Skip to comments.Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January
Posted on 12/05/2012 10:37:25 AM PST by pabianice
WASHINGTON -- Keeping with his post-election pledge to reform the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday proffered that changes to the rules of the upper chamber will be made, leaving it up to Republicans if they would like to participate.
"There are discussions going on now [over filibuster reform], but I want to tell everybody here. I'm happy I've had a number of Republicans come to me, a few Democrats, Reid told reporters Tuesday at his weekly press availability. We're going to change the rules. We cannot continue in this way. I hope we can get something that the Republicans will work with us on.
But it won't be a handshake, he added. We tried that last time. It didn't work.
Harry Reid was against the filibuster rule change before coming out for it. In 2005, when Republicans threatened to change the rules to weaken Senate Democrats, Reid was a vocal opponent.
For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American, said Reid in 2005, in response to Republicans wanting to change the rules. The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You cant do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you cant do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.
The Nuclear Option. No Gang of 16 this time
I don't know about Conservatives; there have never seemed to be many in the Senate. The GOP tends to push them out and weaken them the best it can. As for the GOP, they build their own no win scenarios and lock themselves into them.
Until I see Reps. and Senators start showing some spine, start arguing with passion, getting argumentative, being rude, and etc... they’re doing nothing in my eyes.
If the argument is that an attacking style of leadership by the Right will draw voters away... I’d say it will do the exact opposite.
They still need 67 votes to change the fillibuster rules, right?
THAT is precisely why they are going to do it and get away with it. The MSM will look the other way. At some point in time, the Republicans will be in the majority and then the Dems will squeal like the stuck pigs that they are........................
This will happen, the rules will change so that the dems will be able to break a fillibuster with a partisan vote...and the gop will help them do it.
HOORAY for leadership!
We have fought for nothing.
Welcome to tyranny.
The damocrats will ignore the Constitution, any law and any rule that gets in the way of turning this country into a socialist nation of takers.
Nope. I do not think that they do.
We are screwed. If the pubs can’t filibuster Obama’s judges it’s game over.
Is there a peaceful way a civil war could happen? Communism is rapidly closing in and we will be a complete dictatorship in a few years. Remember those like Reid that is part of the conversion and when we get back charge those communists with treason.
Wake up. We have been in a cold civil war for years. What else can you call what the democrats have been doing?
I am afraid someone just lit the stove though.
If the rules were changed permanently I wouldn’t mind. But what gets me is I KNOW when Republicans regain the majority in the Senate Reid will demand the filibuster be restored and he will get his way.
Democrats NEVER have to play by the rules Republicans are forced into.
The GOP can shut the Senate down and Sen Sessions has already said the GOP was prepared to do so.
When the democrats are in charge they use smash-mouth thug tactics.
When we are in power it's a draw. When they are in power it's a rout.
I suspect this time they are going for the final victory. They are emboldened by the fact that every encroachment has only been met with whining and wringing of hands.
Now with a new term and the wind at their backs is the time to stop inching along and go for the full socialist paradise. They have the president and the senate, the house is bickering internally, and the supreme court is in play.
No, that's the point.The Senate is Constitutionally authorized to make parliamentary rules for it's self. Filibuster is a parliamentary rule that governs how proposed legislation (Bills) will be debated in the Senate.
Changing the rule is not proposed legislation, it is a rule subject to a majority vote to change or eliminate it.
They pay the organizers off to declare their side the winner then throw as few punches as possible because the fix is in anyway.
Something has to be done, come hell or high water as they say.
NO. Reid says he'll do it with a simple majority. It's done. Boehner has said once Reid does this, all Senate bills that arrive at the House are DOA. But knowing the gutless Boehner, he'll cave on that, too. In the next four years we get to experience the fall of Rome here at home.
Au contraire. Every session of Congress establishes the rules under which it will operate. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this requiring anything other than a simple majority.
Is what they are planning outrageous, given their objections when they were in the minority?
Sure, but it's neither illegal not unconstitutional.
Thanks for some accurate information.
Sometimes it’s awfully scarce around here.
In the absence of the filibuster, are there any tools the Repubs can use to block consent of presidential appointments? And if so, how soon do the families of Repubs have their lives threatened by Obama’s gangsters?
“The GOP can shut the Senate down and Sen Sessions has already said the GOP was prepared to do so.”
If Harry Reid and the DemoQuacks change the filibuster rules then the GOP should shut the Senate and the House down until the rule of law and order is restored.
Harry Reid is acting like that nut job Morsi over in Egypt . . . the Dems want to run the USA like they’re pharaohs
Well, Boehner has said any bills passed by the filibuster-changed Senate are DOA.
Not that this matters to the Obamugabe Cult. It will proceed unabated and unchallenged by the media to destroy liberty, the Constitution, capitalism and Christianity at every possible opportunity.
Just why are the loser repubs so feckless??? Do they want to be invited to Georgetown cocktail parties sooooo badly?????
There will be no purpose for the Senate to exist as a body. Originally it represented the state interests in opposition to the wants of the People. Folks could affect the composition of the Senate by selecting alternate local legislators, where they had more power. The House decides for the People by simple majority. If the Senate amends its structure to mimic the HoR, there is no distinction between the two bodies. The constitutional powers delegated to the states should be given to the HoR and the Senate disbanded.
Definitely have to give the “D’s” credit.
They not only know how to play the game, they play it with vengeance and take no prisoners.
As noted in the article Reid had already been against this.
If, by some divine intervention and a miracle to top changing water into wine, the R’s WIN in 2014 and take over the Senate, one of the LAST things D’s will do is REVERSE this particular rule - AFTER passing every piece of trash bill that is pending.
THAT, sorrowfully, is the way the R’s are going to have to start playing the game.
This passiveness just makes them look weak and US foolish for allowing them to ‘represent’ us....
It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. The Republican high mark in the last century was 59 in 1920 That was over 60% of the then 96 seats in the Senate. Thanks to losing seats three cycles in a row, the Republicans only hold 8 seats in the Senate "class" that was just elected, and the Democrats hold 25. Which means the Democrats hold just 30 seats of the 67 seats up the the next two general elections. Do you think that the Republicans are going to defend 37 seats in those two elections, and pick up a net of 15, giving them 60 seats? Me either.
So to have any shot at all of passing big legislation, if the Republicans somehow win the Presidency, Senate and House in 2016, the filibuster rule has to be changed. Do you think that "Majority Leader" Mitch McConnell is going to change the filibuster rule, with the Democrats and press yelling and screaming? Me either.
So we need Harry Reid to do it for us. The downside will be bad, but the upside could save the Country.
This commie pig will change the “filibuster reform” back when it suits him and his commie ‘RAT pals. Reid is a disgrace. He is not an American. He’s a commie pig. Americans have lost control of their government.
Bump for later digestion
That took a few hundred years. Our fall will be quicker and it's underway. However there will be some ups and downs, but the ups will be false starts (just an opportunity for the Repubs to slow down the fall a little bit, but not change direction). I'd give us another 50 years, but with greatly reduced influence in the world.
“Is there a peaceful way a civil war could happen?”
No. There will be a second civil war and it will be bloody. I hope I’ve died before it starts because it will break my heart in a way it’s never been broken, to have to see fighting on our soil.
But, I know what the sides are going to be and I know who’s going to win, so there’s that. Tyrannical sons of bitches like Reid are going to end up having some very bad days, indeed.
Even if we had the seats and the filibuster override it will never happen. The changes go against too many special interests that senators (especially) are beholden to and they will never vote to cut their power. The only thing that will fix this mess is default and reset.
>>The GOP can shut the Senate down
>> >>How, exactly?
The House can refuse to sign any funding bills, and shut the government down. Refuse to raise the debt limit, refuse to pass any funding measures, refuse to pass any fiscal cliff resolutions . . . until there is a reassurance NOW that there will be NO changes to effect minority filibuster rights the House must cut off the funding spigot which supports the Senate.
That's because the media, academics, and the entertainment industry have their backs. If Republican’s acted the way they do they'd label them Nazi's and say they are trying to kill grandma or babies. Look at the way they labeled Romney as anti-woman.
What's required is a viciously vigorous response and putdown of each and every criticism and false accusation these jerks make. Liberals were able, through their popularization of the term ‘McCarthyism’, to put all concerns about communist/socialist influence in a fluff/dismissive category. We need to label all of their ‘Republicans are coming after women and grandma's social security’ crap the same way, so that people automatically dismiss it out of hand. This can be done.
Judge's and Treaties are the only reason Dingy Reid would do this. With a Republican House, no legislation is going anywhere. Absent the filibuster, we could end up with Van Jones on the Supreme Court and a UN Treaty banning firearms.
I also suspect Reid is willing to do this now because he knows he isn't going to run again.
Question is, will he find 51 votes?
Well some have said they would like the dems to implement all they have so the country crashes and the dems are blamed. So this rule change would help with that. However the country is so big and resilent I don’t think it will fail fast enough for voters to learn cause / effect. Who knows? Plus as others mentioned the dems will use this to install marxist judges / justices. So we are screwed. I don’t even see any side benefits to this.
It’s kind of weird for me, but I’m to the point I’m no longer pissed off at this type of crap... just sad for the passing of America.
It’s over.... America as we knew her is dead.
>Is there a peaceful way a civil war could happen?
I do not believe so. Generally these are the bloodiest types
Better pray we don’t have one.
Easily. They're democrats, and for them the party is First and Foremost in their lives. Some will express a few misgivings, but they'll be whipped into shape. This is going to happen.
No, there won't be. There may be some scattered violent activity, but a general mobilization into a CW isn't going to happen. The other side has all the weaponry, and will be quite willing to use it to get the attention of the populace.
. If Republicans acted the way they do they’d label them Nazi’s
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Right, this basically started with Bush I.
‘They’ started the starve the children, grandparents eating dog food etc and the ONLY response - after much probing and saying GET off your arse and defend yourself - did the administration say
“The American people are to intelligent to believe this trash and I refuse to dignify it”.
They didn’t realize that enough American people DID believe this garbage because they were getting it force fed to them on the evening news and late night talk shows....also the daytime ‘loser’ shows.
AND we never really picked up on anything - a result being GORE lost by a whisker and Kerry was way to close - granted ‘we’ didn’t have a strong candidate BUT when the R’s...read the 3 women R’s running for Senate in 2010 were abandoned by the ‘party’, allowing Reid to maintain control, a lying sac ‘o $hiite wins in CT (MA this year) and a long time loser in Delaware.
Rove virtually openly campaigned against these women, if not by insult etc, by neglecting to say anything...
In retrospect, Palin could have handled her situation a little more gracefully - 1st, by ‘setting a precedent’ and stepping down as Governor to enable her to campaign full time, then when the VEEP didn’t pan out, she should have run for Senator in Alaska - unless of course she didn’t really ‘feel the love’ of enough constituents to win a supposedly winnable race.