Should Senate Democrats simply end the fillibuster to pass heath care reform?

[iceman66]

It seems like that if all else fails, the leadership could just change the rules to allow a straight up and down vote, and deal with the political fallout later.

Recall that not too many years ago, the Republicans were openly threatening this to try and get right wing extremist judges confirmed, and the health care issue if much, much more critical.

It's not like there wouldn't be justification as the Republicans have not been honest brokers on the issue. They have made it very clear that, instead of trying to negotiate in good faith, they only intend to dely, disrupt and obstruct.

In short, desperate times call for desperate measures!

Has this even been considered? If not, why not?

[Oregone]

1. No. It would be tougher to pretend to be progressive

The whole masquerade would come tumbling down

[iceman66]

4. Being "progressive" has noting to do with it.

It is a parliamentary tactic that has nothing to do with ideology.

[Oregone]

9. You miss the point

If there exists some excuse for not pursuing more aggressive legislation, it allows everyone to pretend to be for it but have a reason to compromise.

The filibuster is used more masterfully by the Democrats than anyone so far. They are using the concept as a Get out of Jail Free card. Without it, they may be caught in the cold holding their own dicks.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. I got it the first time. Just like the war.

They keep getting our money and votes (in that order) by saying they'll end the war(s) (2006) and single payer (2008).

...before I go on, quick question. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER ANY TALK ABOUT A 'PUBLIC OPTION' BEFORE THE ELECTION?

But they couldn't help get out of the war, even with majorities in Congress because of they didn't have a veto proof majority.

One excuse after the other, and the result... seems to be the SAME...

[iceman66]

14. Actually, Obama, Clinton and Edwards all ran on some variation

of the public option.

Only Kucinich was openly pushing for single-payer.

[FormerDittoHead]

18. You know, you're right about that.

That is correct. In fact, Obama's plan was the most conservative between his, Clinton's and Edwards.

[iceman66]

12. You do have a point there.

Some of these guys, I think, actually preferred to be in the minority because then they could talk a good game and never be expected to have to do anything about it.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Sure, but there's *zero* chance Reid has the balls to do that.

[stray cat]

3. Absolutely not! Only if you agree its ok to the repubs to do it in the past and future

[iceman66]

6. You don't think they would anyway?

It may be the only way to get health care reform!

[ThomWV]

16. So you're afraid it would be like Democrats on the appointment of a Senator in Mass?

[Alexander]

5. Only if you trust a future Republican Senate with this power.

I say, let's just show Harry Reid the door and find a new Senate Majority Leader.

He's going to lose his seat next year anyway.

[backscatter712]

7. I thought it was 67 votes to change the rules of order in the Senate.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if I'm right, removing the filibuster is much harder than a 60 vote cloture, and most of the Democrats in the Senate would vote against it because they would want to be able to filibuster when the Republicans are in the majority.

That's why there's talk about reconciliation - it's an already-existing loophole in the filibuster rules that can be used to jam through health care reform if we can't get 60.

[iceman66]

15. But Frist threatened to do this very thing,

sucessfully - as the Democrats backed down on some of the judges, when he had a much smaller majority than Reid has now.

I can't see any reason why this isn't even being talked about.

[backscatter712]

21. That was the nuclear option.

And it was a different parliamentary loophole in the filibuster than reconciliation.

Frist would have asserted that filibustering a judge's nomination is unconstitutional because of the advice & consent clause in the Constitution, which he claimed would have required the Senate to bring it to a vote. Yes, that argument's bunk, but Frist would have appealed to the highest authority in the Senate, a certain Richard Bruce Cheney. Three guesses as to which way he would have ruled, and the first two don't count...

[mattclearing]

8. Yes, because the current filibuster is bullshit, but they won't.

The way the filibuster works now is a mockery of what it used to be, there's no sacrifice involved, and you don't even know who is filibustering. It's a joke. It guarantees gridlock on any issue of contention, even with a significant majority, as we all see.

So it's an easy case to make that it should be done away with. The fact that the Dems in the Senate aren't making it should tell you something about the leadership's true intentions regarding reform and a progressive agenda.

[rgbecker]

11. Read up on this: Wikipedia, Reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

It's my understanding the reason the finance committee is the Senate committee that is working on this Health Care Reform bill is so it will be considered a Budgetary bill and thus qualify for the Reconciliation process. As such, when it is finalized and combined with the House bills (and hopefully then include the "Public Option") and it returns to the Senate for a vote, debate will be limited to 20 hours and then a vote up or down. No 60 votes required to stop debate (or Filibuster). No worry about Republicans suddenly having power to do this to us, they already have, several times, when they passed the Bush tax cuts for the rich that together with two Wars, have given us the huge deficits the wing nuts are complaining about.

Here's a quote from the Wiki article: President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Sen Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health care reform bill in the Senate has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

[iceman66]

17. It may well come to that.

I just think that if the roles were reversed there is NO WAY any Republican-led Senate would let a small minority of Democrats tie up a piece of important legislation with a fillibuster. Why should our side play by a different set of rules?

[gratuitous]

13. Wait for the joint committee bill

By rule, that goes to an up-or-down vote, no amendments allowed.

No sense taking out the filibuster, which is actually a pretty useful tool under certain circumstances. Democrats should be pushing the "up-or-down vote" meme, and particularly pointing out the number of popular votes that stand behind their position. For example, when the Senate Finance Committee voted down a public option in its final bill, the number of popular votes that backed the 13 Senators voting against the public option was fewer than the number of votes backing the 8 Senators who voted for it. That is, the minority actually represented more voters, and more accurately represented the mood of the country, which backs a public option by a substantial majority, far more than the number of people who ever backed the invasion of Iraq.

[hughee99]

19. I really, really hate to say this, but if they can't even get the 60 votes in the Senate

to pass the bill, they won't have the "political will" get it up and running even if they "backdoor" it.

[Enrique]

20. if it was that easy, the republicans would have done it

no silver bullets unfortunately.