"Senate rules reform won't happen"

[Clio the Leo]

I'm generally not very cynical, but this is not in the least bit surprising...

Senate rules reform won't happen
BY ALEX PAREENE

A reasonable and popular measure with the support of a majority of senators has quietly died for no good reason, and the Senate's very first official legislative "day" of the new Congress has not even finished yet. (Did you know that the Senate's been in the middle of this one legislative day since Jan. 5? It's true!) This time, the victim was Senate rules reform, because an attempt to deal with the unintended consequences of the previous stab at rules reform was deemed to be a violation of the rights of the minority as not at all enshrined in the Constitution, which doesn't mention filibusters.

It is actually amazing how quickly this collapsed. One month ago every single Senate Democrat signed a letter in support of reforms of the cloture rule. Tom Udall's proposal would not have even killed the filibuster; it would've just forced 40 members to stay on the floor to sustain it, instead of one guy declaring filibuster and everyone pacing for 30 hours.

Chuck Schumer and Lamar Alexander now suggest that maybe just getting rid of "secret holds" will be good enough. Forty-seven Republicans are united in opposition to real reform, and Republicans will remain united in opposition to change until there are 51 Republicans senators, or 50 plus one Republican vice president.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/24/senate_rules_dead

[MannyGoldstein]

1. A surprising burst of bipartisanship

Quelle surprise.

[earthside]

2. Effective control of Congress ...

... now lays with the Repuglicans.

[tritsofme]

3. These rules changes would have made it easier for Republicans to sneak House passed bills

through the Senate. They only need to pick off four Democrats on any given vote to get a majority.

Now Senate Democrats will be able to apply a 60 vote test to any legislation passed out of the Republican House.

Not to mention the fact that regardless how the 2012 presidential election turns out, I would say Republicans are more likely than not to win control of the Senate that year.

And I think many Senate Democrats are realizing that even a relatively modest rules change done with 51 votes could set a dangerous precedent for the next time Republicans take control.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Unfortunate, because the balance of power is right for a change like this

The Republicans control the House and the Democrats control the White House. The Democrats control the Senate, but by a fairly slim majority, and there are good odds of the chamber going to the Republicans in the next election.

I guess they don't want to give up their power to block appointments.