Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk (details regarding new filibuster reform pkg)

[Tx4obama]

Democratic Solution To The Filibuster: Make Them Talk

WASHINGTON -- The next time a minority of senators find something the majority supports to be objectionable, they may be required to take the Senate floor and explain just why they object. And when they're done with that, they'll have to keep talking, and talking, and talking.

The most persistent advice that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he gets from liberals he meets across the country is as simple as it is frustrating: "Make them actually filibuster!"

The advice grew loud enough in 2009 that Reid's office leaked a memo to HuffPost explaining why exactly Senate Democratic leaders can't force Republicans to talk out their filibuster, Mr. Smith-style. In 2011, Reid flirted with filibuster reform, but backed off at the last minute, striking a handshake deal with Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) instead. That agreement -- that the two would cooperate to make sure the chamber ran smoothly -- lasted as long as one might expect.

Now, Reid is ready to pull the trigger on a change. "I was wrong," Reid said recently about his unwillingness to back a handful of junior senators who were pushing for reform.

With Reid's backing, the reform caucus stands a good chance of enacting rules changes. The plan they're putting forward is still taking shape as the reformers work to gather support, but its central tenets were laid out by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in an interview with The Huffington Post.

-snip-

FULL article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/democrats-filibuster-reform_n_2141382.html

[Indpndnt]

1. Yes! Make them talk. Make them own their objections in public.

Let's make this change asap.

[Kablooie]

3. It has to be ASAP. Only on the first day of session can this be changed by a simple majority.

After that the rule change itself will need a super majority which it will never get.

[merrily]

6. The Senate claims it is always in session.

[Tx4obama]

8. The first day of the new 113th Congress will be around January 3rd

that is the day that The Senate will be able to vote on 'new senate rules' with only having to have 51 yes votes for the new rules to be adopted.

The reason The Senate is 'always in session' is because the GOPers in The House always refuse to pass the adjournment resolution - which both chambers of Congress have to pass in order for The Senate to go into an official recess. The GOPers have been doing that for a very long time so that President Obama is unable to make any recess appointments. The Senate left today for the holidays and once again The House refused to pass the joint resolution, so The Senate will be forced to have a pro-forma session every three days until everyone comes back after Thanksgiving.

But on January 3rd (or a day close to that day) The Senate will start the new 113th Congressional session and rules can be changed on that day

[FailureToCommunicate]

15. Perhaps every DUer should remind their Senator, and Reid, before that date?

Oh please...

[merrily]

45. I know, but that is exactly what the debate is about.

If a meeting is never adjourned, is it a new meeting because some folks left and some new folks walked in.

Ergo, a new Congress does not immediate equate to a new session. Besides, the entire House is up for election every two years. The Senate is not like that.

I am not agreeing that there is a valid reason for debate. I am just saying that the debate exists.

[Tx4obama]

46. Well, I don't really know what you're trying to say... BUT

When the NEW 113th Congress starts on January 3rd (?) it will be a brand NEW session (it DOES equate to a new session) because the old 112th Congress will no longer be in session.

January 3rd (?), 2013 is the day when they start from scratch. That is why the 'senate rules' can be changed on that day.

[merrily]

48. I understood your first post. I am saying not everyone agrees that a new Senate session

starts every two years.

[bjobotts]

42. Grandstanding for months...sure

I agree with 'make 'em talk', but make sure they have to talk about the issue or nomination they are filibustering otherwise they will just stand there spouting campaign rhetoric for months using the senate to tell their lies and ideology to the public with the free publicity the senate floor provides.

Make 'em talk but limit talking to 3days and then lower the threshold for number of votes to break the filibuster...maybe to 54 instead of 60. If they don't have the votes then do it again and lower the threshold even more...but by all means let the minority talk till every detail of their objection is heard...but do not allow the minority to dominate the majority like it is now.
Also suggest the number of filibusters be limited per session to prevent abuse. There is no excuse to have over 300 filibusters in one term when in fact Senator majority leader(president Johnson) only presided over one filibuster in his 6yr period. That is tyranny by the minority and by limiting the number of filibusters per session this rule will not be used casually or lightly but only when there is strong opposition.

We are at this point because of the childish un-serious republican minority holding the senate hostage against America's best interest. Statemen would never have done or allowed this behavior.

[Kablooie]

2. This way they can delay a majority vote but can't prevent it.

They'd better make it clear that the filibuster can't be handed off to anyone else.
It has to be one senator holding the floor himself.

It can be disruptive but not destructive and the one senator who enacts the filibuster will have to take full responsibility for his actions on the floor and in the press.

[Volaris]

13. I would say no to that first part...

Let them run that fucker in shifts...the more of them stand up there, and take turns obstructing the Public's Interest, the more of them will have to pay the price come election day (or Government Shut-down, whichever comes first lol). let the whole Party OWN it, IN PUBLIC, so they can be appropriatley PUNISHED for that ownership by We The People. Saying " Well SUUUUUUREEEEEE I support so-and-so's Filibuster of Great Idea X" without actually HELPING that process along, is cheap and cowardly IMHO. Make them ALL own it.

[Kablooie]

18. They'll all claim to be Jimmy Stewart fighting for the rights of the little guy.

They'll certainly try to make themselves into heros for filibustering.

Only thing is the Jimmy Stewart character only did it once.
If they do it every day it'll be hard to defend.

[Volaris]

29. and that's the point. If they have to own what the rest of us think is stupid policy,

it will destroy them. That they are too dumb to know that, is mostly THEIR problem lol.

[MustBeTheBooz]

4. I'll believe it when I see it.

As pessimistic as it sounds... if the last 30 years have taught me anything about federal politics, it has shown me the majority will make threats at its leisure, but it will never give up the "procedures/traditions" put in place to ensure the minority doesn't get ramroded (please pardon the expression). Both parties BTW. I don't agree with it, and I think we can agree there's no Rep/Dem equivalence as evidenced by congressional action, but still it is a fact. I would be plesently surprised, and take my helping of crow with a shot of good [insert liquor here], if I wind up wrong come late January.

Prove me wrong, Harry!

[NYC Liberal]

5. What's good about this solution is the Repubs don't have any reasonable objection.

If they got rid of the filibuster entirely (something I wouldn't mind), Repubs could start crying about "oppression of the minority". Of course it would be bullshit but you know the media would carry water for them.

This way, we're simply returning to the way it used to be for years.

[merrily]

7. The Constitution certainly contemplates suppression of the minority.

It also contemplates super majorities, but for certain, specified unusual actions, not for every bill and appointment.

[John2]

27. I

agree with Senator Warren to eliminate the filibuster unless for specific issues, like amending the Constitution. I hear all the new Democratic senators may be on board and some already in the Senate. I think this is the best course.

[NYC Liberal]

28. I'd support that. There should be a time limit too.

The purpose of a filibuster is to allow more time for debate. Given that, there's NO reason why a filibuster should be allowed to continue indefinitely. There should be something like a 48 hour limit. That is plenty of time for a little more debate. Cloture can be invoked before then (if the votes are there), but after 48 hours, the debate ends and the vote is taken.

[merrily]

9. It's no solution at all. Abolish the 60 vote cloture rule.

The notion that every single bill and appointment is subject to a super majority was absurd from the start. Originally, the purpose was to ensure that a Senator could speak freely and however long he wished. But, that was soon perverted to obstructionism and job security.

The rule prevents voters from holding specific Senators or either major political party accountable for their votes. It needs to go.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

14. I agree that the bill should be at least debated. Nobody seems to understand the word "cloture",

I don't know why they're abandoning this effort.

[Ray Beckerman]

36. Agreed, there is no reason to preserve the filibuster. Period.

The proposed reform is milk toast. It will still permit obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

[Up2Late]

10. Best news I've heard in a LONG time!

[Tx4obama]

11. There was some really really good news about nine days ago :)

[Up2Late]

12. Well, 9 days is a long time when you have ADD

Which I do.

[yellowcanine]

16. Also need to abolish the practice of "holds" on nominees.

where one senator can singlehandedly hold up a nomination.

[great white snark]

19. Great point.

It's been long enough that Repub f%@kers invoke it to hold or threaten it for essentially blackmail.

[HockeyTown4Ever]

17. Use the NFL Red Flag Rule

I say that the Senate should adopt the NFL Ref Flag Rule that allows coaches to challenge certain plays. The limitation is they only get THREE challenges.
I say let the Republicans use the Senate tradition of the filibuster but don't allow them (or the Democrats) to over use the rule. Give each side only 3 filibusters to use during each term. If one side filibusters a vote, they use up one of their challenges. Once all 3 challenges are used up, no more monkey business!

[beac]

40. Hi, HockeyTown4Ever!

I was going to "welcome" you, but I see you've been here since 2001. One post every eleven years must be a DU record.

I like your "red flag" idea. But what would pissypants Republicans do if their main purpose-- throwing temper tantrums-- was reduced so severely?? Surely, you don't expect them to actually legislate?

[Milliesmom]

20. We will see!

The Republicans will filibuster the bill.

[Tx4obama]

23. It's not a bill. It is a rule change vote at the being of the session which takes only 51 yes votes

The GOP can't filibuster it.
Cloture is not needed before the vote is taken.

[Milliesmom]

34. Thank You

I did not know that, thank you.

[HopeHoops]

22. THAT'S WHAT I KEEP SAYING! Make them talk or trash it entirely.

This "I'll filibuster" threat making it an automatic 60 votes is beyond stupid. Shit or GET OFF THE POT!

[Colorado Liberal]

24. My pet proposal

Curious what others might think of this - it preserves the ability to use the "filibuster", but makes it harder to abuse:

1st time the rule is invoked (in the Congress): 60 votes needed to move the bill to a vote
2nd time: 59 votes
3rd time: 58 votes
4th time: 57 votes

...and so forth, until after the 9th time they've used it (which by current Republican standards, should take us to mid-February), you're left with a majority vote for every remaining piece of legislation, nominee to confirm, etc.) Maybe the Repubs would even need to worry about "keeping their powder dry" for when they REALLY need to derail something....

[Filibuster Harry]

25. Like your idea. Want a real filibuster too. Have signed a petition on this.

[TalkingDog]

26. I've said that all along. If their principals are that strong, let them show it.

n/t

[mcgarry50]

30. end the filibuster

first of all the obstructionists have no problem lying and second of all the media will not cover the proceedings. that is why i think we need to end the filibuster, lets get shit done.

[Ray Beckerman]

37. Right.

That's the reform that's truly needed. Getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It has no place in the Constitution or anywhere else in the law.

[bvar22]

31. Gosh! That is such a good idea...

..you think it would have been suggested on DU before now!



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Change has come]

32. Great news!

[treestar]

33. Wow I hope this works

What entertainment will it be to see the R Senators talking on and on and getting further and further into the Crazy?

[Ray Beckerman]

35. Suggested reform too weak. Why not simply drop the filibuster?

The suggested reform is too weak. Yes it would be pleasant if they had to actually filibuster, and it was an outrage that that requirement was ever dispensed with.

But if they have to "debate", then they will "debate".

So they'll look like fools to us; they'll look like heroes to their brain-dead Fox news fans.

I wish Senate Dems had some guts.

[hrmjustin]

38. Welcome to DU!

[Coyotl]

47. They are trying to assemble the votes and need to make it palatable to 50 senators

So, it is a good thing to take the reform as far as the votes allow, that I do support.

[Myrina]

39. What happens in the future if/when Dems want to

Filibuster? We're not going to be the majority forever ...

I think abolishing it is too short-sighted.

[x2 vancouverite]

41. Old Men Talking

Make 'em do it!

[toby jo]

43. Righties love that short spit no think rhetoric

The thought of them having to actually think and talk for extended periods of time is pretty amusing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Sounds Like a Great Strategy

Senator Elizabeth Brown is leading the charge, as well, which is great to hear.