In the past President Obama has spoken out in favor of the general idea reforming the Senate rules to reduce obstructionism, but now the White House is throwing its support behind a specific set of proposals put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. From the Huffington Post:
“The President has said many times that the American people are demanding action,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “They want to see progress, not partisan delay games. That hasn’t changed, and the President supports Majority Leader Reid’s efforts to reform the filibuster process.”
“Over the past few years important pieces of legislation like the DREAM Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the American Jobs Act weren’t even allowed to be debated, and judicial nominations and key members of the administration are routinely forced to wait months for an up-or-down vote,” Pfeiffer added. “The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts them first, instead of partisan delay.”
Reid’s proposal would not eliminate the filibuster. It would instead required Senators who want to prevent a vote to continuously hold the floor. What impact this would have depends on exactly how the rule is written and interrupted. It would also remove the need for a cloture vote on motions to proceed.
Reid plans to enact these changes at the beginning of the next session with a simple majority vote. Having the active support of the White House for the reforms should assure that Reid will have the votes he needs from his caucus.
What may turn out to be more important than the actual rules changes, is the fact that any changes are adopted with only a simple majority. If obstructionism continues the rule can just as easily be changed again in the near future.




23 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
If he does through with this, Reid had better hope that the Repubs never get 51 senators, a Repub house and the Pres.
So finally, “elections have consequences,” “I have political capital, and I intend to spend it,” and also too, “bipartisaniness is so 2008.”
Why? Democrats don’t get to use the filibuster anyway. Bush got his entire agenda through, and his judges.
So we just stay in stalemate & let the Repubs run the show anyway?
Riiiiigghhttt… I see.
“Reid’s proposal would not eliminate the filibuster. It would instead required Senators who want to prevent a vote to continuously hold the floor.”
I recall when Bernie Sanders filibustered.
Sanders Filibuster Begins…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6pa-QdL4Wo
To bad Senator Sanders had no support from limp dicks…….. Still dealing with the same garbage. It is called taking America hostage. Why not bring back a cast system????
Delicious Freudian slip, given the topic!
Wait, if I read Jane’s post correctly, we are talking about bringing back the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style fillibuster?
I’m down with that. It takes a tremendous amount of coordination and broad based support within the caucus, so you won’t have just one grumpy curmudgeon being able to game the system.
I have mixed opinions about this. I feel pretty certain this is going to be utilized to ram changes to social programs down the electorates throat with a simple minority vote. I’m not certain why anyone doesn’t think the President who made the GOP point men on health care is all of a sudden be pushing changes that progressives(or f’in retards as his CoS used to lovingly refer to them as) find appealing and not going to use this to instead go with his usual make sure absolutely no one is happy approach that screws over the progressive camp.
I’ll be completely happy to be wrong
Citizen Abdul etc.:
The time to worry about losin’ the filibuster and minority rights in the Senate ended with the turn of the 21st Century but nobody noticed. It’s time for Democrats to start buildin’ the political structure to insure Democratic majorities in both houses for at least 25 years and probably longer. If the Dems don’t do this now, then the filibuster will insure that their majorities in either house will not stand for longer’n an election cycle. Elmer Fudd couldn’t have said it better: “Be verwy verwy afrwaud of those nasty Wepublicans.”
You know today’s democratic party, they don’t like to rock the boat. THey are the inventors of passive passivity.
I wouldn’t go out and buy any baloons and tootie horns just yet. But, if you ned some, I’ll chip in.
Damn. Is that the one with Jimmy Stewart??? I only saw that in Amsterdam and the movie was overdubbed in Dutch. How does it end???
OT: Intersting photo Jon. You really look young. I think I have socks older than you.
I wanted to be wrong about his first term too.
The words I told you so left a bitter taste in my mouth.
However, there seems to be an alarming contingent from the left side of the aisle that feels it will be “fiscally responsible” to deal with social safety net programs just like this President. I know Reid has said that “Social Security is off the table.” but I wonder how squishy Reid is on this and what Reid bartered behind doors to get the President to throw his weight behind this.
If the senate is to ever become funtional again the filibuster has to go.
So what if they do? The Legislature is supposed to be majority rule, you know.
Of course, as far as I am concerned the Senate should be abolished anyway.
I don’t see this having that much effect, unless you change the rules so that it takes 40 ‘nay’ votes present and voting (instead of currently 60 ‘yeas) to prevent cloture. The talking filibuster of the old days still put the onus on the majority to maintain a quorum.
That should be shifted to the minority. Requiring 40 ‘nay’ votes instead of 60 ‘yea’ votes means (using today’s Senate as an example) that the current Republican minority of 45 members would have to keep 40 of them sleeping on cots on the Senate floor at all times to keep a filibuster going, whereas the Dems would only need to keep 10 members present (to have a quorum) and thus could rotate them in shifts. A filibuster would still be possible, but it would be very painful and difficult for the minority to pull off which would insure that it wouldn’t be abused for everything (the current state).
-stewartm
I think you meant “majority vote”….
But anyways–when do the Dems actually filibuster anything of importance? The best argument for taking it away is that it is overwhelming a conservative/Repug tool.
OpenLeft once crunched the math to show that because of the Dems’ historically higher number of crossover-voting members and Blue Dog defectors, it realistically takes a Democratic majority of 74 Senators to enact any progressive legislation over a filibuster whereas it only takes a conservative Republican majority of only 54 Senators to end any filibuster done by progressives.
-stewartm
Passive passivity? Dude, haven’t you heard? They’re just “keeping the power dry”.
Dude, it’s like you want to live in a democracy or something. Weirdo.
No, the rules can only be changed by majority vote at the beginning of the session; in mid-session it would take a 2/3 vote.
The other option, the one that Republicans were threatening to use when they were in charge of the Senate, was to use the presiding officer’s power to rule on points of order. The chair can rule obstructionist tactics out of order, and if anyone doesn’t like this they can appeal to the Senate as a whole, but it’s a majority vote. So if there’s a rule that a filibustering Senator must hold the floor, and he lies down and takes a nap instead with his hand on the floor, the chair can say that this isn’t what the rule meant and 50 Dems can back him/her up on that.
This can be used in a more radical way: the Republicans were going to have the chair say that filibustering the nomination of a judge is unconstitutional, and have their caucus fall in line.
I did mean majority so thank you for the correction.
And yeah I guess other than Sanders there really isn’t much worry that the Dems will use the filibuster when the sternly worded letter is there method of choice
LOL
It’s too bad WE can’t use the fiscal cliff as an excuse to fire some of the ponitificating, smug schmucks. There is a net savings of $10,000,000 this year with larger savings if we consider the pensions and benefits they collect. :)