All Senate Democrats But Dodd Sign Letter Demanding Senate Rule Changes - FDL

[WillyT]

All Senate Democrats But Dodd Sign Letter Demanding Senate Rule Changes
By: David Dayen
Wednesday December 22, 2010 2:00 pm

<snip>

This is a major breaking story. The main reason that the lame duck session was so productive was that the rest of the legislative session was so UNPRODUCTIVE, because the Republicans were able to ran out the clock. Senate Democrats are taking a stand and saying, we cannot work this way anymore.

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

Carl Levin and Mark Warner distributed this letter, suggesting that the desire for change goes well beyond Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley’s more vocal efforts. Only Chris Dodd, who’s leaving, did not sign this letter.

<snip>

Link: http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/22/all-senate-democrats-but-dodd-sign-letter-demanding-senate-rule-changes/

:shrug:

[Egnever]

1. If they change the rule

There will come a day when we regret it. Hell it was only a couple years ago most people here were horrified at the idea the Pukes would use the "Nuclear option".

Having said that I do think the rule needs to change. Setting the bar for getting to a vote be higher than the bar for passing a piece of legislation clearly causes all sorts of trouble. Why hold the second vote at all when the cloture vote shows a higher amount of support for a bill than is actually needed to pass it.

If nothing else it will be interesting political theater once the battle lines are drawn.

[Yurovsky]

2. Nail, meet head...

if the GOP gets ahold of the Senate in 2012 with even a 1 vote majority, all that Obama and Congressional Democrats have accomplished over the past 2 years will be washed away in a matter of months, if not weeks.

The biggest aggravation for me is that the Senate did not act more forcefully when they had 60 votes, and that the party couldn't field a more formidable candidate to run for Sen. Kennedy's seat after he passed. This was perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it was squandered. I realize the fiasco in Minnesota only gave the Dems about a 6-8 month window, but things should have been passed by the House and lined up for votes, one after another in rapid-fire succession, once Sen. Franken was seated. Why can some average Joe like myself see the need for such action and the overpaid ego-maniacs in DC couldn't be bothered to think strategically and usher in a New "New Deal"?

No wonder the economy is still in the toilet. And that, in turn, left the door open for the teabaggers & the GOP to move in and bring things to a grinding halt.

The takehome message is to be ready to seize opportunity when it comes knocking...

[BrklynLiberal]

5. +1000

[Motown_Johnny]

8. they would need the Senate, House and the White House

since the President can veto.

[rhett o rick]

10. How soon we forget that when the Repukes did have a majority in the Senate, the Demo's rarely

filibustered because the repukes threatened them with CHANGING THE RULES. If the repukes get control of the Senate, they can CHANGE THE RULES. Take what you can get today and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. The repukes abused the rule, time for a change.

[bluestate10]

12. The Massachusetts candidate for Kennedy's vacated seat was

selected in a primary. I voted for a candidate that did not win. A primary is the right way to select a nominee, smoke filled back rooms are not. Primaries are dominated by voters that are either left of right. Moderate don't participate in sufficient numbers to select the strongest and best candidates. Democrats lost the Massachusetts seat because the majority of primary voters nominated a person that campaigned like a deer in headlights and that took positions that were not all defended by obvious facts. The republican candidate worked harder and made more effective commercials. I voted for the democrat even as my heart sunk on election day over the great advantage that she had squandered.

[cascadiance]

4. They should change this minimally to help with judicial and other appointments...

There are so many being held up now, and that's an area where clearing out the filibustering and "holds" would be able to help Obama get some of these people seated that we need now seated. And if there are a few like Ben Nelson which would join Republican filibusters on these nominations, LET 'EM! That will be fuel to take them out in upcoming primaries to show them for being the Republicans in sheep's clothing that they are.

It should make the process so that it requires people to take the floor old style. In short, somehow updating the process, so that it can't be kept from being splashed all over C-SPAN for a day or days to give attention to certain issues, which should work well for us as a voice of the people (assuming that the Democratic Senators can be effective in speaking for what the people want in these situations). That way, whether we are in the minority, or in a majority, it serves to work for us, as the Republicans would be challenged to speak ad infinitum on stuff that are either lies or have to acknowledge that they aren't working for the average American.

That would make the process improved so that things don't get just swept under the rug by corporatists like they are now.

[Sirveri]

6. The proposed rule change still allows for filibustering.

It would simply require them to actually get on the floor and speak during their filibuster instead of simply saying that you can't vote on something and now the bill dies.

[Egnever]

7. Sounds like a good start to me.

[Major Hogwash]

3. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Let's get something done instead of all of this filibustering crap.
They need to get rid of 1 Senator's ability to put a hold on a bill, too.

[xynthee]

9. I hope they do it

Maybe if we're able to actually pass some legislation, we'll make some gains in the Senate, keep the White House and possibly win back the House in 2012. I know I'm feeling a lot more motivated all of a sudden!

Of course, I've long suspected some of the Dems are secretly relieved to have the built-in excuse of Republican obstructionism to keep from having to pass legislation they personally find distasteful. Then again, I'm a little bit :tinfoilhat:.

[rhett o rick]

11. Time for a change. nm

[apocalypsehow]

13. This would be a terrible mistake. As much as many DU members like to pretend that the Democratic

majority in the Senate will endureth forever, the day will come when the Senate Majority Leader will have an "R" behind his name. And then we will be truly and royally fucked, because there will be absolutely no legitimate cause to complain when Mitch McConnell (or someone likes him) simply starts ramming bills through the upper chamber the way the leader of the House of Representatives is able to do so now - on the power of sheer simple majority votes.

BTW: save your breath, or, rather, your finger-strokes on lecturing me on how this will simply never happen in the Senate (i.e., that the Democrats will never lose their majority); how even if it does it's just too, too important to the issues you care most about to forgo implementing this procedural change; how I just don't understand that there will never be a Republican president again as long as the world turns, and, therefore, it doesn't matter that we scuttle current Senate procedure because a Democratic president will always be able to veto crappy bills coming out of a Republican House & Senate.

Save. Your. Breath.

I'm not interested.

Also: "B-B-But Th-Th-That's d-different!!!11" arguments do not impress me. Thanks.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. we know it won't endure forever, we also know that we don't hold things up

the way the (R)s do

it will hut them more than it hurts us simply because we don't filibuster as much

[apocalypsehow]

15. Baloney. Both sides, when in the minority, use the current rules to simply keep things they care

very much about preventing becoming law - and know will pass on a simple up-or-down vote - off the Senate floor. If you disagree with that, then we're done here: it happens to be a fact, and I thought I made it clear how little use I have for "but that's different!!!11" replies in the first place? :shrug: Didn't you read that part in my post?

The bottom line is that it will "hurt us" very badly, in all sorts of future scenarios, and is simply a crappy idea. Period.

[tkmorris]

16. Sorry Pal

You can use whatever arguments you like but you do NOT get to dictate what others may say, even in response to you.

Aside from that you are just plain wrong. Republicans have, in recent years at least, acted in a far more obstructionist manner when in the minority than Democrats have. The record is quite clear on that. Furthermore the changes suggested above to Senate rules do not eliminate the filibuster; they simply force it to be used in a similar manner to how it was done in sessions past. I don't recall the world ending back then, and it won't end now.

[Better Believe It]

18. How did Senate Republicans stop a Senate filibuster of Bush's Supreme Court picks in 2005?

Answer.

All they had to do was threatend to use the Constitutional Option which put Senate Democrats in wave the white flag mode!

If Republicans take control of the Senate and White House in 2012 they will play partisan hardball and will not permit any Democratic "procedural filibusters" against legislation or appointments they really want.

Period.

[Better Believe It]

17. Senate Dems can easily halt Republican "procedural filibusters" Just end the "dual-track" practice!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x51481