Senate's Returning Democrats Unanimously Favor Filibuster Reform

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Cooling ones coffee before drinking is a bit different from actually not drinking the coffee. There's the difference.

The will of the people is so fickle. Two years ago, they wanted change, and now, they want to change it back.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Some Old Guy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The will of the people is so fickle. Two years ago, they wanted change, and now, they want to change it back.

Have another cup of coffee.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Have another cup of coffee.

Decaf. Black. Perhaps a taste of Baileys, please.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Only the minority party can filibuster, so the only party that can filibuster CAN'T change the rules regarding filibusters. The letter is disingenuous on its face. It is urging the minority leader to "do something" he cannot possibly do, at least not with the cooperation of many of the majority party.

The Dems CAN do one thing...not filibuster. We will see.

[Ban Hammer 13,671]

Only the minority party can filibuster, so the only party that can filibuster CAN'T change the rules regarding filibusters. The letter is disingenuous on its face. It is urging the minority leader to "do something" he cannot possibly do, at least not with the cooperation of many of the majority party.

The Dems CAN do one thing...not filibuster. We will see.

and if they do, will we see hit editorial pieces on them for doing so?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

and if they do, will we see hit editorial pieces on them for doing so?

You be both wrong. Bernie Saunders just recently led a filibuster, along with several Democratic supporters. Happens all the time. When Senator Reid could not get all 59 of his fellow Democrats plus 1 Socialist to cooperate, the bill under consideration would fail as if filibustered. Not only does the minority get protected by the filibuster, so does the activist left wing of the current majority get protected against some deal among the President, the GOP House, and moderate members of the Senate.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Some Old Guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You be both wrong. Bernie Saunders just recently led a filibuster, along with several Democratic supporters. Happens all the time. When Senator Reid could not get all 59 of his fellow Democrats plus 1 Socialist to cooperate, the bill under consideration would fail as if filibustered. Not only does the minority get protected by the filibuster, so does the activist left wing of the current majority get protected against some deal among the President, the GOP House, and moderate members of the Senate.

Harry's 59 fellow Democrats? Who would they be? Last I looked, there were 56 Democrats, 2 Independents and 42 Republicans in the Senate. That would make it Harry and his 55 fellow Democrats, yes? Prior to Obama's seat being filled after the November election, it was Harry and his 56 fellow Democrats. Prior to Brown winning the late Sen. Kennedy's seat, it was Harry and his 57 fellow Democrats. At no point in this Congress has Harry had 59 fellow Democrats.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Harry's 59 fellow Democrats? Who would they be? Last I looked, there were 56 Democrats, 2 Independents and 42 Republicans in the Senate. That would make it Harry and his 55 fellow Democrats, yes? Prior to Obama's seat being filled after the November election, it was Harry and his 56 fellow Democrats. Prior to Brown winning the late Sen. Kennedy's seat, it was Harry and his 57 fellow Democrats. At no point in this Congress has Harry had 59 fellow Democrats.

Picky-picky. Harry + 57 Democrats + 2 Independents = 60. The point still stands. Any combination of 41 Senators, on the left, or the right, can stop a bill from being considered in the Senate, something that will become more and more important to those issues you find important, as Obama is forced to move from left of center, to right of center, to pass anything in the House.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Picky-picky. Harry + 57 Democrats + 2 Independents = 60. The point still stands. Any combination of 41 Senators, on the left, or the right, can stop a bill from being considered in the Senate, something that will become more and more important to those issues you find important, as Obama is forced to move from left of center, to right of center, to pass anything in the House.

The blocking of legislation by the minority should not be an automatic and practically effortless exercise but should require that minority to stand up and actively and openly support and maintain their opposition. There should be no anonymous blocking of any legislation for which there is majority support in the chamber.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Whether your Right or Left you must agree something has happened to the balance. Before 1970, it was rarely if ever used. Since 1970 its use continues to grow with this last session using it nearly double the previous.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Sousuke

[Pooky 3,847]

Whether your Right or Left you must agree something has happened to the balance. Before 1970, it was rarely if ever used. Since 1970 its use continues to grow with this last session using it nearly double the previous.

As an outsider, I get the general impression that the general level of partisanship in US politics has increased markedly since then, which is a major factor in the prevalence of political machination that goes on in Congress today.

The filibuster is just one measure that is currently being over-used. My take on the reason? The almost super-majority the Democrats have held for the past Congress rendered the filibuster as the only viable method the GOP had at their disposal to influence legislation. Because, despite any words to the contrary, Harry Reid and especially Nancy Pelosi paid no more than lip service to the idea of bipartisanship. I would expect either major party, when presented with the options of "My way or the highway?" would balk at going along with the other party's PoV and fight tooth and nail to avoid a 2 year policy steamroller.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because, despite any words to the contrary, Harry Reid and especially Nancy Pelosi paid no more than lip service to the idea of bipartisanship.

They passed the 1993 GOP health care reform proposal. How much further could the Democrats possibly have reached across that aisle?

[Pooky 3,847]

They passed the 1993 GOP health care reform proposal. How much further could the Democrats possibly have reached across that aisle?

In 1993, Harry Reid was all for changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to do away with anchor babies.

A lot has changed since then.

[james&olya 1,121]

Only the minority party can filibuster, so the only party that can filibuster CAN'T change the rules regarding filibusters. The letter is disingenuous on its face. It is urging the minority leader to "do something" he cannot possibly do, at least not with the cooperation of many of the majority party.

The Dems CAN do one thing...not filibuster. We will see.

Uh, Gary, you seem to be forgetting that the dems still hold a majority in the senate! Yes, you also fall victim to the mindset that the minority party can act like the majority if they are willing to filibuster anything they disagree with under current rules. The returning DEMOCRATIC senate majority can change the rules!

[^_^ 5,021]

Only the minority party can filibuster ...

Parties don't filibuster. Groups of 40 or more Senators filibuster. They can come from one party, from more than one party, from the majority party or the minority party.