E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Ken Strickland
When the 112th session of the Senate begins tomorrow morning, Democrats' first order of legislative business will be an effort to change the Senate rules, limiting the minority party’s ability to filibuster or block legislation.
But Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is reminding Democrats they fought this fight before, almost 15 years to the day, and lost soundly.
In a op-ed written for Wednesday's Washington Post, McConnell recalls the first vote of the 104th Congress on January 5, 1995. It was a bill offered by Democratic Sen.Tom Harkin that would have allowed a simple majority of 51 votes to break a filibuster instead of the 60 this is required under current Senate rules.
That proposal failed by a vote of 76-19.
When the vote was taken in 1995, Republicans had just regained the majority for the first time in 40 years. In the short term, it would have been advantageous for the newly empowered Republicans to support the rule change, thus giving the GOP an extraordinary opportunity to push their agenda without a threat of a Democratic filibuster.
But every Republican voted against it.
"What every Republican senator, and many Democratic senators, realized at the time was that any attempt by a sitting majority to grasp at power would come back to haunt us," McConnell writes. "Even worse, any rule change aimed at making it easier for one party to force legislation through the Senate with only a slim partisan majority would undermine the Senate's unique role as a moderating influence and put a permanent end to bipartisanship."
Of the Democrats who voted with Republicans back in 1995, ten are still serving: Majority Leader Harry Reid, Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Herb Kohl, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, and Patty Murray.
Sponsors of filibuster reform will officially introduce their plan Wednesday, although no action is expected until after the Senate returns from their two week recess. But it's unclear if backers of the changes have the votes to change the rules. And while Reid has not vocally discouraged the proposal, his support so far appears lukewarm.
"Senator Reid understands the concerns of Senators and the American people about the ability for a small minority of the minority to prevent the Senate from legislating,” said Reid spokesperson Regan Lachapelle, adding that reform is “an issue that Senator Reid will continue to look at.”
In the waning days of the last Congress, retiring Sen. Chris Dodd acknowledged his Democratic colleagues’ "anger with the repetitive use and abuse of the filibuster," but he noted that many of the most vocal supporters of the rules change are first term senators who have never served in the minority.
“Whether such temptation [to change the rules] is motivated by noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political expediency, I believe such changes would be unwise," Dodd said.
Msnbc.com's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Is this really so difficult? If the fake filibuster is employed, it should only delay a vote for 4 days, if it is broken by a cloture vote of 60 it should result in 8 hours of continued debate.
If a real filibuster is employed, a cloture vote of 60 should result in 20 hours of continued debate or double the time of the filibuster whichever is higher in number.
All of you who keep complaining about the number of GOP fillibusters in the last two years need to realize that the last time we had total control of the country by democrats was the Jimmy Carter administration. I say thank god for the republicans preventing another disaster like that from happening. Who the hell else was going to slow down these progressives?
And the last time the democrats wanted to change the rules was after they had control for 40 years? Screw them. They can't stand to be on the losing side, they need to man up.
JH,
Wrong – the last time was the 103rd Congress in 1993-94.
Dennis
The article states that it was the 104th Congress. January 1995. You remember when the country last got fed up with democrat rule? The hero Bill Clinton opened a lot of eyes in this country. That's about all I will give that scumbag credit for.
JH,
I was commenting your statement about Carter: “the last time we had total control of the country by democrats was the Jimmy Carter administration” – that was wrong.
Oh, and you don't think this country suffered when the Republicans had total control 2000 - 2006? You think the Republicans are our saving grace?
Those of you that go all the way back to Carter, including most of those "serving" in Congress today, really ought to find out how living TODAY is like.
Dennis
I think that when Carter was President the dems had a super majority like the first years of Obama. That is what I was saying. The dems did have control of Congress for 40 years but very seldom did they have a super majority.
Lisa
Actually 2000 through 2007 were pretty good years. All hell broke loose after the 2006 elections when the dems took over. If the dems wouldn't have been so assinine in their judgement of the housing mess in those Bush years we would probably be in a lot better shape today.
But when Carter was in office if you wanted to Filibuster you had to man up and stand there and talk. Now all you have to do is sit on your butt and and say I Filibuster it and go home. They need to go back to the way it was years ago when people had to stand up and read the yellow pages.
I agree coop. Make them actually filibuster for real; pull out the books and the cots.
More than that, when you actually stood and filibustered, nobody else could go home either. The pain of the filibuster was shared. It's called a quorum call, essentially a role call of who is in attendance. This doesn't happen during a fake "procedural" filibuster. No pain on either side equals GRIDLOCK. Gridlock favors the people who represent the minority.
Regardless of one’s party persuasion or political beliefs one should see that the filibuster is a valuable and worthwhile legislative tool; as it promotes cross-party cooperation and compromise. More importantly, the filibuster is an ever so important element of the concept of checks and balances by preventing a simple majority from ramrodding what might be poorly composed or thought out let alone egregious legislation through the legislative body at break-neck speed; often in some knee-jerk attempt to close a barn door once the animals have escaped-in recent times think the Patriot Act.
Certainly the latest high profile filibuster, or threat of one, that of the one to slow down the process during the last omnibus spending bill, a severely bloated and pork-laden bill that numbered in the thousands of pages and had yet to be read by the very legislators about to vote on it, was a wise use of the filibuster process.
Allowing a filibuster to be clotured by a simply majority would seem to defeat the very purpose of the filibuster concept.
Personally I wish the filibuster was used more often by both parties, thereby giving time to further vet any given proposed legislation and further exploring the unintended consequences of such proposed legislation.
I would agree that the true concept of filibuster is a great tool to bring bipartisanship to the Senate. However, it has been grossly abused i the last 2 years by a party that simply wants to control all branches of government. I say leave the filibuster but bring back the original rules and intent of the filibuster.
JH may be on to something. But rather than looking back to the Carter Administration, you could actually look to the actual disaster that we had during the Bush Administration. The Pubs had complete control from 2002 to 2007, and then shared control with the Dems until 2009, although the Republican president still held the trump card. Most people felt the effects of the brutal economy during this period, but to jog our memories, remember 2.5% real GDP growth; not 3.4% like the preceding decade, not the 3.1% we saw during either of the decades surrounding Carter, but more closely resembling the 2.7% we saw in the decades that surrounded the Great depression.
Recall how unemployment nearly doubled during Bush, job creation stalled, and unemployment was increasing by half a percent per month as Bush left office.
Remember the failing banks and US companies that provided Americans with work, loans, and mortgages that the Pubs nearly drowned. Or how investment in stocks fell by 33% from 8 years earlier. Record bankruptcies, unruly insurance practices, and foreclosures.
Imagine what it would be like with Republican control and without a filibuster. Still, if the cloture number could just be slightly reduced maybe the pubs would realize that they would have to compromise if they wanted to participate rather than the "just say no" mentality they have had. Its a shame but all the filibuster has done over the last few years is increased obstructionism rather than bipartisanship. Again, to keep the minority from being screwed the filibuster should be kept, but to keep the majority from being screwed, it should be slightly easier to overcome.
Probably about 40% of the country is only satisfied when Republicans get their way and about 40% is only satisfied when Democrats get their way, and the other 20% doesn't pay any attention.
Nobody actually wants fair solutions to problems, they just want whatever advances their *own* ideals. And here we are.
With the House in Republican control, I was thinking, what is the downside of letting the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot on the Filibuster rules, but then it dawned on me......what is it that ONLY the Senate does ??....Treaties and Supreme Court appointments....and BINGO ........Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will NOT wait to resign if it looks like her replacement may come from a Republican President. It's unlikely the Republicans in the Senate will give such an easy pass to what might be Obama's 3rd and most likely most liberal Supreme Court Nominee to date....THAT Ladies and Gentlemen is why it must stay as is at 61 Votes.
Promotes cross-party cooperation? Are you serious? The filibuster as it exists today does nothing of the sort. The minority knows they don't have to compromise. They can simply filibuster and go home.
The rules need to change. If the minority can't terrorize the majority or distort the will of the people, they will be more willing to compromise. The minority of either party just won't be able to sit on the sidelines and say 'no'. They will have to be engaged or they will simply lose their voice. Right now, when a party filibusters, they never have to vote on issues. There is no visibility to their votes because they never take place. This will force them to put their votes on the table, visibility, and it will also bring accountability. The current filibuster rules makes it too easy to hide behind. They will also have to work across the isle as the margins for approval are less. I suspect we'll see less 'block' voting by party and more common sense. America isn't one big block of people. We are made up of a diverse group of beliefs and needs.
The article neglects to mention an important fact: the proposed change 15 years ago was a much more radical change than the one currently being proposed. The current proposal protects the minority party's ability to filibuster, but institutes some common sense changes to combat the frivolous abuse of the filibuster. For example, if you're so upset about a bill that you want to filibuster it, you should have to actually DO it -- stay on the floor and continue speaking.
The filibuster has traditionally been used sparingly -- to block the majority party from implementing a wildly controversial bill without having to work at a bipartisan compromise. What the republicans have done over the last two years is completely unprecedented -- they filibuster virtually EVERYTHING simply to prevent the democrats from accomplishing anything. They even vote to filibuster bills that are virtually identical to those that republicans have previously supported. (The Obama health care plan is virtually identical to the one that Mitch Romney got passed in Massachusetts. Romneycare, for example, included the individual and employer mandates to buy health insurance and the subsidies to assist people in buying insurance. How strange, then, that the republicans joined hands and filibustered the Obama plan.)
We need filibuster reform simply because the filibuster is no longer being used in the way it was intended. The filibuster was never designed to be used to utterly constipate our legislative branch merely so that the minority party can score political points by saying that the majority party got nothing done.
MGinRochester, wrong on many points. The current plan is to change the rules so that only 51 votes (or a simple majority) is needed to kill a filibuster. That effectively ends the filibuster. I support the move to make it a real filibuster again, but this isn't that. Secondly, there were many things the Reps happily voted on, both for and against, in the past 2 years. You say the filibustered everything? You're wrong, by a large margin. And most of what they did filibuster were bills they had little to no say over the writing of. And lastly, Romney may have loved Obamacare, I don't know. I do know, however, that very few Republicans like Romneycare.
C.Smith, where do you gather so much misinformation?
I think something should be done regarding the ability of a single senator to hold up business but this is a foolish effort. It is very likely in 2012 that Republicans will regain the Senate (as they could have this year with a couple of better candidates).
Leave the senate as it is. They vote for legislation when the time is right.
Back in '95, I bet the number of filibusters was not standing at an historical all time high. that was then this in now. Still may not pass, but I bet the margin is not nearly as wide.
That's right it wasn't very high. The GOP filibustered nearly every piece of legislation the past two years; they used the filibuster, the indefinite holds, and every other rule they could find, to quote them, "slow things down" even the things they supported. That's not legislating, that's abuse of the rules.
Jody- you are too kind and generous. I'd say that's not legislating, that being A_— H___s.
Check out the graph on filibusters: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/23/filibuster-reform/
I bet the amount of partisan legislation introduced that was against the will of the American people was not standing at an all time high.
Last year, Obama was the most polarizing President in Gallup history. He tried to force his liberal agenda, the people didn't want it, the Republicans filibustered and were rewarded for their efforts in the last election.
The filibuster is a limited protection for the minority.
It's pretty cool to have, especially when that minority is the only party listening to the will of the majority of Americans.
bob-1805084
I bet the amount of partisan legislation introduced that was against the will of the American people was not standing at an all time high.
Last year, Obama was the most polarizing President in Gallup history. He tried to force his liberal agenda, the people didn't want it, the Republicans filibustered and were rewarded for their efforts in the last election.
Huh, the will of the people? Did you get the latest polls?
Here is the latest Gallup… Obama Hits 8-Month High In Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145442/Obama-Job-Approval-Reaches-First-Time-Spring.aspx
Here is the latest Pew
Nearly half (49%) say President Obama should take the lead, compared with 30% who say GOP leaders.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1798/poll-less-enthusiasm-gop-2010-victory-policy-more-negative-campaign-no-compromise
Oh, that will of the people is passe too. it was not the will of the people it was the will of the overstimulated elite at the top like the Koch brothers in conjunction with Karl Rove's American Crosswords, and the Chamber of Commerce.
So don't give me that "will of the people being rammed down
Actually, more pieces of legislation were filibustered with a favorable rating above 60% than pieces that had an unfavorable above 60%.
BOB -- Did the Republicans ASK EVERY ONE of their average of 757,000 constituents how they felt? NO
Did the Republicans lie about issues to make people BELIEVE policies were not in their interest? YES
Did you know most of Obama's policies were actually an extension of Bush's policies? NO SO, if you didn't like Obama's policies, then you must of hated Bush's?
Did you know that other Obama's policies were to fullfil campaign promises and 16 MILLION more people voted for Obama than McCain because they LIKED those policies?
At least Obama won the Popular Vote AND the Electoral vote in 2008. Bush had a few thousand people vote for him over Kerry in 2004 and we all know what happened in 2000. McCain should have won the Republican nomination in 2000 IF it had not been for Bush's little lies and smirks. Did you hear Bush talk at a World Summit when he didn't know the microphone was on?
I think that if a Senator wants to fillibuster a bill, then s/he should have to actually fillibuster that bill. Stand up there and talk about why you do not want that bill to advance. I believe from what I have heard about this proposed change is to actually have the Senator that wants to fillibuster put their name on the fillibuster and actually do it. The current practice of a secret fillibuster and no talking about it should have to change. If we want more transparency, then those Senators should not be afraid to pput action to their intent.
Let them stand on the floor and discuss the bill .
Beverly,
Yea, Obama bungled his way to the last minute, got trapped by the GOP and agreed to the "Bush Tax Cuts" which we had railed against for years, said had caused the car to go in the ditch and almost caused the Second Great Depression. He went with the GOP, and for once went with the will of the American people and guess what - his poll numbers turned around for a poll taken on Dec, 28th, 29th and Jan.2.
Thanks for providing support to my will of the people argument.
Lisa,
Bottom line - Obama said he took a shellacking in the November elections. Why did he take the shellacking, Lisa - Bush smirked at McCain in 2000?
Good post.
Bob, you assume that America's growing polarization was caused by Obama even though most of his policies have been supported by the majority. You do not give enough credit to the media or the Republicans who refuse to work with Obama. Some of Obama's actions were even conservative, like the tax cuts or the surge in Afghanistan.
I'm torn on this one - I totally agree with the 79 senators in '95: 51 votes in the Senate is a majority party steam-roller.
But MSNBC fails to note here the HUGE differences betweem Harkin's proposal and the current. The current proposal is still 60 votes for cloture; just not for debate.
The other huge difference is any Filibuster is a REAL filibuster: no more of this crap: "I hereby FILE a filibuster, and now I'm going home." No sir - you better be prepared to read the damn phone book for 96 straight hours, or SHUTUP.
I agree, sort of. Do not change the vote threshold, but anyone filibustering should have to be on the floor to do so.
I agree that the difference in the proposals will make the difference in the vote. I don't think the filibuster should be eliminated, but there should be a cost. Having to remain on the floor defending it for the entire time. Also, single Senator anonymous holds should be eliminated.
Agree with lunchbox and heartlight. Espeically now that the public IS paying more attention to what is going on (or NOT) in our congress. Once they get a feel for who, exactly, is doing all the foot-dragging and obstructing of progress, I think they might vote a little differently.
The Constitution states a simple majority is required to pass most legislation. Nothing wrong with extending the debate, arguing against something but if republicans believe in the Constitution as much as they claim (Boehner plans to read it tomorrow), it doesn't say majority rule "except". There is nothing in the Constitution about a filibuster. Change the rule to make the filibuster a real debate and not some simple no vote to block the majority party and shut down government for political gain.
Jonbo makes an important point here, that McConnell is trying to obfuscate (what else is new?). These rule changes would actually help the TRANSPARENCY of the process in the Senate. "Secret holds" were never part of the Constitution, or the original Senate rules. But notice how the GOP doesn't want to give them up. The Dem's think it's a good thing to have those things go.
Who wants transparency in government? The Dem's do, and that's good for the American people.
And the filibuster reform doesn't mean there's a steamroller process. It just means that if you are GOING to filibuster, you darn well had better DEFEND your reasoning for filibuster in the first place. Not this namby-pamby "Oh yes, I'm filibustering that" and go home and raise some more cash. No; if you want that piece of legislation slowed down GIVE A SPEECH WHY you don't like it. ARGUE with us. PROVE to us that it's bad. Make your case! But don't give me this, "Oh, this will be sooooo bad for the American people" garbage, Mr. McConnell.
This will be a good thing - for BOTH parties when they are in the majority AND minorty, and most importantly, good for the American People.
If the Dem's read the Healthcare Bill (which most said they have not)...even Pelosi said we'd have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. The GOP was always willing to debate...Dem's didn't just steamroll the GOP with their own "political agenda," they steamrolled the will of US Citizens - their constituents.
Keep in mind - the Dem's in 2010 didn't even pass a budget. They are printing money - and purposely not keeping track of it via a budget - nor has Obama done much with his economic policy to create job growth. They didn't "pass" the Healthcare bill - they couldn't get everyone in their own party to vote for it - so they "Deemed" it passed with 51 votes - and then reconciled later.
The GOP had a quite a few points/arguments they to make - but were shut down...and have been shut down since the Dem's took full control of Congress in 2006.
So I say leave the filibuster rules as they are - the GOP may have filibustered the crap out of the Dems - but given the 60+ party seat changes in last November's Congressional elections (the largest party swing in history) - I'd say the people clearly had enough of the Democratic powertrip and supported a "regime change."
Harry - it's time to start coming up with good legislation that will win a debate - or be improved by it.
people forget all about history. I lived through Carter, back then Ill. NY and Cal. were doing pretty well. Problem is it aint so today. If you dont see whats going on in this country, you are A: blind or B: so partisian you dont want the next or next generation to even have a chance at success. I can look at the numbers and see what Union s have done to the Northeast and Midwest. YOU gave the generations to come nothing but misery. I certainly hope you are happy that you got your share of the American dream. For thos that WILL pay the price, God help them. There is no way to fix the buisness model of those states and whatever is left of the population who have a job to pay your way until you finally DIE and your rosy retirement ends. Look who is gaining population. Facts are facts and you cant argue them! No closed shops in the South....we will survive your greed
jose - thanks, great post. really good posts, everybody.
daryl - THAT's A CRAZY-DAMN-GOOD IDEA !!! Seriously, is your senator cool, or a schlub? Cause if he's cool, you should email that to his staff right away...unless of course I'm being end-of-the-day-LOOPY, and that's an idea that's already out there, and I just hadn't heard about it...in any case, THAT's A CRAZY-DAMN-GOOD IDEA !!!
They'd obviously have 41 votes to maintain the filibuster at all, so 33/41+ have to physically be there ?!? That would eliminate it 99.9997%, without eliminating it! (In a "Tim-from-Project-Runway"-accent:) LUVVVIT !!! Have a good night all!
Why would the only details in this article about fillibuster reform relate to a bill offered in 1995? Why would the authors not state what is actually being considered, today, in 2011? There is no threat that a bill can be moved to a vote with a simple majority. It will still require 60 votes to end debate. What is being considered is 1) removal of the ability to block a bill from consideration by a single senator; 2) the notion that one would actually have to be on the floor of the senate and continue debate to fillibluster a bill (or nomination); and 3) not allowing a single, anonymous senator to block nominations. They call this the "liberal" media? Why not contact Sen Merkel and actually get a quote from him?
THIS WAS AN OLD POST THAT I DID BACK IN EARLY DECEMBER.
Obama again shows why he is the political genius that has made him great President. You know all of you that are mouthing off and complaining about this tax cut compromise need to remember one thing. THE 250,000.00 TAX CUT DID NOT PASS IN THE SENATE! So why don’t all of you low information complainers focus your attention on those Dems and Rethugs that voted NO!
Some of you do understand the political realty what is going on right know. Obama just single handedly took away two of the top GOP’s talking points. 1. Obama is no socialist. 2. He is not a tax and spend liberal. Our President just took the wind out of the GOP sails! Go to FOX NEWS.COM and read some of the blogs they are confused and are having a hard time dishing the President on this issue. I am sorry this was a brilliant move by our Commander and Chief and Obama is the real winner here his poll numbers will rise after this one.
NOW LOOK AT THE PRESIDENTS NUMBERS!
President Barack Obama got more than rest and relaxation while he was on vacation in Hawaii over the holidays: His job approval rating, which had been languishing in the mid-40-percent range for more than six months, rose to 50 percent, according to Gallup Daily tracking.
The results are the average from tracking conducted Dec. 28-29 and Jan. 2, Gallup said.
Vote Obama out and watch his poll numbers soar!!
wvbuild
Vote Obama out and watch his poll numbers soar!!
I suppose you'll be one on that Free"Dumb" Works bus to the polling place?
You'll be lost if you miss the bus as most Free"Dumb" Workers have no idea where the polling place is.
Anyone, doesn't matter you Free"Dumb" are insignificant.
Some Free"Dumb" Workers are waking up; and are tired of being drones for corporate masters.
What planet do you live on?
Word on the street > he was holding a loosing hand!
Reality dude
I support Senators being forced to actually filibuster by talking, not just by saying they are filibustering an item. While I support the ability to filibuster, I disagree with the last 30yrs of executing the filibuster. I don't like the current majority, but filibusters should be limited and really planned.
Dont give up your freedoms so easily....some in the Senetate do have brains
You Will be in the minority soon
The Republican's also tried this back in 2004/2005 I believe.
FRIST threatened to change the rules in May of 2005. If you don't establish new rules as the first order of business of each session it is supposed to require 67 votes to change them in mid session.
In the absence of any other rules, the majority rules under our Constitution. If you adopt the old rules by simple majority, it should require a super majority to reverse what has already been agreed to by the same set of people.
IIRC, Frist only wanted to change the filibuster rule for getting judges confirmed. It wasn't for the filibuster in general, I don't believe.
The Senate is dysfunctional and broken thanks to abuse of the rules. Both parties have abused it but nothing like the last two years of GOP abuse. Of course, the opponents object--it takes away the one senator can be king for a day or two rule. I've said before, republicans will whine and complain but democrats must ignore it and just fix it. They are not talking about eliminating the filibuster, they are just requiring that it be a "real" filibuster. If a legislator really is against legislation, that senator must be willing to defend and debate it on the floor and not hide in their office. No more phone calls from a senator to the majority leader saying "I intend to filibuster" and that's all there is to it. Changing this rule to make it mean something is necessary and long overdue.
The other rule that needs fixing: no more anonymous and indefinite holds on nominees or legislation. Even Chief Justice John Roberts is complaining about the large number of vacant federal judge seats that are being held up (by republicans) indefinitely and anonymously.
They also need to change the amendment system to allow more amendments and debate. But I do think they should stipulate that amendments must be specific to the legislation (no unrelated items like outlawing viagra for sex offenders in a bill about fuel efficiency standards).
My last rule change to stop the delaying tactics of either party, any senator who demands legislation be read word for word must do the reading. Apparently, that Senator doesn't know what it says; therefore, he/she would benefit from doing the reading.
The Reading of the Bill Issue.
Bills should be orally recorded on file like a book on tape. If a Senator demands that it be read, he should be required to be seated at his desk for the entire reading. If he needs a bathroom break he can hit the fast forward button.
"Reading Of A Bill" is a red herring...all members of Congress have people who are paid to know EXACTLY what is in a bill and how his or her boss should vote on the bill.
I shed crocodile tears over any legislator who kvetches about, "Oh, this bill is 2000 pages! I need time to read it!"
Bully!
First of all, bills are 2000 pages because these are not simple problems and they do not require simple solutions. Secondly, you know you're not reading the bill and I know you're not reading the bill. You're just using the fillibuster to kick the can down the road rather than take a real stand on the issues. Besides, you have a $200 a plate fund-raiser to be at tonight.
Pathetic.
I heard $50K gets you the VIP package which means you get to meet the cheatin little hussy LeAnne Rhimes (sp?) who managed to destroy 2 marriages.
Maybe she can give a speech on family values... lol
Jody an Redhead, you post too much partisian nonsence. Get out off the farm or the free internet at yuour State gov job sometime and see what Dems have been doing to our country. Its ugly.
We all deserve better than what we have been getting from Obama and the fools in congress.
Seems the Republicans showed amazing restraint in 1995. do you think the Democrats that voted with the republicans in 1995 will change their stance on this. "Of the Democrats who voted with Republicans back in 1995, ten are still serving: Majority Leader Harry Reid, Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Herb Kohl, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, and Patty Murray."
The Republicans didn't want to change it because they knew they could abuse it later when they would eventually become the minority.
Nothing wrong with making a Senator step forward, declare his objection, and have his party sit in the chamber while he rattles off his objections. What sense is there with the rules now when one Senator can object anonymously, and then go home and have a nice night's sleep after grinding the Senate to a halt?
I know the simple-minded people on the left want to change the rules to their advantage, but the reality is that the fillibuster is designed to protect the minority. At some point, dems will be back in the minority and you will be whining to change the law back.
By the way, I got a huge laugh out of the nutty obama's supporter joy at getting to a 50% approval rating. I am glad you are satisfied and happy that half of the country still does not approve of his performance. Liberals really do bring up the rear.
"By the way, I got a huge laugh out of the nutty obama's supporter joy at getting to a 50% approval rating. I am glad you are satisfied and happy that half of the country still does not approve of his performance. Liberals really do bring up the rear."
Now folks, HERE's a REAL spin-meister!
Hey, DUANE- when does your apprenticship with Fox begin?
Jeff, please provide the location in the Constitution where the filibuster is discussed.
Answer: You can't because it isn't in the Constitution, it says the majority shall pass legislation.
BTW, spin-meister, how does this relat to the filibuster rules again?
Actually, getting half of the country to agree on anything is a feat, so having a 50% approval rating is quite an accomplishment. Look at the approval ratings of the Senate, House, previous Presidents, etc., and you'll see that getting half the country to like you isn't quite that easy. You also have to also remember that (100% - approval rating) does not equal (disapproval rating). There are often people who neither approve nor disapprove of the President, so it's highly unlikely that 50% approve and 50% disapprove. It's more likely that the #s are, for example, 50% approve/40% disapprove/10% neutral or unsure. And finally, that disapproval doesn't have to come completely from the right. Plenty of more liberal people could disapprove of his performance because they feel it isn't liberal enough, not because it's too liberal, though they are likely the minority of disapprovals.
"By the way, I got a huge laugh out of the nutty obama's supporter joy at getting to a 50% approval rating. I am glad you are satisfied and happy that half of the country still does not approve of his performance. Liberals really do bring up the rear."
And your hero, Ronald Reagan, had an approval rating of 37% at his first midterm, so I guess 50% isn't too shabby for Obama.
Hey Jeff... speaking of 'rear' - you might want to pull your head out of yours as oxygen deprivation is no way to go through life:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
Notice the part about President Obama having an 8 point advantage over President Clinton and an 11 point advantage over President Reagan at this point in their terms?
Jeff, Chicago should have been my last post's subject, NOT DUANE. Sorry, guy.
Time for me to retire the keyboard for a while.
Yeasty Redhead
That's what I think of when I read your comments because you are as irritable as a yeast infection.
And Feisty-
All from a President with an agenda that cost Democrats the most lost seats in Congress since 1948.
Everyone seems happier since the Democrats lost control of the House...
Republicans, the voters, people who respond to polls...
Even you, Feisty...!
Lol.
Sounds like a personal problem - perhaps you should either see a Dr. or practice a little better personal hygiene...
I can see the headlines now....
Truth cause JH to get yeast infection......If she continue reading newsvine , her doctor will have to put in a revolving door just for JH...
Can't stop laughing............
jody - try reading article 1 section 5 para 2
Nothing wrong with making a man stand up for what he believes in, if he wants to impose his will on the majority. This does not take away the filibuster, just makes the objecting senator get off his a$$ and work for a living. I support the change.
here here
How about a limit, like coaches' challenges in a football game. You get so many, then you're done. It would force the minority party to pick their fights carefully.
That might work but the minority would still be able to threaten to filibuster anonymously, and if the majority called the minority's bluff, one Senator could hold the floor, tag team throughout the process with other Senators, and the majority would have to supply 51 Senators to sit in the chamber. That creates a conundrum for the majority, because the minority could tie up all the Senators in the majority during election time with stupid filibusters while the minority is able to do what they want, go home, campaign, etc.
The better deterrent would be as proposed: No anonymous filibusters, and the minority would have to supply the Senators to sit in the chamber during the process. Republicans don't like to work, so you wouldn't see nearly as much filibustering, if any, if the rule changes go through. Sure, they can filibuster all they want, they'll just have to work.
I like this suggestion... you get 5 filibusters a year, so make sure you make them count for something...
That's because, Mitch, the Democrats didn't abuse the filibuster. You filibuster every single thing (what is that.. 90 filibusters last year???? UNPRECIDENTED), things that later on pass unanimously, just because you want to be a jerk.
Reform it. Make a filibuster a filibuster. What's the problem with that?
90 cloture votes were required to end fake filibusters. 300 bills never got to come up for a vote because of the time-sink-after-the-cloture-vote requirement of 30 wasted hours. 90 x 30 = 2700 wasted hours in the Senate where nothing else could get done.
And that's why Reid waits until the end of the year to push through as much as he can because he's the one that recesses the Senate, and the Republicans can't go home for vacation, get all upset, and do whatever it takes to leave.
Paul, what do you mean wasted hours in the Senate? The only time the American people are safe is when nothing is happening in the Senate. Passing bad bills is not progress, as the political class seems to think.
Simple solution- change the rules for presenting a bill to the floor so that each issue stands on it's own and you can eliminate 99% of the filibusters brought to the floor. No more earmarks, no more pet projects tied in to critical spending bills, none of it. If you want to pass a bill allocating $3.6 trillion dollars to Underwater Basket Weaver's United, great, write it up on it's own and bring it up for a vote on it's own merits. If it passes, we'll have a record of who to vote out next chance we get, if it fails, no one's any worse for the wear and no one gets to complain that they were unaware of what was in the bill they voted for. Oh- and no more will we have to pass legislation to find out what's in it. Everybody wins
In the mean time, the filibuster rules need to stay in place to protect the American people from the majority party. OK, so you didn't like it during the 111th Congress, you might still be frustrated by it during the 112th, but if the republicans regain the Senate for the 113th, you can bet your bottom dollar you'll regret any changes made to it on or about January 3, 2013...
Um... its not that simple.
Suzy is that simple. The minority is protected from the majority by the composition of the Senate. Each state, no matter how populace gets the same amount of Senators. This empowers the minority far above their numbers. The rules for the REAL filibuster should stay the same, hell I wouldn't mind if the cloture threshold were raised to 65 for REAL filibusters.
The procedural filibuster must be restricted severely of eliminated entirely.
The secret hold by one Senator should lose the secrecy element.
Explain why this would not be so simple....then special interests wouldn't be funded so well by Congress? Then Congress and the President couldn't pay back those special interests that got them elected?
i say you can filibuster as long as you like, but you have to remain in the senate chambers. you should be allowed a 20 min break every 8 hours if you need food or bathroom, and if you go over that 20 minute allowance you forfeit your ability to filibuster.
I stand by my earlier comment. I also am willing to bet most of 10 of the Democrats who voted with the Republicans against this in 1995, Will support the change now that it benefits them in the short term.
A good way to make using the filibuster less tempting to the minority party is to designate Bernie Sanders as the Official Senate Filibusterer, and the result of anyone introducing a filibuster will be having to hear Bernie speak for no less than 9 hours every time.
"... would undermine the Senate's unique role as a moderating influence and put a permanent end to bipartisanship."
McConnell must have his head up his butt to even believe that there is any bipartisanship. The repulicans put an end to that long long ago, with idiots like Boner (sp?), the drunk and Mc Nasty in the last election in 2008.
Goodness, Dems wanting to change the rules! What a surprise! In the last Congress they didn't care about rules, just bribery. Whenever the people throw them out, they want to change the rules. The people have finally caught on to their spend and then cry we need more revenue game. They have just found out that they have run out of other people's money.
Hey, McConnell, do you remember when Bush was President that your party threatened MANY times to do away completely with the filibuster? I will never forget that attempt at a power grab. It is one of the reasons I know you GOP goons are only out for yourselves and your rich buddies. You rich crooks got rich by standing on the backs of the poor. And as long as we're talking bipartisanship, it's dead, your party proved that through 2 years of NO NO NO. So WTF is the big deal bud? Get rid of it so the majority rules, and you can stop pretending that you work with the other side, because you don't dude, you don't.
matt,
the majority rule is still in effect, it is just not the simple majority that the simple dems would love to have, to shove their socialist agenda down the throats of the uninformed public.
By the way, look it up, the richest politicians in washington are dems. and the entire democrat ideal IS to maintain or even increase the numbers of poor, to keep competition for their jobs toa minimum and ensure they remain in power. They feel the general public should be kept ignorant, and that only the "ruling" dems know what is best for the "people". Sounds alot like socialism, hence, forced health care requiring all to participate, EXCEPT the politician that voted for it!
Matt, Get the facts straight and quit spouting the liberal democrats taking points. There is a lot of difference between threatening something and actually doing it. Further, the republicans so called "nuclear option" pertained to appointment of judges and not to any budget matters or bills. Remember it was 14 senators (7 from each party) that agreed on proceeding with current procedures. Democrats should worry about changing anything because it could bit them in the a$$ when republicans take control of the Senate in 2012.
S.Ulmer, get your facts straight. The richest member of Congress is a Republican...Issa. And there are 261 members of Congress who are millionaires (multi-millionaires for most of those.)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009
sfcrest, you are soooo sure that the GOP is going to take control of the Senate in 2012. A lot can happen in the next two years, and the voters just might finally wise up and throw them all out of office (those that will be up for election then.....just because the number of Dems up for re-election outnumbers the number of GOP does not mean that the GOP will necessarily gain control.)
Of course we votes can also change the entire political picture by joining the Popular Amendment movement and petition for the two constitutional amendments: election/campaign finance reform and term limits. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us and join the movement to bring about real change in federal office holders.
Sorry about the typo in the last paragraph....my internet slowed down and wouldn't let me make the change before the post timed out for changes....we voters, not we votes. My keyboard doesn't always catch my keystrokes on some keys.
anti-trust,
I believe your source is a bit off, but then again 'opensecrets.org' does have an agenda. The Hill, The Legislative Gazette, Forbes and CNBC all rank John Kerry as having the highest net worth. Culled from those sources are the following:
From CNBC, the top 5:
But why let a hundred million or two get in the way of your trying to make a point. Moreover you might be interested to learn that 8 of the 10 highest net worth members of congress are Democrats.
As an aside, Issa makes an exemplary case for the 'boot-strapping' American Dream; that with a modicum of intelligence, education, innovation, hard work and perseverance anyone can make it in the good old United States of America.
The filibuster is a long standing safeguard in these matters and should remain unchanged. If any change should be made in the effort to reduce these long winded diatribes, and thus saving time in matters of of the passage of bills, the law should be passed to limit one, and only one issue per bill. This would accomplish two very important and fundamental things, reduce pork, and shorten filibuster times. But, we all know that they won't even consider something that simple.
That is only by Senate tradition, it is not a Constitutional requirement. The Constitution allows either chamber of Congrees to change their rules anytime by a simple majority vote. However, history and tradition dictate that the rules be setup on the first day and after that Senate rules require the 67 votes to change rules.
I'm pissed about the two week recess
Forty years ago, taxpayers picked up the tab for ONE TRIP HOME EVERY 4 MONTHS for federal legislators. Now it's easily 3 or 4 per month. This needs to be stopped.
They should go back to doing it old school, Jimmy Stewert style. The filibuster in its current form is pathetic.