Carl Levin: Filibuster Could Fall 'After Massive Conflict On The Floor'

[laughingliberal]

<snip> The GOP was joined by Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in defeating President Obama's nominee, Craig Becker, by a vote of 52-33. The 52 votes were in favor of Becker, while the 33 were in opposition. In today's Senate, that's enough to block a nominee.

"I'm in my thirty-sixth year. I've never seen anything like it," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that no previous Republican Senate leader would have allowed his party to filibuster such a routine nomination.

Leahy said that the overuse of filibusters by the GOP was leading Democrats to consider ways to modify it.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), another long-serving member, said that abuse of the filibuster is unsustainable. "I think it will either fall of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to reform," Levin told the Huffington Post, adding that the filibuster should be restricted to major issues. <snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/poll-nearly-two-thirds-of_n_455734.html

It's time to end this travesty while we still have a country left.

[laughingliberal]

1. ah, yes, an unrec. from those who like this gridlock. lol

[Incitatus]

4. I wonder if the mods can see who makes the unrecs.

On OPs like this, it could indicate who the lurking freepers are.

[burning rain]

8. There are those here who make a fetish of tradition.

Weird habit for lefties.

[harmonicon]

25. another unrec ...

because, while I agree with Levin on this and think he brings up a good point, starting the discussion in the thread about some rec/unrec nonsense instead of about the content of the original post is destructive to the spirit of this board (what good spirit is left), and a hopeless waste of time.

[JDPriestly]

26. I think people unrec without intending to.

The unrec needs to be far from the recommend -- maybe the recommend should be at the top.

Occasionally, I have clicked on recommend when I wanted to click on reply. I know that sounds impossible, but I have done it a few times -- not often but more than just two or three times.

So, the unrecs may be unintentional.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. Rec'd to +2

It isn't a real filibuster until they have peed their pants while reading from the phone book.

[laughingliberal]

6. Heh! I like that idea! nt

[JDPriestly]

27. PBS Poll-435, you are so right.

[amborin]

3. rec'd to +3

[Chipper Chat]

5. Rec'd +6

Not "wrecked" as our Frurping Leeker attempted.

[Lasher]

7. Republicans don't want to sustain the filibuster forever.

They want to keep it up just like this until they again have control of the Senate. Then they'll want to kill it.

[laughingliberal]

9. That's exactly right. Those who argue we should keep it in case the Republicans get the majority

are in denial. I guarantee you they will kill the filibuster if they ever get the majority again. Meanwhile, we will have squandered our chance to pass meaningful legislation. The best chance we have at retaining the majority is to pass some bills which will get things rolling for people.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. +1

[Hissyspit]

10. Huffington Post: Rule 22 The Filibuster Fraud "We Have A Crisis, Mr. Vice-President"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7682796

[laughingliberal]

11. +1 nt

[John Kerry VonErich]

12. Said it before, and will say it again

The GOP threatened the nuke option during the Bush judicial fiasco. Let the buyer beware.

[Toucano]

13. This is a nomination to a seat on the National Labor Relations Board.

Not even a judicial nominee!

I think some recess appointments are in order.

[Heywood J]

14. It's extremely sad that you can get 52 votes and still not be confirmed.

That's the same number of votes Clarence Thomas got, and it was good enough to put him on the Supreme Court. Someone should point that out to the Republicans. If 52 votes is insufficient, Thomas should be taken off the court.

[spanone]

15. yes, mr leahy/levin,you better do something quick, they plan to be of no help to this country at all

p.s. MAKE THE FUCKERS FILIBUSTER

[Winterblues]

16. filibuster should be restricted to major issues.

And who is to make that determination? To the Party doing the filibustering all issues are Major.

[rhett o rick]

20. The rule is being abused, eliminate the filibuster. nt

[Morning Dew]

17. Whatever happened to

the cries from the right about a "straight up or down vote".

[sybylla]

18. It would end in a hearbeat if they just made pukes stand on the floor and filibuster

I doubt they need a supermajority to do that.

[rhett o rick]

19. Seems to me the Democrats dont want to stop the filibuster. They could if they wanted to. There are

number of ways. Call the assholes out. Make them physically filibuster then mock them. Or invoke the nuclear option. What the hell are the Democrats waiting for?

[Hippo_Tron]

28. There would need to be a quorum on the floor at all times to make them talk

Because otherwise they could just filibuster by having the clerk call the roll and having one senator there to reject to any unanimous consent requests to end the quorum call.

[sybylla]

35. I'm up for a contest of wills

The pukes will back down long before the Dems.

Especially if, while the pukes are on the floor spewing whatever they have to to fill the time, there can be one Dem Senator outside (in rotation) talking to the press about the real problems of the country and the relief these fuckwits are blocking.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. The Republicans can be outside talking to the media as well

Only one Republican needs to be on the floor at a time.

[TexasObserver]

21. Recommend

[Lifelong Protester]

22. Make 'em filibuster

since the majority of them are old guys (no disrespect~I'm married to one, although a good dem.) they couldn't take it for too long. Let 'em literally put their money where their mouths are.

"You wanna filibuster. Here's the latest (insert favorite city here) phone book. Have at 'er."

Those old farts couldn't find enough toothpicks to keep their eyes open.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. They used it seldomly

First of all, the Republicans didn't give up or down votes to a lot of Clinton appointees but they claim it doesn't count because they used their majority status to hold the nominations up in committee.

The main one Democrats used it on was John Bolton for UN Ambassador and quite frankly the man has zero respect for the United Nations and thus wasn't qualified to be UN Ambassador.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. The Republicans got what they wanted by threatening to change the rules

We caved before they had a chance to.

[laughingliberal]

32. The filibuster was not even heard of 100 years ago and the current form is about 35 years

old. Seems to me we were able to govern the country without it for a very long time. I'm not sure how much more looking at ourselves is in order, here. We have a handful of asshat Dems in the Senate who join the Republicans in filibustering important bills. If we don't do something to turn this around and pass some legislation to help people soon, we will not have to worry about our majority, anymore. And, I guarantee the first thing the Republicans will do if they regain the Senate is get rid of it. So, the boogey man of not doing away with the filibuster because the Republicans might have the majority again, someday, just doesn't fly.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

34. It is frustrating we could not even keep our coalition together for cloture votes but it is the

reality and we can't go on just letting everything hang in the Senate.

[defendandprotect]

37. Make them filibuster . . .