Democrats
Related: About this forumReid: Bet on filibuster changes if Obama, Dems win in November
Reid: Bet on filibuster changes if Obama, Dems win in November
06/07/12 09:54 AM ET
A frustrated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday said he will likely push for changes to filibuster rules if the Democrats retain control of the upper chamber next year.
Ill just bet you if we maintain a majority, and I feel quite confident that we can do that, and the president is reelected, there is going to be some changes, Reid said on the Senate floor. We can no longer go through this, every bill, filibusters (even) on bills that they agree with. Its just a waste of time to prevent us from getting things done.
It remains unclear, however, if Reid would have the votes to change the Senates rules, which would require a simple majority vote at the start of the new Congress. Should Democrats retain control of the Senate, they will likely have a razor-thin majority in 2013. Only one or two defections could lead to defeat of the motion, as all Republicans are united against such a change in rules.
--snip--
Full article here: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/231433-reid-filibuster-rules-will-change-next-year-if-dems-hold-senate
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It should happen today. It should have happened years ago. But it won't happen for at least eight more years.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)which starts in January 2013.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or in 2009.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)We are now currently in the 112th United States Congress
Each one has TWO sessions lasting one year each.
Btw, in January 2012 there was a slight modification - the BIG changes will come in January 2013
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)They had even more chances to change it.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)had the first majority.
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)However, if the Republicans take over the Senate, well then, watch that change happen in a heartbeat.
TlalocW
(15,394 posts)And actually call the republicans on their threatened filibusters and make them have to keep the Senate or House in session when they do, maybe the republicans wouldn't use it as a tool so much to derail things. It's pretty damn easy to say, no, I don't like that... Filibuster! on anything if you don't have to back it up.
TlalocW
bpositive
(423 posts)He messed this up and should have made the change at the beginning of the last session. Just think what the democrats could have accomplished.
Lost opportunity that could lose them the majority and possibly even the presidency.
It's hard to live up to my name sometimes especially on the heels of the WI loss.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)I'm guessing the blue dogs will still vote with the Republicans a lot of the time.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)The filibuster was intended to allow senators from distant states, where it might take days of horse or carriage travel to make it to philadelphia, to make it in due time & disallow the congress or senate from closing arguments & hearings & taking a vote, without all states having heard the arguments.
This hardly applies today, when congress knows within seconds to hours, via telephone or tv, what is going on. There is no need for filibuster rules as they are used today, & their current use circumvents what the founding fathers intended in the constitution, that 2/3 majority would rule (or half in other cases); they did not intend the minority party to rule from the bottom as republicans are using it today.
At least they could make it so that half the senate was necessary to block legislation - they'd still need 60 votes for 2/3 majority, but not always.