White House photo
The question is not whether the Senate reforms passed in January have failed; it's painfully obvious they already have. The question, rather, is what senators are likely to do about it.
The status quo is already farcical. We've seen Republicans launch the first-ever filibuster of a cabinet nominee, filibuster a CIA nominee, and they're set to filibuster President Obama's Labor Secretary nominee, who hasn't even been introduced yet. The GOP is filibustering judicial nominees they don't like and judicial nominees they do like. Republicans have also already vowed to use filibusters to stop the Obama administration from enforcing the law as it relates to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to stop the president's nominee to lead the ATF.
With this in mind, President Obama talked to Senate Democrats today, asking them to do something about the ridiculous obstructionism.
In a closed door lunch meeting with Senate Democrats on Tuesday, President Obama expressed his frustration with Republican slow-walking and filibustering of key nominees, and urged them to address the issue, according to a senior Senate Democratic aide. [...]
The White House official said Obama "made it clear that it was a priority -- particularly with judges and asked for more help identifying nominees and getting them passed."
This is, of course, not new. In the 111th Congress (2009 and 2010), we saw Senate Republicans take obstructionist abuses to levels unseen in American history. Then it got worse. Then it got worse again. Obama hasn't made Senate reforms a top agenda item -- how the chamber conducts its business is up to its members, not the White House -- but he's spoken out on the issue, only to find meaningless hand-shake deals that GOP members quickly ignore.
So, as the dysfunction intensifies, will 2013 be any different?
Brian Beutler reported this morning that there's a realization among Senate Democrats that the "watered-down rules reform deal the parties struck early this Congress has failed," and "preliminary discussions" are underway.
"The general agreement was that Republicans would only filibuster nominees in the case of extraordinary circumstances, and once again Republicans are expanding the definition of that term to make it entirely meaningless," the aide said.
The source said conversations are still too preliminary for Democrats to lay out publicly potential avenues of recourse just yet.
I won't get my hopes up, but if Democrats could at least agree amongst themselves that the status quo is untenable, it'd be a good start.
Leave a Comment:
Republican Senate LEADER Bill Frist used the easy solution. "Nuclear Option".
Harry Reid has no one to blame but himself on this. I can not believe that any politician would be so naive to think that McConnell and the Republicans wouldn't go down this road, no matter what they agreed to. Their word is meaningless.
Although I do believe Harry Reid may not have pushed hard enough for filibuster reform, I also think that he can count and that in the end, he didn't have the votes to pull off real reform.
We are far past "a good start" on filibuster reform. Reform should be immediate and should halt all senate business until resolved. The American people have spoken...we elected a majority and do not expect to be ruled by a minority.
If more deliberation is needed...if more discussion and debate is required...then by all means do it...but none of this 'procedural process' should prevent up or down votes on nominees or on legislation. Got it Harry and Levin (who spearheaded blocking reform last time) NOTHING SHOULD PREVENT UP OR DOWN VOTES...that's the way the senate is supposed to operate. 51 votes it passes or nominee is approved...period.
If that's the case, Harry Reid protected those cowardly Senators by not letting us, the public, know where they truly stand on filibuster reform. Reid didn't want a straight up or down vote on gun control legislation (which he opposes) and he wanted to use the filibuster as an excuse as to why it won't happen.
We need a Senator Majority Leader who is from a more diverse, heavily populated state in order to pass legislation that is meaningful. The interests of rural gun-toting Nevada don't match up the majority of the American people.
WTF. Are you kidding me? The fact is the votes were there, but Reid didn't feel like paying the price for them.
Not having the votes is and Urban myth concocted by the Right wing of the Dem Party. Here is what Bernie Sanders said on the Ed show on January 25 after failure of the Merkley proposal for the talking fillibuster:
So to believe this crazy fiction that Reid was stuck, we have to believe that with all the power of his office, with all the power of Obama's office that the DEM leadership couldn't persuade 3 or 4 DEM senators with any number of pork projects for their states to vote for the reform???? Say Reid did NOTHING for 2 months except get all the other DEM senators to work on these 3 or 4 holdouts. We would have been further ahead on legislation and appointments if we spent those months doing rules reform. Are we to believe that these 3 or 4 could not be bent after 2 months of sustained effort?
So the proposition that Reid could do nothing is utterly preposterous. This is what Majority Leaders are supposed to be able to do.
Let's face it, a vote on rules reform is not exactly something that is going to cost a Dem Senator an election. It won't even register with their voters.
If Reid can't/won't do it, he should get out the way for another Majority Leader who will.
Rollo: So you wanted to start the 2013 senate session with the Majority Leader naming names of his own caucus for scorn? It's perfectly OK to be pissed about this to whomever or whatever you would like, but to suggest we should have had a Democrat Civil War right when the Republicans unity is crumbling is not realistic. Harry Reid will protect the members of his caucus, it's what any Majority Leader would do.
Dude:
Yes.
Wrong - there wouldn't have been a civil war.
The "run-and-hide" Democrats would have been pressured into doing the right thing. And that's exactly what they deserved.
John: Use yourself as an example, and be fair. You are very sure of your position on filibuster reform, right? Say you were part of a group that was a few votes shy of getting it done. What is different about your vote from the people voting the other way, what muscle or finesse could the Leader throw at you to get you to change your mind? It's so disengenuous to suggest changing a few votes is a walk in the park, these people are Senators, who are actually paid to make these calls. You would not change your mind "after two months of sustained effort", so to suggest others would is not giving others the respect they likely deserve. And then to pivot to Harry Reid and call outrage is even worse IMHO...
FaveDave: You certainly would have gotten your wish for a new Majority Leader if Reid was stupid enough to name names. No Leader rats out members, watch any prison movie and get back to me...
Reid cannot exceed the consensus of his caucus nor should anyone expect him to do so. If the Dem senators wanted it, it would have been his position to implement it.
That is just how it works.
I heard someplace that Harry Reid is going to have his name changed to Charlie Brown.
Backing Byer's comments regard Harry "Weak" Reid 100%. 1) Get rid of Reid in his leadership role...to call him a leader is nothing but cruel irony.
2) Is there anyway to end this filibuster rule? If so DO IT!
He's not naive. He got want he wanted. He wanted to *appear* as if he had a problem with no progress in congress. He knew how this would work out and counted on it. Reid and most other Dem leaders are just in bed with the Repubs and as long and Reid and his freinds keep making money, fixing problems and making social progress are never going to be more than a side effect of their *real*, greed-motivated desired outcomes.
If you want to know why Reid didn't push harder, you need look no further than the offices of Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, alleged-Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. How Boxer of all people ended up on the wrong side of this debate is beyond me, but she did.
I fired off a WTF??!!! letter to her when I found that out - to which she has yet to respond. It wouldn't hurt for residents of the states that have Democratic Senators who sat on their hands, to let them know that this will be remembered come re-election time.
Dude:
Ahhh, yeah - prison movies... that's the REAL world. HA!
and the end result for all the PRO FILIBUSTER dems? the minority gop , making the majority dems look like a bunch of useless pussies , congratulation , what a great cause to support
really makes you motivated to financially support them , and go out and fight for them , doesn't it? , maybe DUDE can come up with some excuses for REID lying about supporting the filibuster for the last year also?
Pat: There are no "PRO FILIBUSTER dems"... only strawmen for you to assemble and people to insult. Facts are facts, if you decide to accept them and debate/discuss in a civil and intelligent manner, perhaps you might garner some respect...
So Mr Benen is wrong , but you are right , and you can not defend Reid lying in 2012 about supporting filibuster reform , got it lubowsky dud
This is why I say that the worst thing that ever happened was when Hilary Clinton joined the administration as Secretary of State. Had she stayed in the Senate, I think she would have been majority leader instead of spineless Harry Reid, and I doubt we'd see the kind of obstruction we've seen since 2009.
The leader is not the head man or chief of the tribe. Just a spokesperson for the sense of his side of the body. He controls a lot less than you imagine.
LBJ coulda done it.
Why not have Elizabeth Warren 'filibuster' Cordray? She could stand for hours offering meaty, coherent lectures to Congress and to the world about the virtues of Cordray and the CFPB. The GOP would vote immediately for cloture!
It should be interesting what this next so-called pope will be. Now it can be said that there are people in the Catholic Church that really do help the poor and people in need. But when you have a Vatican that you know is more purely controlling, manipulating, deceiving, and in certain terms greedy, it should very interesting what this new so-called pope thinks he can pull and get away with it. People who really do want to serve God can be easily found, but the real issues come from these narrow-minded men that literally lack any real thought of what Jesus was about. Except to control and manipulate people for their own selfish interests and has so much gone against the people’s freewill given to them by God. Just as you see with all the scandals in the past and currently that as gone on with this Catholic Church.
Deb @
More self delusion run amock and virtuous.
Probably and not dealing with the real realities of life. Also, I find it is very interesting they elected a Latin American one, especially with so many Latin Americans in the USA. Apparently, the Vatican smoozing up with Wall Street wasn't too good of a picture for Latins and Hispanics, etc in America a long with the other issues there to get Romney elected. So now as the Vatican does have such a love for Wall Street and wants to take away so many people's rights and choices, they figure a Latin American Pope just might swing the difference to get what they want.
got you raciest post out.. Now nice of you to judge this Man. So you paint every one who believes and hates what a few men did with the same brush.. There are many priests that are wonderful people and the are horrified what has happened in the church. So If I paint people like you You could be a hooker, child abuser, murderer, KKK murderer So stop painting everyone in you sick mind. Must be nice to live in that glass house
why are you posting on the Harry reid site
Marytgl: It is probably best you wake up to the realities of life or nothing will get fixed. There is major issues with the Catholic Church and even though a man you may think is so great and you so adore is not perfect as you may like him to be in your mind. When a place like the Catholic Church makes a move like this there is always some sort of reason and have major political implications. If you actually think this one man is going to be able fix all the problems in the world with how the political nature of the Catholic Church and the world is, guess again and wake up from your fancy world.
Wonder if he asked Reid for his resignation from the party...if not he should have
OK educate me. I thought that the only time a Senate rule could be changed is at the start of the session and it could be done with a simple majority of 51. Don't they need 65 votes to change it now that they are in session? Where would Spineless Harry come up with 65 votes if that is the case?
Get it straight guys...It was Carl Levin who spearheaded blocking filibuster reform and prevented Harry being able to get enough votes to pass real reform.
If memory serves, the way to get around that is to raise a point of order challenging the requirement of a supermajority to change the rules. The Senate parliamentarian would then rule that the supermajority is not unconstitutional, but all it takes to overrule the parliamentarian under the rules is a simple majority. Bingo, the supermajoity requirement ends up being ruled to be against the rules of the Senate.
I believe the Senate can make rule changes using their own rules. I did a quick search to see what the Rs did when they threatened nuke option for nominees being filibustered.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7384708/ns/politics/t/gop-eyes-nuclear-option-judges/#.UUDXwBlzKUc
The date was April 4, 2005 the 109th Congress just began. Rs were majority in the Senate, Dems were filibustering nominees that were heavily anti abortion. Perhaps that would be a reason to slow down or block a nominee, having a stance which is in line with the current law, unlike the blocked nominee the NRA sponsored blocking of Halligan. NRA protects gun salespeople. Basically shills for selling more guns. They heard she was not a fan of having guns on the streets in NYC.
So, Mitch appears to be protecting gun manufacturers, not gun owners.
His statement might also be the case for anti abortion protections. But the law was decided by the Supreme Court.
So, there we have it. It's gone awry... they didn't like her supposedly being activist, like when Ds didn't want activist anti abortion court nominees.
McConnell doesn't want gun manufacturers having to be subjected to lawsuits. So block her!
So, I guess we may be hearing about a nuclear option again soon?
It doesn't matter what Levin did...Reid is the Majority leader and if he can't move his caucus on something this important then he shouldn't be in the position
I meant to add the link that quotes McConnell:
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-block-obama-nominee-appeals-court-161803737--politics.html
IMO, part of the problem is the "let's not do anything about filibusters because we might need the process ourselves later on" mentality of the Senate. It is my understanding that current filibuster rules were the result of Democrats needing something when they were the minority party. No one thought about how the rules could be stretched to their current degree. The current Senate either needs to take a deep breath and change the rules or be prepared for more of the same.
Harry Reid thought a hand shake from Republicans was going to be good enough about filibusters. And for Harry Reid to have preached so much about needing filibuster reform. Harry Reid how much are you on the take for rich bastards, you hypocrite?
Repubs laughed at Reid after that 'handshake'...Harry just can't believe how petty these repubs really are...caring not for what's good for the nation but only for them.
Lucy..football...Harry:"They wouldn't really do it again would they?" hehehe
If Harry Reid just settled for a hand shake than he would be either pretty dang dumb or on the take too from rich bastards, since he has been in the Senate long enough to know better.
No, it wouldn't. The absolute bare minimum is to accept -- very nearly unanimously -- that if it is possible to abuse the system, Republicans will do so. "Gentlemen's agreements" notwithstanding.
This ain't your granpa's Senate any more, boys. Get over it and deal -- there are over 300 million people in this country who can't afford your comforting illusions.
Mr. Benen is preaching to the choir. Most of the posters on this blog knew that Republicans would continue to filibuster everything of substance and most nominees to the courts. If we figured this out before the Republicans started filibustering in this session, and the House Dems have figured this out, it should be plainly apparent to all of the Dems in the Senate. I don't think these Senators got to their position on their good looks. A talking filibuster is not a significant change over the current Senate rules.
@Mike
He's not really preaching...just keeping us informed on latest.
I disagree about the talking filibuster not being a significant change from the current rules Mike. As it stands, if the Republicans have forty solid votes, they don't even need to resort to a talking filibuster.
Completely and totally wrong.
A talking filibuster forces the party doing the filibuster to stand on the floor and talk, and talk, and talk, and talk until the party is ready to allow the bill or nominee to come to a vote. Otherwise, the filibustering party must continue to talk and that would require the Senate to stay in session until the filibuster ends or there are enough votes for cloture. How many of those Republicans are going to be willing to talk nonstop, day and night, every day?
I think he was stating that like it's not that big of a deal we're asking for, as in we're not saying you can't filibuster, you just have to do it the way it was meant to be done. No shortcuts.
I would like to point out that C-Span is now in the Senate.
The Repubs would have to be on TV 24/7 looking like obstructionists.
Maybe even the American people would see them as what they are.
It's kinda freaky how so many of you folks think changing Majority Leader would either mitigate Republican insanity or get reluctant Senators to go along with reform. At the same time you give cover to the holdouts like Carl Levin, you give undue credence to the notion that they were somehow pliable. It's all water beneath the bridge anyway, but it points to our society's fetish about having someone or something to blame handy. Poor ole Harry Reid, caught in a thankless job, and taking flack for Republican intransigence...
Yeah - right! Bwaaahahaha!
It's what he's supposed to do, inform and educate his readers (the choir) who then takes the information out to the public and on to their recalcitrant state Senators.
Until democrats grow a backbone and put a stop to it, republicans will continue to rule by minority.
Harry Reid should have realized that you can't make a "Gentleman's Agreement" with someone who's not a gentleman. A handshake means less than nothing to a Republican, not even among themselves.
Obama won't stand up to Republicans on earned benefit cuts. Obama is dangerously close to approving Keystone XL. Senate Democrats won't stand up to Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to get through nominees and judges and other ridiculous abuses of the filibuster.
Democrats are refusing to use the power we gave them in the election. Democrats are refusing to stand up to Republicans on issues that the public agrees with Democrats on. Republicans abuse the system, the country, and its people. Democrats abuse the people by not standing up to them.
It needs to be made clear to Democrats we will refuse to support them in 2014 if they refuse to support us by using the power we've given them. Democrats deserve another thrashing if they can't see fit to grow spines in the face of Republicans repeatedly making it clear they will not behave in acceptable ways in a democratic republic having a system that is not parliamentary.
The time for Nice Guys is OVER.
Disgusted: There are far to many "blue dogs" who are afraid of their own shadow to get anything of value through the senate. Personally I think they're almost as bad as having a republican in their seat.
Indeed, and it's time to let them know their time is up if they aren't going to stand up to the menace that is the Republican party. We'll fight again in 2016.
So your genius plan is to put more Repugnant-cons and TPers in power, Brain Child?
"I won't get my hopes up, but if Democrats could at least agree amongst themselves that the status quo is untenable, it'd be a good start."
They did that at the start of this Congress and good ole' Harry blew it! NOW what?!
How are those handshake deals working for ya, Senator Reid?
Filibuster are actually "trending" down according to cloture motions:
110th Congress - 139
111th Congress - 137
112th Congress - 115
113th Congress - 5 so far
Of course, since the 113th congress just started, those numbers look pretty good. A batter who hits once in only 2 at bats has a phenominal batting average!
Nice dumb use of numbers. Now try giving percentages of legislation that gets votes or percentages of legislation that is filibustered. Because your raw numbers are meaningless and not moored to context.
Ouch Rob... think before you hit that button...
Na, this isn't Republican Senators filibustering process to the point of paralysis, this is their heroic "opposing socialist policies to Save America". [Cue wind to flutter capes.]
Disgustedwithitall, if you think the percentages better make the case, present them. I gave my numbers and a source. If you think they are "meaningless and not moored to context," then add the context with source.
So, many here want to dismiss facts without providing any of their own.
I don't go out of my way for you ignoramuses anymore. The burden to show filibusters are a decreasing problem is yours. And you haven't done it. Now off you go. You've got work to do. (Work you won't be able to accomplish because it's not true.)
the gop filibustered 100% of appellate court judges so far this session , how is that robdon moron ?
Yeah, it's been a month......
This is way too funny. Disgusted is saying "my view is RIGHT I don't have to waste time proving it!" While Patango just makes up stuff and says it is true with no source whatsoever.
Well, since Disgusted seems too lazy to do any work, let me do a little and blow Patango's claim out of the water.
And it took all of two minutes, tops! Now is there "some" truth in his post? Yes, there usually are in the lies of the Left (and, to be fair, the lies of the Right). The Republicans had started blocking these posts in the middle of summer last year leading up to the election and through the lame duck session saying it was based in part on past practices.
It pays to educate yourself rather than just relying on what others say. Come on, Patango, say I've got it right. Let's really have dialog here instead of people posting things that are incorrect and then be unwilling to source or explain their position.
so whats your excuse for being to stupid to look other stuff up?
Don't need one...my facts are correct and I sourced them, too. Your comment was incorrect and you still think you are right. You are the one in need of an "excuse" in my opinion. But, then again, don't let the truth get in the way of your opinion.
Disguested's position on providing sources to conservative posters is actually valid.
Many liberals put great effort into providing sources in their posts, but sourcing and facts and truth, the ever seemingly subjective truth, has yet to bring any change of opinion from the conservatives who come here...I've yet to see concession to a liberal sourced fact from you, Robdon...so why bother?
Your sources serve to convince you of your position. Sources from us only seem to convince you that the media is corrupt.
I stand with Disgusted on this, with no wish to denigrate your commitment to your point of view, Robdon.
I agree with Patango on this:
I also see there are occasions when RWers DO have a point. The difference can be that the point is insufficient to convince me to support the entire theory and the baggage that goes with it.
For instance, on Survivor last night there was a dominance/leader major altercation.
The "leader" trying to establish dominance was assuming he had the role and gave pet names, acted as if he was the one with the best plan without the entire "tribe" agreeing he was their leader. Trying to convince them they should see his role as leader. So, there was one individual that loudly objected and acted out, being overly aggressive in "voicing" his perception that the "leader" was patronizing them. It's one thing to announce this opinion, but it's overtly hostile to the rest of the "tribe" to throw the minimal food, rice and beans into the sand.
It was a lesson, this may be out of bounds to use the TV show as a rationale. But it is very fitting, to me. This relates to the political discourse and this topic. That hostile person did have an asset, he made fire and cooked. bBut he acted extremely hostile to everyone else around him, not just his target of his rage. His rage was about something else. He felt the sting of the rival trying to make him submit because of something that happened to him last time. Apparently he was determined to show he was the master of his own fate and the others would not affect that.
I have to be honest, I thought of a type of person that would shoot up some random people because their boss called them out for being late, although they got some work done. Well, there are rules, just apologize and make a better effort to be on time. It isn't that unusual or impossible to have to work with people you dislike. You don't have to dump out the only food source for the "tribe" to prove you're not going to be dominated.
Sounds familiar.
I meant I agree with NeedMoreCoffee-sheesh... I must have a low caffeine level...
Okay, NeedMore and sandy, do you think this statement by Patango is correct:
It is a statement that purports to be fact. Yet I provided a link to the Senate site where an appellate court judge was confirmed in February as well as further explained that there was some basis for the concept but his facts were wrong.
There is a great difference between inference, opinion, conclusion, etc and raw facts. Facts have to be accurate or anything drawn from them run the risk of being poorly judged.
One last point and then a question.
Needmore, please, please, please, provide me an example where I rejected sourced facts! Please. I can hardly get anyone to respond to the substance of my posts. Even in this discussion, it does NOT involve the sourced facts of my post.
So, on the blockage of appellate court judges, is my information correct or do you agree with Patango's assertion?
Thanks.
Read it again, I explained it already.
I said
I am not nit picking. I think that's as close to a brownie button you could expect.
There are facts that you found one exception does not anoint the rest of what's being done.
The article below indicates to me that they want to only allow a judge that would vote with their majority:
http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-block-obama-nominee-appeals-court-161803737--politics.html
As I see it, RobDon, you are trying to coerce others to agree with you and say OH, RobDon is correct this instance, so it proves that the Rs are done filibustering. No, they aren't done trying to have it their way. It seems to be on innate trait.
The argument was about abusing filibuster, which has been shown to cause gridlock. Besides vacancies and delay of court dates, there is a coercion to get someone they like better, not because of an actual flaw.
I completely agree, sandy. It does not the argument make. And, I can see how my frustration comes across that I am nitpicking. And I agree that the Republicans have adopted the strategy to be obstructionist. As valid as a role that that can be and was in part the design of the Senate (to slow things down), it has been done to the excess and without little success.
I do think it is lessening (if for no other reason that it hasn't worked).
That said, thanks again for your comments.
Harry Reid is either so smart that we can't figure out his master plan, he's completely incomptent, or he's being paid by the same folks paying the republicans.
Sigh . . . my guess is that it's one of the last 2.
I don't think I'm THAT old yet but I seem to recall when the filibuster was the only tool available to a minority of democrats. I may be playing devil's advocate here, but if/when democrats are again in the minority -- how will they stop anything they might deem unconscionable that a majority of republicans/tea partiers might like to pass?
i recall those days as well. the democrats were given an ultimatum--either put a sock in it or the rule would change. guess what happened. the cowed democrats kept their end of the bargain. the republicans have done anything but. i can think of a few reasons that could be argued for not changing the rules, but the hope that the republicans will play fair if they get the whip hand back isn't one of them. it would take a damned fool to believe that.
I remember that too! The dems totally caved to the threats. I wonder whether the dems have tried that tactic on the repubs/teapartiers? Would it work? (doesn't seem likely).
and over all it would force people to actually vote people in and out of congress , if the gop grew enough balls to end social security , you can bet a lot of them would be voted out of office
as it stands now, these gop clowns can stroke their base all day , demonize ss , and get away with it , if they had and actual chance to end ss , and just turned chicken , they would finally stfu
What in the hell was Harry Reid (and the rest of the Senate) thinking? This was entirely predictable. Heaven help us if President Obama nominates a liberal to replace a conservative on the Supreme Court.
1.5 Dude, Im not convinced the repugs unity is crumbling. They ALL want to destroy democracy and economic security in this country. Sounds pretty unified to me.
Duh, as if we could take their word on anything, heck they can't even agree with themselves, they are a master a double talk like jobs jobs jobs, aka abortion abortion abortion, Reid is such a mild mannered person and really, the senate doesn't need a sissy, they've already got to many hens in the hen house, time to bring in a new farmer.
1st, determine the integrity of your opponents (R integrity very low)
2nd, when (if) they gain the majority, what will they do (maintaining level of integrity)
3, conclude that they will use the nuclear option on their first day in majority
wish us all best of luck
John
It's pretty obvious that senators can still filabuster by talking without changing the rules. The important change is the simple majority vote once again taking precedence in order to get anything done. As I was told earlier here, the nuclear option is the one to be taken NOW!
Sen. Jeff Merkley was chastised by Harry Reid for publicly releasing the names of those Dems opposed to his filibuster reform measure. He apparently broke an unwritten rule of Senate Dems. I guess that's sort of like the gentlemen's agreement Harry Reid had with Mitch McConnell, except McConnell got away with breaking his deal with less shaming than did Merkley with his. Ridiculous.