I recall from right after the 2008 election that the Senate only needed a simple majority to change

[politicaljunkie41910]

the Senate Rules regarding the filibuster, but they had to do it on the first day of the new session or they couldn't change it later in the session. It was my understanding that Reid didn't want to do it, because the Dems figured someday they could possibly be back int he minority and wanted to preserve it.

Does anyone recall this issue? and please don't get my question confused with the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster or the fact that once you get past a filibuster, you only need a simple majority to pass a bill because I understand all that. I'm just talking about how many votes it requires to change the Senate rules (regarding filibuster) at the outset of a new congressional session.

Does anyone here recall that discussion back in 2008?

[BlueCaliDem]

1. It was also discussed in January 2010 when Harry Reid won re-election

and the Democrats were more in favor of changing the filibuster rule. But again, Reid ran out the clock and nothing was done.

However, last July he's been exasperated with the filibuster-happy GOP in the Senate and has said he will seriously consider the rule change.

They only need 51 votes to change the rules in a new Congress, but only within a few days after the new Congress reconvenes.

[unblock]

2. i recall the same thing.

note that this is different from the "nuclear option", which is essentially a majority vote rules change mid-session -- iirc, basically some majority senator tries to break a filibuster by claiming that a cloture vote requires only majority vote (blatantly incorrect, but requires a decision on the rules) and the president of the senate (aka the vice-president of the united states) decides in that senator's favor (also blatantly incorrect but subject only to majority confirmation) and is upheld by majority vote.

the "nuclear option" is considered much more odious and controversial than simply changing rules at the beginning, even if the changes are simply power-flexing on the part of the majority.



the real problem for democrats is that they can't always be certain that a majority of just a few seats will actually produce a majority when needed, given that democrats are not as unified as republicans. so democrats can drastically curtail filibuster rules, only to find that they can't muster a majority for many important votes. then of course, they face payback when republicans have a majority, and you can bet that republicans would then completely shut out democrats.

more directly, curtailing filibuster requires support from that those conservadems who are the only relevant democrats when republicans are in power. reid would be asking them to make themselves irrelevant at that point. it's clearly in the party's interest, but not necessarily in those senators' interests.

[politicaljunkie41910]

4. The American people send members to congress to get things done, not to secure their re-election.

The way to secure their re-election is to work towards the good of the nation as a whole. Dems are the only one who are timid about such things. If the GOP has a 50.00000001% lead. they view that as a mandate and govern as if they had 99% of the voters on their side, aka GWB in 2000 who had less than 50% of the vote. A congressional seat is not a guarantee for life. When the nation is experiencing tough times, it is unconscienceable for members to sit on their hands and do nothing. Heck, if they're going to filibuster, make them stay there all night and physically hold the floor. Don't let them off the hook. Eliminate secret holds, where a Senator can hold up a bill and they don't even have to reveal their name. When Obama wins next week, and the Senate returns with a Democratic majority, we expect things to happen. If not, than there should be hell to pay.

[SharonAnn]

3. Yes, I recall it. And I hope that Reid leads the voting to change the rules.

While a filibuster is probably appropriate, it should occur during the debate period of a voting process, not to prevent an issue from being brought up or voted on.