Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 09:58 PM Jun 2012

Reid: 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.

“I’ll 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. It’s 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 Senate’s 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
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
1. He's been threatening that for years.
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:01 PM
Jun 2012

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)
2. It can not happen today. It has to be done at the beginning of the new congressional session
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:05 PM
Jun 2012

which starts in January 2013.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
4. A new session of Congress starts 'every year' in January.
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:13 PM
Jun 2012

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

Marie Marie

(9,999 posts)
5. I wouldn't bet a cent on Harry Reid.
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:28 PM
Jun 2012

However, if the Republicans take over the Senate, well then, watch that change happen in a heartbeat.

TlalocW

(15,394 posts)
6. If Reid and the Democrats could grow a spine
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:53 PM
Jun 2012

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)
7. Really?
Thu Jun 7, 2012, 10:58 PM
Jun 2012

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)
10. Senate Democrats have zero credibility on this until they actually do it, and even then...
Sat Jun 9, 2012, 03:39 AM
Jun 2012

I'm guessing the blue dogs will still vote with the Republicans a lot of the time.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
11. Either limit filibuster or make half the senate necessary
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:00 AM
Nov 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Democrats»Reid: Bet on filibuster c...