For proponents of filibuster reform, today, Jan. 22, was a day circled on the calendar. As the Senate returns to session today, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was set to announce a way forward on improving the way the dysfunctional chamber operates.
Would he pursue bold reforms? Would Reid rely on the "constitutional option"? Would he back down? We're going to find out -- but it probably won't be today. The Majority Leader's office issued a lengthy statement about the upcoming session, and towards the end, pointed to a delayed decision on proposed reforms.
Because this matter warrants additional debate, today we will follow the precedents set in 2005 and again in 2011. We will reserve the right of all Senators to propose changes to the Senate rules. And we will explicitly not acquiesce in the carrying over of all the rules from the last Congress. It is my intention that the Senate will recess today, rather than adjourn, to continue the same legislative day, and allow this important rules discussion to continue. I am hopeful the Republican leader and I will reach an agreement that allows the Senate to operate more effectively.
This may need some translating. The Senate can change its procedural rules on the first legislative day of the session, but the first day can actually last for weeks. Indeed, it's Jan. 22 and the chamber is still technically on Day 1, because it's been in recess. Reid wants that to continue.
Why? Because talks over possible reforms are still ongoing and Reid isn't quite ready to finalize plans. The goal, apparently, is to strike a bipartisan agreement, because the Majority Leader is reluctant to pursue the "constitutional option" (or "nuclear option," depending who you're talking to and when) that would change the rules with a simple 51-vote majority.
To that end, Reid met with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) this morning, with the hopes of finishing a modest reforms package, which they could then bring to their respective caucuses later today.
If they don't reach an agreement, the "constitutional option" is still on the table. If they do strike a deal but their caucuses balk, we may yet see a more aggressive effort from reform-minded Democrats.
But if Reid and McConnell reach some kind of resolution, it's likely to be underwhelming and narrow, bearing little resemblance to some of the ambitious plans pushed by several Democrats. Indeed, if Reid were serious about bold changes, he wouldn't be negotiating with McConnell at all -- he'd be rounding up 51 votes from his own caucus.
Leave a Comment:
Somehow the word "Invertebrate" comes to mind...
Reid was an excellent Minority Leader, who outmaneuvered the Republicans and created the opportunity to recreate a Democratic Senate Majority. He is not the man to be running the Majority, just like you don't have the defensive coach calling the shots on offense.
Reid is more worried about being in the minority again. But if he would get a spine and take the constitutional option, so that the Senate can get to work again, he wouldn't have to worry about being in the minority because he'd be created a record of accomplishment of the public's goals, and would be thereby rewarded at the polls. What is so hard for these allegedly-intelligent morons to get about this???
How many times does he have to get kicked in the teeth by that lying Confederate traitor McConnell? Does he not remember the "agreement" he reached last time? And the time before that?
Lucy....football.
I am a life long Democrate. I won't change, but the diapointment with the lake of backbone is amazing.
Harry, if we have to go through two more years of this because you chickened out your name is mud.
Not mud maybe, but something that looks a lot like it.
It should start to become clear that the Democrats are not really interested in getting much of what they promised through congress. They had a majority in the first two years of Obama's first term, and it was difficult and embarrassing for them to come up with excuses why they couldn't get done what they promised. Fixing the filibuster mess would put them in that position again. Difficult truth. Neither Republicans nor most Democrats are interested in the welfare of the people if it goes against the interests of Big Business and the rich. We need a party that represents the interests of the people.
The senate progressive caucus is right on and doing the will of the people so there are those in office who do represent us but face a beuacracy of fellow members like Reid who don't like to change the status quo.
When have dems ever acted like these current senate repubs...or are ever likely to. So the roles could never be reversed but if they could these repubs would not hesitate to change the rules claiming the constitutional truth...Majority rules...51 votes wins...vice president breaks any ties etc. Filibuster used only to bring detailed public focus to any issue for more deliberative discussion and debate...ONLY...with a time limit (3 days to a wk) and as many as three separate votes taken...but eventually either passed or failed...but never just dropped due to filibuster.
In addition, Memosley is incorrect in her assertion that the Senate Dems had a supermajority in Congress during President Obama's first 2 years. They had a working filibuster-proof Democratic majority for roughly six months, which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 and Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 plus the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.
When President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, there were 58 Democrats in the Senate. There should have been 59, but Al Franken was still in Minnesota dealing with challenges to his victory there. These would not be worked out until July. In April of 2009, Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from being a Republican to joining the Democrats on the other side of the aisle. The count of seated Senate Democrats was then 59, still short of a supermajority, but getting closer. In In May, Senator Byrd of West Virginia became seriously ill and was hospitalized, leaving the Senate with 59 Senators (on paper) but only 58 for the purposes of conducting business. On July 8, 2009, Al Franken was finally sworn in, bringing the total to 60 (on paper) but 59 for working purposes, as Senator Byrd was still out sick. This was the first time the Democrats had had a filibuster-proof majority since 1958, but the situation was short-lived. Six weeks later on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away, leaving only 59 Senate Democrats once again.
One month later on September 25, 2009 Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Kennedy’s vacancy while the special election to fill Kennedy’s Senate seat was going on. In In November of 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in a poorly run campaign, lost Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown.
On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate voted to move forward with the Health Care Reform bill by 60 to 39 votes.
You should not count the time between Franken's swearing-in and Kennedy's death. Kennedy was too sick to come to Washington - the Democrats still had only 59 votes, not the 60 needed to beat a filibuster.
Dear Senator Reid,
Please read the memo sent out by Minority Leader McConnell regarding gun proposals and then consider how reasonable your chosen negotiating partner has shown himself to be - as in "not at all." Then, please do something meaningful with this one opportunity to make the Senate function at least for the next two years.
withay
Reed is a major league pussy...some pugilist.
I've been to his office in Reno (as well as interacted with his staff at senior events), and found them very helpful. I didn't have a visit on my calendar today, but will make time this week. I hope he does the right thing. My list isn't long, but it is comprehensive.
ARGH!!
Here goes Harry Reid again. Will he NEVER lean?
McConnell promised Reid that the Republicans would not use the filibuster as a partisan tactic. They would only use it for things that were important. The Republicans then turned around and it was business as usual.
As much as I'm pro-Democrat, this type of thing with Reid drives me out of my mind. Durbin, who is my Senator, is just as bad.
Can you imagine an Eric Cantor acting this way?
ARGH!! indeed.
Good Grief
,Charlie BrownHarry Reid, keep your eye on that (foot) ball!I say Nuke'm Duke, WTF?
Dear Senator Reid,
I respectfully ask "have you lost your mind, sir"? Senator McTurtle is not going to compromise, indeed, he's making you look spineless and has NO intention of going thru with some "grand bargain". You sir may be a gentleman, but right now, I'll take an Ali style fighter over a gentleman, because believe me, McTurtle is NO gentleman!
Sincerely,
what is wrong with that guy? didn't he learn anything in the past 2 years?! spineless is the perfect word to describe him. ugh, so frustrating
Thay need to show that they have the 51 to do it alone (one of those open letters signed by 51 dem senators). Then let McConnell know what his options are... real reform or the best that 51 dems can push through.
Reid's idea of reform is to nibble around the edges when the last year has demonstrated that major changes need to be made. He is trying to please everyone and in the end will please no one. Dems should make the changes because it will improve the public's perception of the Senate while the House remains broken. If Dems fail to make changes, then Republicans will make major changes when they control the chamber and Dems will regret this moment in history.
Many of us have regretted Reid from day one. Many Dems on the Senate floor have always seen Reid as being a coward.
The senate could have accomplished so much the last four years...they can accomplish so much in the next two years alone if this rule is dropped or changed.
Reid...please make the next two years meaningful and not blocked, filibustered and thwarted like the last 4yrs. It can be different is you just change this one rule so 51 votes is a pass and not a fail.
Obama say: People ask me if I have faith in Harry Reid. The important question is: Does Harry Reid have faith in me? (Obamasay.com)
Reid should listen politely to everything McConnell says--and then ignore every word of it.
It doesn't matter which filibuster reform measure passes--if any--unless it includes up-or-down votes on judicial appointments (including those for the Supreme Court) and all Executive branch appointments that require Senate confirmation.
..And here goes "spineless" Reid once again, giving everything away just to make sure the Republicans are happy with making fun of him and Democrats for being wimps behind his back. Someone need to tell that man to grow a backbone!
Sen. Harry Reid Washington, D. C. Office, 202-224-3542, toll free, 1-866-736-7343
I don't think that it's fair to call Senator Reid spineless for buying time. We are not privy to the conversations and negotiations going on among the Democratic Senators.
Ok. I am with you on that. But please tell us what Reid has done for the Democrats so far?
Senator Reid has laid out the first ten bills to be introduced by the Democrats in 2013: comprehensive immigration reform; gun violence prevention; education; infrastructure; Violence Against Women Act; veterans aid; climate change; tax loopholes; voter suppression, and; the farm bill.
Where not the first ten bills under Democratic control while selling much of the interior important parts of those ten bills over to the Republlicans who watered those same ten bills down?
There aren't many who want Reid's job...but this filibuster reform has history of abuse making reform necessary. Dems will hate Reid if nothing is done and repubs if he does. But there is no "fair" with power seeking ruthless non compromising parties like McConnell...he is not a dem...he lacks integrity...fair is not in his vocabulary. Reid really has no other option but to ignore anything McConnell says and do what his party demands. 51 votes is a pass.
And once again, Reid turns back to being a coward. Grow a spine Reid; you have enough Senate democrats behind you to get the job done.
Okay, time for a serious petition to the Senate. Each person sign the petition and then send a personal copy to their senator. Ask him/her if they are brave enough to stand and talk about their position on a bill or are they wimpy and will just send in a note. At least they should be confined to their office until their filibuster is completed.
What is the point of trying to get Mitch McConnell approval on rule reform? He and his party have done everything they could using the current rules to block every bill that would make Obama look good. These are the same people who voted for similar bills during the Bush administration.
I am very disappointed with Harry Reid at this point. Instead of trying to get the Senate back to where a simple majority rules, he still seeks out approval from a group of people who wouldn't hesitate to change the rules if the roles were switched.
What is it going to take, Senator Ried? If the behavior we've seen so far isn't enough, what is?
If Senator Reid had any true political will and deserved continuance of his Leadership position, he'd simply round up 51 votes from the Democrats and invoke simple majority cloture, requiring as well, actual continuous floor speech to hold a filibuster.
This is useless milquetoast.
What happened to the "talking filibuster" option? Is it still on the table? If a senator has an issue with a piece of legislation, they should be willing to stand up and explain to the American people what that isue is. C'mon Harry, do something!
Senators Merkley and Warren have proposed an opposing bill that does require a "talking filibuster." Here is their Facebook page and petition to sign: http://www.reformthefilibuster.com/merkley/takeaction/
Simply reserve the option to change the rules for the duration of the session.
Let the rule be, "Abuse it and lose it" If the minority party continues it abuses, the rules will change. If they use the filibuster in a reasonable manner, consistent with past decades of precedent the beloved rules stay in place.
That is my fear. On the other hand, he might need to show failure to get McConnell to agree to anything reasonable in order to round up those 51 votes. It isn't clear to me what it will take to get borderline Senators to vote to change the rules.
I've written to my Senators Boxer and Feinstein. I haven't heard back, so it doesn't sound very promising.
I still think it should be extremely limited usage, whether for D or R.
I say, get the 51 votes, change the filibuster. We look at the chart, obviously this is not going to happen voluntarily. They don't think they have to do their job, we must force them to do it.
Negotiating with McConnell is a gesture, because he thinks it's fun to poke at the Ds and has his own gesture for us. Well, back at ya, back at ya Mitch.
I agree with the President, name calling is not reasoned debate. Neither is obstruction.