In 2005 when the Republicans were in power, they threatened to end the filibuster rule and return the Senate to majority rule as the constitution intended. Now the democrats have an even bigger majority than the Republicans did in 2005 and some are considering the nuclear option to put an end to the filibuster rule. Rumor has it that Senator Al Franken and VP Joe Biden are discussing a plan to use it. In 1975 it took 67 votes to break a filibuster and that was reduced to 60. Should it be at least further reduced to 55?
Many Republicans are on record supporting the nuclear option. It will be interesting to see what they say about it this time when the Democrats want to end it.
Do you think the Democrats should end the filibuster and restore majority rule to the Senate?
The procedure for ending the filibuster is as follows (from when the Republicans were in power).
- The Senate moves to vote on a controversial nominee.
- At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.
- Majority Leader Frist raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules requires a cloture vote at this point.)
- Vice President Cheney — acting as presiding officer — sustains the point of order.
- A Democratic Senator appeals the decision.
- A Republican Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal).
- This vote – to table the appeal – is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote).
- With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the nominee; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote.
Gee I wonder why Al Franken is so interested in the legitimacy of the slimmest majority?
RBG
#21 Franken wants to get things done. He was elected to get things done for his constituents. The Republicans don’t want anything to get done, because if it does get done, the Democrats, as the majority party in government, will get most of the credit. And that’s something the Republicans simply cannot tolerate. So they are fighting their hardest to make sure nothing gets done.
Glad I could straighten you out.
#22 Well stated. At the end of the day, the GOP is terrified of any measure of progress associated with a largely democratic government.
The problem of course is that the Dick and Bush administration left things in such a sorry state that a better outcome is almost guaranteed.
It has only now occurred to me that the USA has no “leader of the opposition”, as with other Westminster style parliamentary democracies. That’s a role played by an opposition supremo, a prince in waiting, a candidate for the office of President in the next general election for the opposition. They are good for maintaining a consistent “style” and image of opposition, team building and steadying the more extremist elements of their own party.
No. Anything that prevents these bastards from passing still more laws is a good thing.
Thanks for providing the wingnut perspective, Abgeweit.
The problem with today’s Republicans is that they simply do not accept the legitimacy of any president without an (R) after his name. Look at how they attacked Clinton, before he even got into office. And then he had the nerve to get re-elected, and they went ballistic, tried to impeach him for lying about a blowjob. (And then they gave the entire Dubya regime a pass for lying to get us into the Iraq war. IOKIYAR.)
It doesn’t matter which Democrat had won — if Hillary Clinton had won, can’t you picture the slime and sh*t they’d be throwing at her?
The Republican “base” just doesn’t understand the concept of the loyal opposition. In their mind, only Republicans love their country or have any good ideas for governing. Even with the disaster of the Cheney/Dubya administration staring them in the face, they still don’t get it.
#19 Phydeau said,
“The filibuster is a good tool to have when both sides are truly working in the best interests of the country, and differ only in how they believe the best interests of the country would be served.”
Correct until you decide to say,
“Today’s Republicans clearly do not fit this description. The number one Republican in the Country has clearly stated he wants Obama and the Democrats to fail.”
Rush said that, but he is a talk show host and not a member of Congress. How many votes for Congress did Rush Limbaugh get again? Or maybe you meant Michael Steele. He said no such thing.
“The Republicans have made it clear they’re going to try to prevent the Democrats from getting anything achieved, regardless of how much the country needs it. The Republicans are willing to shut down the government out of spite from being voted out of office.”
The Republicans in Congress had three different healthcare plans. The Democrats didn’t want the Republicans to assist in the health care issue. They locked the Republicans out of the meeting rooms and physically changed the locks. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room The Democrats aren’t interested in a bipartisan bill, yet they don’t have enough votes for a bill to pass without least some compromise with some Republicans.
Tort reform, letting people by insurance across state lines, and tax credits for money spent on health insurance are just some of the solutions that Republicans came up with to make health care more affordable.
The Democrats can’t completely shut the Republicans out of the process and expect the Republicans to go along with them, especially when they have constituents yelling at them to stop Obamacare.
#26 Phydeau said, “The Republican “base” just doesn’t understand the concept of the loyal opposition. In their mind, only Republicans love their country or have any good ideas for governing. Even with the disaster of the Cheney/Dubya administration staring them in the face, they still don’t get it.”
How is this different then the Bush = Hitler base of the Democrat party. Besides, Sarah Palin was treated worse than anyone else in politics by the left, even after she left political office.
Benjamin – While it is true that Rush is not a congressman he is the mouthpiece of the Republican party. Now you might argue that he is not in this instance but when it suits your interest he is. How can you have it both ways?
Sarah Palin asked for it when she first opened her mouth. You guys go ahead and run her if that’s all you got.
This update: Senator Craig just handed this to me under the bathroom stall. It turns out he can have it both ways.
#27 Earth to Benjamin: No Republican dares cross Limbaugh. When they do, he chastises them and they come bowing and scraping to him to apologize. So yes, he’s the most powerful Republican in the country.
The Democrats can’t completely shut the Republicans out of the process and expect the Republicans to go along with them, especially when they have constituents yelling at them to stop Obamacare.
You mean like the Republicans completely shut out the Democrats while they were in power during the Dubya years? Sucks when it happens to you, doesn’t it. Boo friggin’ hoo.
Regardless, the Republicans just aren’t interested in true reform. Those bills do nothing to address the problem. And that’s just how Big Insurance and Big Medicine want it. And it looks like they’ve bought enough Democratic legislators to win, too.
#28 Benjamin, America gave Dubya a chance. Even though the worst terrorist attack in America happened on his watch, his approval was in the 90% range right after 9/11. Only after it became obvious that he was a world-class f*ckup did America turn on him. Let’s see… Dubya invaded foreign countries on trumped-up evidence, tortured and spied on people, threw people in jail without any recourse. Sounds like any number of tinpot dictators.
There are some fringe “Bush=Hitler” types in the Democratic party, but they’re not the base like the Obama-haters are in the Republican party.
They didn’t change from 67to 60. They changed from 2/3 to 60.
They should make it so that the 60 have to hold the floor.
It should not be a requirement that you need 60 votes to pass a bill.
I don’t have a problem with the filibuster as is, since the Democrats are moving too fast, instead of doing the budget, but they should not need more than 50 votes to pass their bill.
What if, instead of being “terrified by progress”, the GOP is opposed to the new laws simply because they disagree with them?
Some Republicans would support (for example) health-care reform if they thought it would actually reform health-care (and not just require health insurance).
Some Democrats are opposed to the proposed health-care bill because they don’t think it goes far enough. Are these Democrats “terrified of progress” ?
The filibuster rule isn’t really an issue – the problem (for the Democrats) is they can’t get 60 votes from their own party right now.
#32 MikeN said, “but they should not need more than 50 votes to pass their bill.”
Not true. The Constitution has the provision that the Vice President cast the deciding vote if there are 50 yea and 50 nay votes. Thus, you need at least 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.
In order for the bill to come to the floor to be voted on in the first place the Senate rules requires 60 votes. The Senate makes their own procedural rules at the beginning of the legislative session (around January). It is just douchebaggery to change the rules in the middle of a session that a majority of the Senate (Democrats) voted for.
In any case, even if they change the rules they still need 51 votes to pass the bill.
#31 Phydeau said, “No Republican dares cross Limbaugh. When they do, he chastises them and they come bowing and scraping to him to apologize. So yes, he’s the most powerful Republican in the country.”
Rush is not in charge of the Republican Party. He’s just a guy with a talk radio show. Did the Republicans come groveling to Rush when he criticized them for spending as if they were Democrats? I don’t think so.
#33 chuck, I think you are right.
Frankly, it is not the filibuster that is the problem, it is the current rules. In the old days you had to actually get up there and talk talk talk. Now its just “we filibuster” and its on.
As it is now, any almost any bill in Congress can be filibustered by procedure. When called for, the Senate votes for cloture to continue.
If they do not get 60 votes, the bill is dead and they move on to other business. Republicans are threatening this now, Democrats threatened this during Bush’s Presidency.
If this version of the filibuster existed in the past (which it did not, you had to keep talking for hours or days), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would probably not have passed.
The minority party in the Senate has, and probably will in the future under either party, have enough “no” votes to stop cloture on anything they wish to filibister. Because of this, the Senate is becoming the part of Congress where obstructionism rules, instead of compromise. If this continues, the ability for the Federal Government to legislate could be at stake as one side obstructs anything important from being passed.
Because the filibuster is not part of the Constitution, and effectively raises the Constitutionally mandated majority vote from 51 to 60 to pass a law, many believe the rule is un-Constitutional. It may be possible to challenge this in a lawsuit against the Federal Government.
Obamas agenda has nothing to do with what’s good for America, which is why he needs to fail. Glad I could clarify.
Getting rid of filibuster would be ok if the rules also changed to require 80 or 90 votes to pass anything involving spending.
#38, Getting rid of filibuster would be ok if the rules also changed to require 80 or 90 votes to pass anything involving spending.
I could support that!
Hey, Toxic. Why you’re swilling your beer and waving “your” flag in people’s faces and thinking that is patriotism, like the other liberals (whose political forefathers, not the like-you retarded conservatives of the colonies, founded the revolutionary idea of democracy here) of our time I’m actually working and showing true patriotism by paying taxes to support the needs of “our” country. Try being a real patriot for once–your type, it’ll make sick. Glad I could clarify.