A couple of months ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a traditionalist who's resisted changes to the way the chamber operates, raised some eyebrows when he voiced support for systemic institutional changes. In early June, he was even more forceful on the subject, saying he was "wrong" to resist reforms last year.
Suzy Khimm noted this morning that Reid isn't backing away from this. The Majority Leader told MSNBC's Ed Schultz, "They're filibustering until we have to change the rules. We can't go on like this anymore. I don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but I have to tell you, I want to change the rules and make the filibuster meaningful." It led to this exchange:
SCHULTZ: Would you make that as a commitment if Barack Obama were reelected and the Democrats keep the Senate?
REID: Yes. I don't know how many people watch C-Span on any given day, but I've said so right before everybody there, that's what I would do.
For those of us who believe the Senate is broken and dysfunctional, and that institutional reforms are absolutely critical, this is certainly encouraging.
We don't yet know, however, exactly what kind of reforms Reid has in mind, and the details obviously matter. What's more, if Republicans maintain a majority in the House, reforms might only affect nominations, not bills.
But the more leading officials realize the Senate wasn't designed to work this way, it didn't used to work this way, and it can't work this way, the better.
Leave a Comment:
I'm sure ol Harry has no love even for this liberal lapdog network....
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/04/04/does-harry-reid-have-the-courage-to-boycott-msnbc-over-lawrence-odonnells-bigotry/
Reid has a "gentlemen's" agreement with McConnell not to use the nuclear option to change rules. It's nuts to believe that the GOP won't renege when the terms of the agreement do not favor them just as they did with the Gang of 14 gentlemen's agreement. (Eg: GOP blocking the nomination of David Hamilton in 2009).
Let's be clear here. The reform that Reid tried to get put in place was that a majority vote could shut down a fillibuster. Note that this does not mean that debate is eliminated. It only means that the opposing party cannot extend debate infinitely, and are limited to 30 hours.
Tell your Senator you want Reid to blow away the requirement of a 60 vote supermajority for approval of legislation or Presidential nominees (including Supreme court justices).
I would favor something between 52 to 55 to stop a filibuster. Or a majority of those voting plus a few.
For now, 2 less than the number of Democratic Senators. Or a majority of those voting that day.
If the Repubs become more reasonable sometime in the future, increase it a little, more like 55.
It should only take 50 to halt a filibuster - the VP is the tie breaker in the senate.
30 hours is plenty of time to discuss any analysis for any bill that is elevated by committee to general vote on the floor.
Once 50 people have heard enough discussion to achieve a majority, then it is time to halt the discussion.
The only reason to carry on any discussion after that is to halt progress on anything else.
BTW-my handle is supposed to be-- liberalbutsane -- my laptop is getting old.
Do I have it wrong. Seems to me that all Repub Senators and many Democratic Senators do NOT listen to anything the other side says during the 30 hrs. of debate.
Why even spend that time debating?
As to why have a small super majority required to stop a filibuster? Because sometimes the filibuster did work to slow down electoral landslide induced rushes to enact dumb or divisive laws.
I would do one or both of the following two things:
First, turn the requirement around. To maintain a filibuster you have to be able to generate a minimum number of votes, (say the lesser of 25 or 1/3 of those senators present).
Second, require that those filibustering _ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER_. No more of this pretend filibuster, you want to hold things up? Bring a good long book to read from.
If they just went back to the rule that they had to stand there at the podium and talk to filibuster that would be a tremendous help. Now they either just threaten it or call it and then go do whatever the heck they do in their free time.
Yes. I'd love to see the old diaper-and-phonebook filibusters of legend! Especially now with YouTube. I had written elsewhere that you would have a million hits on a clip showing a close-up an old man's face as he pauses a little in the middle of reading from the Bible, clearly urinating into his Attends.
They can leave the rule at 60 senators, but require 75% of the senators supporting the filibuster to be present on the senate floor while it continues. The entire leadership of the party primarily supporting the filibuster must be present on the senate floor 95% of every day or portion thereof that the filibuster continues. As part of the rule, the podium must be continuously occupied by a speaker designated by the filibustering senators. The non-filibustering senators should not be required to be on the floor during the filibuster. Cloture votes would be required at say 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. every day.
Bout time Harry! Show US you have a spine! Go ahead, I double dog dare ya!
Is it November yet!
Seeing as how the procedural filibuster was itself an attempt at reform, it is hard to be optimistic about what happens from here. Except for fox news going crazy with this story. But that's a given.
Filibusters and holds should be abolished outright. They thwart the democratic process by allowing a minority to hold the government hostage. Senate rules can be adjusted to allow for longer debate times on bills and nominations. Abolishing is clean and easy without tying rules and procedures in knots.
Agreed. There is much to be said for simplicity.
Harry Reid a spine..lol..thats precious....he'll get a spine when Pelosi makes sense when she opens her yap. Wonder if she has read the healthcare bill yet, now thats its passed.
WARNING!!
Seriously stupid troll above. Proceed with caution.
Humor is the best medicine eh timmy? Thanks for the laugh.
Trolling...thats your best?....lol,precious...really
Better than deriving your moniker from a South Park character.
I really hope the Democrats win and institute these filibuster reforms.
But one of the worst things, to my mind, has been the ability of a single senator to block exceptionally qualified nominees to offices requiring Senate consent. Either get rid of those Polish Sejm-like holds (where a single negative vote blocked a law or action), or take more and more presidential appointments out of the register where they need 'consent' of the Senate.
Make the whole Senate give up power if these few nasty individual little dictators won't give up theirs.
Knowing how the Democratic party works, the filibuster rules will be changed just in time for Republicans to do whatever they want, (once they regain the majority in the Senate and Romney is elected), without having to worry about Democrats stopping them with, yes, you guessed it, the filibuster. Win the battle, lose the war.
Yep, just in time to destroy the 20th century. You have to be anxious about this with the Republicans showing no compunction against over-the-top meanness.
Harry Reid as leader of Senate Democrats rushes in to keep the knife stuck in the middle class from being twisted too much is the most you'll ever get out of Harry Reid. Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, knows all about the ACA and we know about her word when she promised absolutely to not vote for the ACA without single-payer. These are the feckless leaders of the Dems who only fight when backed up to the edge of a cliff where their only suffering is watching the middle class fall over that cliff.
I think that should have happened years ago, when the graph goes up to triple the number of filibusters. Not really caring which party uses it, but the Republicans have really gone and tried to bring all government to a stop.
He'll get senate reform the first day of the next session if the republicans win control in November. You can bet your boots that there will be no democratic party filibusters if the republicans win. Reid is about 3 years too late to do his party any good, which means to do the people of the U.S. any good.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see something is very wrong. Just look at the graph.
I think to my self how sad it is in that community where over a hundred people will be loosing their livelihoods, so BAINE (intentional misspelling) will be able to make a buck or two for Mitt"s next taxable year. There are not words to express my loathing of a guy who measures his material wealth over as many broken hearts and struggling workers as mitt romney has over his life as a capitalist. This is a man who when he was in High School in a private academy cut a classmates hair with a gang of his crony buddies holding the poor kid down, just because they thought he was queer. This guy (romney) cant say he has changed a whole lot, he is still taking advantage of people now in more socially acceptable ways, socially acceptable in this capitalist economy.
Opps...lol
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/18/picket-obama-bundler-bain-opens-obama-camp-more-cr/