First order of business - suspend the Filibuster

[jpak]

yup

[DUgosh]

1. Day one

N/t

[gkhouston]

2. ^^ This. Even if the Republicans make cooperative noises, don't trust them. n/t

[morningglory]

3. Number 2: make it so we can easily vote. Everywhere. Register. Vote. Be counted. nt

[HereSince1628]

6. Things must be done to protect voter access to federal elections.

Maybe a federal holiday for elections--maybe replace President's day, or move up Veteran's day in election years.

As a vet I wouldn't object to moving veteran's day...if we served for any principle it was to preserve elections.

[LeftofObama]

4. A Freakin Men!

If I'm not mistaken, Senator-elect King of Maine (I) said that was one of his conditions to caucus with the Democrats.

[jpak]

5. Yup!

[Bonobo]

7. 100% agree! nt

[leveymg]

8. ABSOLUTELY, FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.

No more obstruction.

[SnoopDog]

9. Too bad we did not get the House...

How are we going to get the Tea Baggers in the House to vote for anything but 'repealing Obamacare' that they did what 32 times in the last 2 years...

[rock]

10. We go to the people to put pressure on them

[SnoopDog]

16. I really think that is the only option left...

[jpak]

11. Even more reason to suspend the Filibuster

If the Senate passes a bill and the House does not - there could be reconciliation that would get things done in Congress.

If Mitch The Turtle filibusters everything - nothing will get done.

Yup

[SnoopDog]

17. You still have to have the House vote Yes for a bill...

Otherwise it does not pass...

[coalition_unwilling]

12. I'm not a parliamentarian, but I believe changes to rules in the Senate

require 60 votes. Thus, suspending the filibuster would require 60 votes. Or are you proposing that Reid and the Dems just declare existing Senate rules null and void?

[jpak]

13. They can do this before the next session - right?

Reid considered this in 2009 - but didn't do it.

Big mistake.

The GOP are proven obstructionists that will use every club they have.

Take it away from them.

Yup

[coalition_unwilling]

14. There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a rule change like

suspending the Filibuster. I see the Senate as a profoundly anti-democratic institution anyway, so I hold no warrant for its rule-making procedures. But the rules say 60 votes required to change Senate rules.

[jpak]

15. Reid can do it if he wants to - and he wants to now...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/

[coalition_unwilling]

20. See post #19 downthread - n/t

[SnoopDog]

18. It takes only a simple majority to change Senate rules...

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Actually, I guess it depends upon whom you consult. ThinkProgress says it takes

67 votes to change Senate rules. (Not sure where I got the 60 figure):

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/02/12/196150/how-many-votes-to-change-the-senates-rules/?mobile=nc

[SnoopDog]

21. The Constitution states...

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Since simple majority is the norm and since there is no reference to 2/3's vote (which is to be used for only very critical votes) for 'determining rules', I would say majority rules in this case...

[rock]

23. That's how I've always heard it

Simple majority. (After all these are not laws just rules for the senate).

[librechik]

22. more likely: TheSenate can lower the # of votes needed to overcome the fillifucker

It's only been at 60 for 20 years or so (total guess) back when LBJ was around the number was 54 or thereabouts. It has been changed more than once.

That would curb the power of the minority to kill legislation without totally eliminating the fillibuster

we have more Dems now let's do it!