:58:33 AM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alienken
The republicans had better n.ot let them get away with it...the republicans should filibuster any attept at.changing the rules!

IIRC only a simple majority is required to change the rules of the Senate.

18 posted on 12/31/2010 10:58:47 AM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Excellent post. My first thought exactly.


19 posted on 12/31/2010 11:00:18 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
So what is going to happen when the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2012?

The state run media will suddenly discover constitutional limits for the dictatorial powers the democrats are today acquiring.

20 posted on 12/31/2010 11:00:24 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Treason to America process of Governance, nothing less.

The Democrat Party can not win to enact their legal agenda based on the long standing practices of our Government so now they demand to change the rules since they lost the election.

This is so Chavez, and will do nothing but propel America down the road to becoming a tinpot dictatorship.

Are they really so stupid on the Left as to not think about the idea that the GOP will just use these same devices back on them?

Seriously?


21 posted on 12/31/2010 11:00:59 AM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I’d support both these rules changes. Back when we had the senate I thought it was a scam that dems could ‘filibuster’ a bill just by threat. If they’d actually had to ‘work’ for that filibuster, it would have been much more selectively used. OTOH, needing a 3/5ths supermajority to pass legislation isn’t really all that bad. It shouldn’t be easy to pass a bill.


22 posted on 12/31/2010 11:01:05 AM PST by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

You have that exactly right!


23 posted on 12/31/2010 11:02:16 AM PST by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

I’d say the “risk” is more 59 to 41 after the 2012 elections. Reid will be gone as the Majority Senate leader. The Dems could likely lose 12 of 23 senate races of Dems up for election


24 posted on 12/31/2010 11:03:37 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Udall also wants to eliminate so-called "anonymous holds" that allow any senator to issue a silent objection, freezing a bill or nomination.

I'd agree with that. Let the light shine in!

25 posted on 12/31/2010 11:05:11 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Sounds Like The Tyranny of the Majority that the RATS have complained about for years


26 posted on 12/31/2010 11:08:56 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
It's amusing the way this kind of horse manure turns up in "mainstream" Democrat news stories whenever the Republicans take control (or threaten to take control) of a chamber of congress. These stories can usually be found right alongside the Democrat newspapers' pleas for "civility" and "bipartisanship" and "compromise".

Also, look for more stories about "the homeless", coming soon to a Democrat newspaper near you... although the chic propaganda meme of the day seems to be tear-jerker stories about illegal aliens.

27 posted on 12/31/2010 11:11:35 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"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.

Fine. Abolish the filibuster. But do it like Obamacare and make it effective as of 2013.

The Democrats know that the Republican controlled House can block any more socialist power grabs. This is all about Senate confirmation of appointments, particularly judicial appointments.

Any judges that Obama pushes through the Senate during the next two years will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.

28 posted on 12/31/2010 11:11:59 AM PST by kennedy (I am a Kennedy. Where do I go to claim my Senate seat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorgau

The dems are far smarter than most people on this thread. The repubs cannot possibly benefit from this move. Dems will change the rules back in the next lame duck session if they lose to the repubs. Don’t you learn anything from them?


29 posted on 12/31/2010 11:13:58 AM PST by balls (Government workers have plundered our wealth. Demand reparations!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

“How many disastrous judges would the repeal enable Obama to appoint?”
That is a posibility but there are a few Dem Senators that will not want their yes vote to be tied to a Leftist Judge come 2012.


30 posted on 12/31/2010 11:17:19 AM PST by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
TexasRedeye wrote:
IIRC only a simple majority is required to change the rules of the Senate.
Actually, there are places where a filibuster could be mounted. The Dems are hoping to break that with procedural votes and "rulings" from "the leadership" including the Senate President (Biden) and the majority leader (Reid).

It's not 100% certain that they'll be able to make these changes.

Also, not all of the proposed changes are that horrible. I do think that there have been abuses of the filibuster lately (from 2000 onward, by both parties). It's too easy under current rules. It doesn't require either strong principles or stamina to mount an actual filibuster. It's been reduced to a calendar move. I'm not sure that's for the best.

Making someone(s) actually stand up there and talk would be a positive in my opinion.

Here's an article and some replies from this morning on this topic. It includes (when you click through to the article) an outline of how Udall thinks he can proceed on this.

The Senate's Long, Twisted, Bumpy Road To Filibuster Reform

31 posted on 12/31/2010 11:19:29 AM PST by cc2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Governing as it suits them. They didn’t have a problem for the last 6 years, though, did they? Bat-turds.


32 posted on 12/31/2010 11:20:27 AM PST by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

Correct. Look at what McCain and his foolish gang of 14 have cost this nation.


33 posted on 12/31/2010 11:21:13 AM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"These filibusters have delayed things. They have obstructed the ability of the Senate to do its job."

Now that's funny. This is exactly their intended function.

I'd like to point out that the filibuster is totally non-constitutional. It is customary only, and a simple majority, the standard actually in the Constitution for the passing of rules, should be able to change it. A past Senate does not have the constitutional power to impose rules on the present Senate. IMO.

34 posted on 12/31/2010 11:23:43 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

When R’s even thought about this for one supreme court nominee, the press immediately labeled it the nuclear option. Now a rat tries the same thing for all legislation—everything—and the crickets are chirping.


35 posted on 12/31/2010 11:26:33 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

house pubbies should inform Reid that any Senate bill that proceeds with less than 60 votes for cloture is DOA in the house.


36 posted on 12/31/2010 11:28:06 AM PST by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

I agree with you completely. I think the rule change plays into our hands in the long run. Besides, on principle I don’t have a problem with the pure talking filibuster, nor with the idea of requireing Senators to put their name on the record for any holds they place.


37 posted on 12/31/2010 11:35:13 AM PST by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MCF

I hope you’re right. If Obama’s poll numbers continue to slide, perhaps Dems will be emboldened to oppose him. They certainly haven’t done so up to now.


38 posted on 12/31/2010 11:41:36 AM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: balls

“Dems will change the rules back in the next lame duck session if they lose to the repubs. “

So what? If they lose the house and try to change the rules back, the Repubs (the new majority) can set it back the first day of 2013.


39 posted on 12/31/2010 11:54:18 AM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nuc 1.1
Evidence the problem is not just DEMS, Senate Republican Turncoats
Senate Republican Voting Yea in Lame Duck Session
Bill S.510 FDA Food DADT Repeal START Treaty HR3082 Budget
Alexander (R-TN) Yea Yea Yea
Barrasso (R-WY) Yea
Bennett (R-UT) Yea Yea
Brown (R-MA) Yea Yea Yea Yea
Bunning (R-KY) Yea
Burr (R-NC) Yea Yea
Cochran (R-MS) Yea Yea
Collins (R-ME) Yea Yea Yea Yea
Corker (R-TN) Yea Yea
Ensign (R-NV) Yea Yea
Enzi (R-WY) Yea Yea
Grassley (R-IA) Yea Yea
Gregg (R-NH) Yea Yea
Hutchison (R-TX) Yea
Isakson (R-GA) Yea
Johanns (R-NE) Yea Yea Yea
Kirk (R-IL) Yea Yea Yea
Kyl (R-AZ) Yea
LeMieux (R-FL) Yea
Lugar (R-IN) Yea Yea Yea
McConnell (R-KY) Yea
Murkowski (R-AK) Yea Yea Yea Yea
Roberts (R-KS) Yea
Sessions (R-AL) Yea
Shelby (R-AL) Yea
Snowe (R-ME) Yea Yea Yea Yea
Thune (R-SD) Yea
Vitter (R-LA) Yea
Voinovich (R-OH) Yea Yea Yea Yea
Not Voting
Bond (R-MO) Not voting Not voting Not voting
Brownback (R-KS) Not voting Not voting Not voting
Bunning (R-KY) Not voting Not voting
Gregg (R-NH) Not voting Not voting
Hatch (R-UT) Not voting

40 posted on 12/31/2010 12:04:08 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

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.


41 posted on 12/31/2010 12:17:49 PM PST by balls (Government workers have plundered our wealth. Demand reparations!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

Don’t be too sure....what if they put the dream act up for a vote again under this new rule?


42 posted on 12/31/2010 12:26:19 PM PST by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

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.


43 posted on 12/31/2010 12:43:57 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Udall also wants to eliminate so-called "anonymous holds" that allow any senator to issue a silent objection, freezing a bill or nomination.

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.

44 posted on 12/31/2010 12:46:49 PM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

We oughta be able to rout a lot of RINOS in the primary.


45 posted on 12/31/2010 12:58:05 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

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


46 posted on 12/31/2010 1:08:17 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be ustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH
Let them do it , anything the leftists pass in the Senate is dead on arrival in the new tea flavored House of Rep.

Bad idea since the House has nothing to do with judicial nominations.

47 posted on 12/31/2010 1:38:31 PM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
How many disastrous judges would the repeal enable Obama to appoint?

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.

48 posted on 12/31/2010 3:39:30 PM PST by itsahoot (We the people, allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: R0CK3T
Are they really so stupid on the Left as to not think about the idea that the GOP will just use these same devices back on them?

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?

49 posted on 12/31/2010 3:42:46 PM PST by itsahoot (We the people, allowed Republican leadership to get us here, only God's Grace can get us out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
The filibuster of judges is strictly a Democrat invention, so it will help us.
50 posted on 12/31/2010 3:46:06 PM PST by HenpeckedCon (What pi$$es me off the most is that POS commie will get a State Funeral!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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