Harry Reid: Filibuster rule has been abused; needs changing

[musiclawyer]

Source: Huffihgton Post

WASHINGTON -- After an exasperated rant about Republican obstructionism, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday night that it's time to revamp the Senate's longstanding filibuster rule.

"If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it's the filibuster rule, because it's been abused, abused and abused," Reid said on the Senate floor.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/harry-reid-filibuster-reform_n_1510167.html#comments

---

It was a mistake not to go nuclear back in January of 2011. And spare me the meme, " one day we will be in the minority."

When the rapist is knocking down your door in the dead of night and you are crouched in the corner of your room , you don't think to yourself, "oh better not use this gun, it might be used against me."

If the GOP ever controls the Senate, they will do whatever they please, including getting rid of the filbuster altogether.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Reid had an opportunity to change the rule at the beginning of the current Senate and didn't.

As the Update to the article notes, on the first day only 51 votes are needed for a change.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. But he meant well.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Oh, ya think?

PB

[TheWraith]

3. I disagree.

There was really no remaining point in filibuster reform by the time 2011 rolled around. The House wasn't going to pass anything that the Republicans in the Senate would filibuster, and as long as the House is Republican controlled, it's still a pointless proposition because with a majority they have a stranglehold on legislation. Filibuster reform is to guarantee they don't have a stranglehold on legislation when in the minority. If we take back the House, then next year becomes the time to do it.

[jaysunb]

5. That may very well be true, but

we could have had lots of judges seated by now and it would probably have had a great effect on rulings leading up to the elections.

[toddwv]

21. This.

The Dems rolled over on the rule change and quite a few other things.

And the Republicans just kept rolling.

[DJ13]

4. "This just in"

"Boneless chicken finds spine"

[earthside]

9. I would add ...

... after the chicken has been roasted and is on the serving plate.

A guy as slow as Reid to come around to this is way too slow to be Majority Leader of the United States Senate.

[musiclawyer]

12. If he does not go nuclear day 1 2012, it's malpractice and Reid's a fool.

I do think we will keep the Senate, despite a lot of pessimism here.
Then it's a no brainer. The Senate needs to function. Judges and department heads, and other assorted vital people need to be appointed. Otherwise, the appearance of forever gridlock and hopelessness creep comes in and then the republicans CAN win general elections. (Because the GOP get sh-t done even if they only have 50 senators)

Oh, side note POTUS, fire all the republican US attorneys too on day 1, 2012, all of them.

[toddwv]

22. 2013...

The next session of Congress, the 113th, starts on January 3rd 2013.

That's alot of 1s and 3s...

[yurbud]

27. he mentioned a spine. To find it, we would have to pull out all the stops to change the rule

next time and actually get it done.

Otherwise, this is just more token resistance to the corporate agenda.

Democrats have talked tougher on other issues and betrayed us when they had a chance to act.

I would be surprised if that didn't happen on this issue too.

[Posteritatis]

6. Like maybe actually requiring them to filibuster? (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. That would be novel. Of course, there are those who can't distinguish between actual filibusters

and pretend ones.

All Reid would have to do is announce that he would order the business of the Senate to continue unless an actual filibuster was being conducted.

No pretense about "Oh, that's the way that they used to do it" and no pretense that only the Jimmy-Stewart type of filibuster would be a real filibuster.

Just order the business of the Senate to proceed if no actual filibusters are being conducted.

[emulatorloo]

25. The rules are such that voting against cloture = "real" filibuster

Last talk of changing filibuster involved re-instating the old style filibuster. Requiring those people who wanted to filibuster to be present. etc etc

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Not requiring a vote on cloture (Senate Rule XXII) = no actual filibuster

[Flatpicker]

10. Yup.

If you believe in something enough to filibuster then you should have to read from the phonebook for all I care.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. It must be election season.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Of course he's right

He was right on the other occasions he said this, too.

We need to get ' er done, not chat.

[AndyTiedye]

13. What Good is it To Say This Now?

The Repigs are heaviily favored to take over the Senate next year, and this just makes it easier for them to go nuclear on us when they do. It doesn't buy us anything at all, as long as the Repigs control the House.

"But we're going to kick ass in the elections, keep the Senate and take over the House."

I sincerely hope so, and if we do, we can look at doing away with the filibuster after we win. To do so now is to take a great risk for nothing.

[high density]

16. No clue

The article even concedes that they won't visit this issue until early next year. That's when they'll briefly be able to change the rules with 51 votes instead of two-thirds.

[CanonRay]

18. If they still have 51, that is.

[24601]

28. For Harry to have any credibility on this, he needed to push it when he was Minority leader.

And the effects would have been significant. For starters, the Bush-era tax cuts would have been permanent and if my memory is accurate, there would be no estate tax.

[Phlem]

15. I have watched Reid for way to long.

He's ridiculously absent. He's so friggin slow you wonder if he's working for the other side.
He seems to be little just over non functional. It'd be great to get a good progressive in his spot.

-p

[CanonRay]

17. He's just f'ing figuring this out?

Little slow on the uptake there Harry?

[TygrBright]

19. Attempt #427 to change filibuster rule. Yeah, that'll work. n/t

[AlbertCat]

20. Filibusters are needed

... for their original purpose.... to avoid tyranny of the majority.

However! Since the Repugs won't play fair, it's time to, not eliminate them, but ration them.

There needs to be a rule that no cloture vote may be filibustered

Also, in any 2 year Senate "term" either side can only have a certain number of filibusters... like maybe 10 or 20. That way they'd better save them for something important.

And of course like post #6 says.... they must actually filibuster, not just threaten to do so.

[sofa king]

23. Heh. Said the guy who used it like a glue gun.

I once watched Harry Reid read a novel-length local history of Searchlight, Nevada, his hometown, into the Congressional Record... for hours.

He knows better than anyone else that the filibuster--and a host of other artful maneuvers, such as the anonymous hold, which stem from the filibuster--saved our asses in those frightening Bush years when we teetered before the chasm of modern fascism. We spent years on the brink, and it was Robert Byrd and Harry Reid, most prominently, who talked us out of it.

I think that makes him less likely to consider any substantive changes to the filibuster, but it might also make him more likely to use it as a bluff or a smoke screen or a telegraphed punch or some metaphor more illuminating than that which I can conjure.

The unfortunate and far more boring real-world approach is to somehow hold the Senate this year, and try like hell to set up a supermajority grab in 2014, when a more vulnerable Republican class with an abysmal record has to defend itself.

But that's just my opinion.

[0rganism]

24. the next GOP-majority senate will happily take you up on that

If the Dems can't hold the senate in 2012, we'll be wishing we had an easy way to filibuster in 2013.