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.
I still believe the filibuster should not apply to judicial nominees.
And the only reason I support, and in fact the only reason that there ARE republican judicial filibusters right now, is because they are fighting back on seats that should have been filled by Bush, but were blocked by filibuster.
This isn’t about judges. This is about legislation. Reid has made it impossible for the minority to file amendments to legislation, so his caucus never has to take a bad vote, or worse, actually give the republicans something because democrats would vote FOR it.
Because he has “filled the amendment tree”, the republicans have filibustered everything in sight. Normally, the filibuster was used for stopping extraordinary things. The democrats started using it as a rule for every bill, and now republicans are returning the favor.
If you look back in time, you’ll find that LOTS of things used to pass the senate with less than 60 votes, because a lot of people who opposed something didn’t feel it rose to the level of filibustering.
The Senate rules weren’t meant to require 60 votes to pass a bill. They were meant for reasonable men to decide that something needed a lot more discussion and consideration, in certain circumstances.
Frankly, the senate could, if they wanted, get rid of the filibuster. They have changed the rule before, and could change it again; the issue is whether the rule itself applies to the vote changing the rule.
And that in the end is a political question. The House clearly disbands every 2 years, and a new House takes its place. And nobody would argue that the new House is bound by the rules set up by the disbanded House.
But the Senate never “disbands” — the whole point of the Senate is that it serves continually, replacing only 1/3 of it’s members every 2 years. So the argument is that the rules exist in perpetuity.
That is what Reid is trying to change. And if he was pushing just to get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations, I get he’d get a few republican votes.
They clearly believe that, if they can pass legislation in the Senate, that can use that legislation, with help from the media, to attack the house, win it back in 2014, and then be free to do whatever they want.
double question. 1. would this prevent the old school style of filibuster where they actually stand and talk? 2. Would we be against a filibuster change where you would actually be forced to filibuster?
Us. It would require great sacrifice. All conservatives should go on a work strike even if it means losing our jobs. Short of taking up arms I can’t think of another way of meaningful protest.
The filibuster is not part of the Constitution. It is entirely up to each Senate to establish its own rules for that session. Within of course the bounds set by the Constitution.
I have no problem with a limitation on the filibuster, either the old or the new version.
Its primary effect in recent years seems to have been to allow the majority to dodge responsibility, claiming its all the fault of that obstructive minority.
But it is egregious for Democrats who proclaimed the sanctity of the institution just a few years ago to now say it should be discarded.
We either have a war of resistance to tyranny, or we all walk ourselves willingly to death camps.
The longer it waits, the bigger the genocide it will be.
And mark my words.... it’s coming.
“They still need 67 votes to change the fillibuster rules, right?”
No. It can be done with 51 votes, through a “parliamentary maneuver” when the Senate is “in session”.
Each incoming Senate can set its own rules. I believe that normally, the incoming Senate just “extends” the rules of the last one. But... Reid may be able to change this rule in January, again through only a 51-vote majority.
Conservatives do but the GOP damned sure doesn't. The party is exactly like coddling, weak-kneed parents appeasing spoiled, whiny, bratty-assed children at every turn. I am sick of the GOP. They are DEAD to me!
Bonehead has the final say in that. With dirty Harry and Zero in his office his pants will it the floor faster than Monica could get under the desk.
No. I think they will be DOA on arrival. Given how bonehead works he’ll come out and say “It’s DOA!” then Reid/Obama will come out against him and he’ll start to buckle..
Then, he’ll look at the bill and cry a bit.
Then he’ll give the bill mouth to mouth and put it up for a vote where he and others in the GOPe will happily vote for it with the democrats.
What is sad is the people of Egypt know what they are seeing is bad and are protesting in mass.
We on the other hand... not so much.
no doubt the military could be a problem in CW2. However, many of them will likely chose a side and turn on their government.
They are after all citizens too.
I'm not advocating passivity, just pointing out that Republicans need this rule change, if they ever want to get substantive changes made in DC.
In the meantime, we tried McConnell and Boehner's He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day approach in 2011, when we gave BO everything he wanted before the 2012 election, and the "fiscal cliff" which he wants to go over, immediately after it. How did that work out?
We lost the Presidency, two Senate seats, and about half of our House majority. McConnell and Boehner need to show that their approach isn't really He who fights and runs away lives to run away another day. It is bad to have a confrontation and pay a political price. It is far worse to capitulate and still pay a political price, which is what happened last time.