Posted on 01/02/2011 10:39:21 AM PST by neverdem
WE all have hopes for the New Year. Here’s one of mine: filibuster reform. It was around this time 36 years ago — during a different recession — that I was part of a bipartisan effort to reform Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule. At the time, 67 votes were needed to cut off debate and thus end a filibuster, and nothing was getting done. After long negotiations, a compromise lowered to 60 the cloture vote requirement on legislation and nominations. We hoped this moderate change would preserve debate and deliberation while avoiding paralysis, and for a while it did.
But it’s now clear that our reform was insufficient for today’s more partisan, increasingly gridlocked Senate. In 2011, senators should pull back the curtain on Senate obstruction and once again amend the filibuster rules.
Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency — like eliminating the secret “holds” that allow senators to block debate anonymously.
Our country faces major challenges — budget deficits, high unemployment and two wars, to name just a few — and needs a functioning legislative branch to address these pressing issues...
--snip--
Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, has said that in a few days, at the beginning of the 112th Congress, he will call on the Senate to exercise its constitutional right to change its rules of procedure, including Rule 22, by a simple majority vote. I wholeheartedly support his effort and encourage both Democrats and Republicans to cooperate with him. The filibuster need not be eliminated, but it must no longer be so easy to use.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When Congress does NOTHING the American people win!
It is up to this Congress to set things back to 2008, then leave things ALONE!
When the Dems roll out someone like Walter Mondull to carry the water on the latest Dem talking point, you can be sure that Harry Reid’s plan to challenge the cloture rule is no bluff.
So, what exactly are the mechanics for getting this done? How does Reid intend to get a rule change through and how can it be stopped? Its been tried before without success, so I’m curious to know how it might happen this time around.
Dear Lizard-lids:
Besides Minnesota and DC, no one cares what you think.
Infectionately, td
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html
Wow, they really are going to try and jam this through at the last minute. It’s too late for the tar and feathers.
This is probably the first time in my life I have agreed with Walter Mon-dull on anything...
I DO believe that filibusters should NOT Be allowed on confirmations of judges. The constitution says the need to be confirmed, and it DOESN’T say by a “super-majority”...
It would completely suck to have the rule changed NOW, when a radical like Zero is doing the appointing. But, as Reagan used to say, “if not now, when?”.
In the long run, changing the rule will HELP conservatism.
Just another example that liberals demonstrate they would make great dictators....changing the rules to suit their ends because the public do not vote for enough of them.
By all means, fix it. Put it back to 67.
Walter F. MonDULL _is_ a chump. Why should we listen to this clueless dolt who lost EVERY STATE except his own to Ronaldus Magnus?
Sounds like heaven.
I agree that holds should not be done anonymously. Stand up for your convictions.
Let them change the rules. We’ll end the culture wars entirely within the decade.
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.