Harry Reid Declares He Has 51 Votes For Filibuster Reform
Source: TPM
Senate Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to weaken the filibuster, the top two Democrats declared unequivocally on Wednesday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said hes continuing discussions with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over a bipartisan resolution. But when asked if he has the 51 votes for filibuster reform via the constitutional option if that fails, he didnt mince words.
Yes, Reid said.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall full talking filibuster approach likely wont happen because it does not have 51 votes. But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.
Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-has-51-votes-filibuster-reform.php
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)UrbScotty
(23,980 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Look at the body of the original message. What he's looking to use the nuclear option to do isn't worth much, and will still require the 60 votes to get something through. It'll just make the Rethuglicans look a little uglier when they do it, and they don't really care about that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)only requiring an actual filibuster.
ETA: What makes anything about a filibuster "constitutional?" the Constitution says each house makes rules for its conduct of business (not exact words).
This is a confusing story.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The "nuclear option" was a reference to changing the rules mid stream, without a 60 vote majority. This is creating the rules at the beginning of a session, using a relatively "standard" 51 majority vote.
What is changing is that the minority must muster 41 votes, instead of the majority getting 60. As such, people not voting, (absent, vacant, abstaining, etc.) can't obstruct progress, only those present, able, and willing to vote against progress can do so.
It is small, but it is not insignificant. The loss of Teddy wouldn't have been such a problem under these rules. The GOP would never have gotten 41 votes to obstruct. Teddy being dead, effectively had him "voting" with the minority. Under these rules a "dead" senator "votes" with the majority.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Now that you mention it, though, I think you are correct: The nuclear option was indeed making any change to the filibuster rule with only 51 votes, though the change that were discussing at the time that the term "nuclear option" became popular was eliminating the filibuster entirely.
This is what TPM says:
In other words, 41 senators could silently block debate from beginning, but once 60 senators vote to move to debate, filibustering senators must speak on the floor.So, one Senator giving notice of intent to filibuster, or whatever mumbo jumbo now they use to faux filibuster is out the window, which is a good thing.
But, they need 60 Senators even to require a real filibuster. That is going to be as hard as getting 60 to vote for cloture. It really is not very much of a reform.
As far as Kennedy, his temporary replacement was appointed fairly quickly, wasn't he?
IMO, there should be a uniform rule about filling Senate vacancies, but I guess that would take a Constitutional amendment and that is a separate issue anyway..
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The proposal from the majority leader, Durbin said, suggests changes in reducing and eliminating the motion to proceed, how many cloture votes youll face in conference committee, what happens to nominations after cloture, whether its 30 hours a piece or 2 hours a piece
Sounds like a deal negotiation to limit it's use for some things while leaving the "phone it in and call it a filibuster" for passing the laws themselves. I am sure we will get a handshake deal assuring Reid they promise not to obstruct everything. Reid likes handshake agreements from Republicans or at least has often given that impression.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and he just needed two votes for the talking filibuster. It seems that they shouldn't be blocking this.
Shouldn't we all be calling Boxer's and Leahy's offices to pressure them to do the talking filibuster now? If it's not them blocking it, then who on the Democratic side is LYING about their support for the talking filibuster? They need to be exposed for not being honest to their constituents on where they stand.
Volaris
(10,273 posts)There's a reacharound joke in there somewhere, but I'm too tired to actually find it at the moment...
Someone else will have to "handle the ball" on this one
bemildred
(90,061 posts)As opposed to emailing Harry anonymously.
stopwastingmymoney
(2,042 posts)The number is 202-224-3553
rampart
(202 posts)dems are almost sure to be in the minority in 2015. look at the map, and be very afraid of what might happen with reid as minority leader.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)In most states Democrats have a majority of voters. It is because of gerry-mandered districts that Republican Representatives even have a chance......
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)eggplant
(3,912 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)because the Democrats might become the minority party in the Senate in 2014.
eggplant
(3,912 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)This will allow her replacement a greater likelihood of a prompt confirmation.
merrily
(45,251 posts)than bank on his re-election.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)She can live to be 100, and it is a lifetime appointment.
Besides the pay is great, working conditions are superb and she gets deluxe healthcare.
She would be nuts to retire prematurely.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)voting on any bill. In toher words the republicans can kill any bill they choose to do, and can do it now with our permission. How is this anything good?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Right now, need to gather 60 senators to break a filibuster. Senator in the hospital? That's a vote to keep the filibuster going.
After this change, that ill senator is a vote to break the filibuster. In addition, you could keep calling votes over and over again to tie up the minority while your side can go do whatever they want.
Right now, a filibuster is as difficult as a phone call. After this, it takes much more effort. It's not as good as the "talking filibuster" bill, but it's still a huge improvement.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)it could help.
wicket
(14,901 posts)n/t
yurbud
(39,405 posts)doesn't even merit a blip of optimism until they actually do it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)before some blue dog changes their mind.
bfealk
(477 posts)If there is no talking filibuster, we won't get any change at all.
demwing
(16,916 posts)what?
Really...on what?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... by making sure that the Dems don't have 50 votes there to vote something in when the filibuster is "stopped" then. And of course with no talking filibuster, NOONE will know about it, just the way the corporatist lobbyist owned senators want it!
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)We have an absurd amount of Senate confirmations to get done, get them done! Judiciary.....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Smilo
(1,944 posts)but McTurtle doesn't want this so.................
NinetySix
(1,301 posts)is that the minority, in putting together 41 votes to block the progress of any bill, confirmation, etc., would have to go ON RECORD as having voted to stop the bill proceeding to a vote. This way, although the majority might only be able to put together 56 votes to proceed (enough to pass the measure, but currently not enough to break the filibuster), the change would permit any majority to successfully vote to pass the measure if the minority were unable to muster the full 41.
As it is now, if a Senator chooses to exercise the filibuster, it is the MAJORITY who have to go on record to proceed. So what we have now is the lazy man's filibuster, where I don't have to prove that I have 41 votes (maybe I only have 28), but YOU have to prove that you have 60 -- and no one who is holding up the works ever has to have their name spoken in the same breath with obstruction
sakabatou
(42,165 posts)Javaman
(62,531 posts)The Wizard
(12,545 posts)It's about time he was neutered.
healthnut7
(249 posts)Enough of the playing around that the R's do. They would be in deep trouble money wise if they only got
paid for what they do. Which is nada!!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Just end it, fillibuster has stopped serious progress. Look when a party wins an election it is because the people have chosen those ideas for the country, it is not like 20 years ago and more when people really didn't have a good idea of what was going on and Repubs could lie and get away with it, because information was often biased and filtered slowly. Today the internet and multimedia allow fast transition of information, everyone knows everything that is going on, the country voted to follow a Democratic President and Democratic Senate so let them lead, sure Repubs can debate however they want they can stand against anything and go on the record and make it known why they are against whatever but they should not be allowed to obstruct. If America doesn't like something that the ruling party does then I am sure America will rightfully let them know about it via elections... but until that happens the Repubs need to sit down and shut up or as I used to hollar to my kids, be quite and color.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'm waiting............
-p
RandiFan1290
(6,239 posts)russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)xxxsdesdexxx
(213 posts)Tried calling Senator Feinstein, but wasn't able to leave a message. The recording suggested that I call her California office. Sent both of them emails as well.
BigD_95
(911 posts)Im so sick of this guy
awake
(3,226 posts)I only wish that Reid had half the ball that Sec. Clinton has
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)You need to arm twist the votes for forcing a talking fillibuster as the Democratic proposal. Shifting the responsibility onto the minoirity to produce 41 no votes can be your olive branch offer to McConnell if compromise is that important to you. Anything less than that is an insult to every voter who has been promised real reform.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)How bad are the DC "Democrats" willing to lose in 2014/16 ??
1 Party, 2 Faces