In Senate, a quiet death for filibuster 'reform' [Left loses again]

Washington Examiner (newspaper) ^ | Byron York

[RatherBiased.com]

The Democrats' anti-filibuster wing, led by Sen. Tom Udall, tried to muster support for the effort to kill, or at least substantially weaken, the filibuster. Udall wasn't, of course, trying to persuade Republicans to go along; all GOP senators opposed the idea. Rather, Udall and his allies were trying -- and, it turns out, failing -- to convince 51 Democrats to put an end to the filibuster. By Tuesday, it was clear they had failed. After the State of the Union, Reid adjourned the Senate, and the 22-day "first day" was over.

The filibuster was untouched; nothing has been done to it. "Literally nothing," says a Republican Hill source.

That doesn't mean there might not be some changes in other areas in coming weeks and months. "We'll have potential to make some changes on secret holds -- a tweak to secret holds, not eliminate them," the source says. "And we're probably going to do something on nominations, reducing the number of positions that require Senate confirmation. But nothing on cloture motions and filibusters."

[Lurker]

reducing the number of positions that require Senate confirmation.

Great. More unconfirmed 'czars'. Morons, the lot of them.

[Carley]

LOLOL......oh we never thought they would filibuster the filibuster reform.

Nice to know that our side has gotten some Palin/Bachmann at last.

[Lazamataz]

THANK GOD.

Taver will likely not be appointed the BATF Head, nor will a slew of Marxist judges be appointed.

[kittymyrib]

With 23 Dem Senate seats up next year compared to 10 for the GOP, even stupid Dems should see the hazards involved in rewriting the rules for minority members.

[JPG]

“Drat, foiled again.” - Harry Reid

[backwoods-engineer]

Hooray, the Left loses another one.

[therightliveswithus]

The Dems seem to be never serious

[backwoods-engineer]

They should have confirmed Traver in the lame duck, if they wanted the gun-grabbing jack-booted thug. Now he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.

[K-Stater]

Udall wasn't, of course, trying to persuade Republicans to go along; all GOP senators opposed the idea.

I have a sneaking suspicion that come 2012 when the GOP has a majority in the Senate and the Democrats are filibustering everything in sight then GOP opposition to the change will disappear and Democratic opposition will magically appear.

[GonzoGOP]

With 23 Dem Senate seats up next year compared to 10 for the GOP, even stupid Dems should see the hazards involved in rewriting the rules for minority members.

BINGO. And of the 23 Dem seats up for grabs many of them are in states that Bush won in 2004. The dems are going to have to defend seats red states like Montana, Nebraska, Missouri, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, Virgina and West Virginia. Also states like Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania are not as blue as they once were. Heck if you take governors races as a bellwether New Jersey isn't even a safe seat for a dem any more. Only Scott Brown in Massachusetts is a seat that the GOP is going to have trouble holding. The odds of us having a net pickup of the 4 seats we need are fairly good.

[ScottinVA]

Filibuster reform will be fine... at the beginning of 2013, when the dems lose majority status in the Senate. It would have to be renewed every year after that.

[Outlaw Woman]

That, not the filibuster, is the critical part of that article. It is their constitutional obligation to vet appointments, and now they’re going to give that up?

[mrsmith]

The deal:

“Page S263
Rules Change Resolutions—Agreement: A unanimous-consent-time agreement
was reached providing that at a time to be determined by the Majority
Leader after consultation with the Republican Leader, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the following resolutions, en bloc: A
Wyden-Grassley-McCaskill resolution relative to ``secret holds’’ which
is at the desk; A Udall (CO) resolution regarding waiving the reading
of an amendment, which is at the desk; S. Res. 8 (Harkin); S. Res. 10
(Udall (NM)) with a substitute amendment which is at the desk; and S.
Res. 21 (Merkley) with a substitute amendment which is at the desk;
that there be up to 8 hours of debate equally divided between the two
Leaders, or their designees, for the purpose of debating these
resolutions concurrently; that upon the use or yielding back of time,
the substitute amendment to S. Res. 10 be agreed to and the substitute
amendment to S. Res. 21 be agreed to; the Senate then vote on or in
relation to the resolutions in the order listed above, with no
intervening action or debate; that the following resolutions be subject
to a 60 vote threshold for adoption: Wyden-Grassley-McCaskill
resolution; and Udall (CO) resolution; that the following remaining
resolutions be subject to a threshold of two-thirds of those voting for
adoption: S. Res. 8; S. Res. 10, as amended; and S. Res. 21, as
amended; that there be no amendments, motions, or points of order in
order to any of these resolution prior to the vote on or in relation to
the resolution, except for the substitute amendments to S. Res. 10 and
S. Res. 21, listed above; provided further, that if a resolution fails
to achieve the listed threshold for adoption, it be returned to its
previous status.
“

Looks OK but it’s suspicious that some (S. Res. 8; S. Res. 10, as amended; and S. Res. 21, as amended) are only subject to a 2/3 of those voting threshold instead of a 60 vote threshold!

[CPT Clay]

yea

[OrangeHoof]

Reid adjourned the Senate, and the 22-day "first day" was over.

Isn't it amazing how politicians (lawyers, most of them) are unwilling to be bound to simple concepts like time or money?

Sort of like "deem and pass". They just make up the rules as they go along.

[CPT Clay]

Net pick up of 10 is not out of the question.

[GonzoGOP]

Net pick up of 10 is not out of the question.

If there is one thing 2010 taught me is that even in a Tsunami year it is hard to take out an incumbent dem. We will get a freebie in North Dakota but we are going to have to bust our rear ends to pick up the rest. The big point is that unless the GOP totally screws up and runs a McCain or Romney that splits the party we should be able to pick up 5 of those ten.

I can't picture an environment where we could pick up all 10 and not pick up the Presidency and hold the House. The only way the dems could hold the Senate is to let their red state dems run away from Obama for the next two years. And they don't have the margin any more to do that.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Forcing game-changing legislation to have to put together 61 votes in the Senate - that combined with the slow turnover of the senate (1/3 of the seats up every 2 years) does provide a cooling saucer as the founding fathers famously said to cool the passions of the lower house. Said another way, I think the filibuster is, on balance, a good thing.

However - this “secret hold” stuff - whereby 1 senator can blackball a nominee and to do so in private - I can’t see where this is a good idea. If memory serves people like Dodd used this to stymie Bush from appointing various people who had strong anti-commie credentials going all the way back to Nicaragua and the contras.

Forcing 61 senators to vote publicly for a major piece of legislation is a good thing. Allowing 1 senator to carry out a secret agenda in private that prevents a president from appointing the people that he needs do discharge his constitutional responsibilities - I can’t see how that is a good thing.

[catnipman]

It was the Rats that wouldn’t go along. And it’s because they know they’ll be in the minority in two years, and then the filibuster will work to their advantage.

That’s what the cloture rule is all about: making sure a temporary majority doesn’t steamroll the temporary minority, Without it, essentially all important legislation would be reversed, and then re-reversed ad nauseum as the temp majorities and temp minorities oscillated back and forth over the years. Fortunately, there are enough adults in the Senate, including quite a few adult Rats apparently, to still realize the importance of this rule.