The Senate is broken. A minority of 41 filibuzzards has virtually stopped reform in its tracks. If Democrats try to pass something without Republican input, Republicans filibuster. If Democrats try to pass something with Republican input, Republicans filibuster. If Republicans propose legislation and Democrats agree to it, Republicans filibuster. The Senate has become the place where legislation passed in the House, even legislation with bipartisan support, goes to die. There is a plan afoot to change that, so on the first day of the new term in January, we may witness the most important Senate vote of this century.
Leaders of the effort to reform the filibuster in the Senate are pushing forward despite the election outcome, working to gather support within the Democratic caucus while reaching out to Republicans. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said that he and a core group of members will canvass their colleagues throughout November and December.
“We’ll start the informal discussion in our caucus. Are you for reform? What kind of reform?” Udall told HuffPost.
On the first day of the 112th Congress, Udall said, he will rise and make a motion to establish rules for the session, making the argument that the chamber is entitled by the Constitution to set its own rules. Vice President Joe Biden is then expected to rule — as vice presidents have done in the past — that the motion is in order. Senate Republicans will challenge the ruling and Democrats will move to table the objection. Only 50 votes will be needed to table the objection. If Democrats succeed, a debate would then begin over how to reform the rules.
Udall said he and newer Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) have been gradually winning support for their effort to reform the rules.
Abolishing the filibuster is far from the only reform under consideration. “You could clear out a lot of the underbrush,” said Norm Ornstein, a constitutional scholar who advised Udall on the effort. Currently, after the majority files a cloture motion to break a filibuster, 30 hours of “debate” must happen before the vote. That vote is followed by another 30 hours until the final vote is held, which means a single effort can take a full week of floor time. That time could be reduced or eliminated — or split in two 15-hour sections divided among the parties, Ornstein said. Or separate rules could exist for executive branch nominees, alleviating the crisis of understaffing that has beset both administrations since at least 2007.
Ornstein said that instead of sticking to the strict number 60 to defeat a filibuster, the threshold could fluctuate depending on the number present. “The other simple thing you could do is switch to three-fifths of those present and voting. They didn’t really think about what the consequences of it are” when the rule was originally written, said Ornstein.
Merkley said that requiring the minority to do something — give a speech, show up, anything — in order to obstruct Senate business would alter the dynamic. Under current rules, it’s the obligation of the majority to affirmatively squash a filibuster rather than the minority to keep it going.If the minority is made to stand up, said Merkley, “there is a price to be paid in terms of time and energy and visibility if you’re going to block” action in the Senate.
Merkley said that the issue has penetrated the public consciousness. “Every time I speak to a group about the need to change the Senate’s rules as a result of its paralysis and dysfunction, people applaud. They may not understand how the rules work, but they can understand that they can’t get the judicial nominations approved, or advisers on the executive branch. Some particular objection can create a week’s delay. That’s the big surprise to me during this break, the fact that public understands this in a way I’ve seen them not understand any process this year. They understand the process is badly broken and needs to be fixed.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
Personally, I think that it should be eliminated altogether, but any reform would be better than no reform at all. The requirement for 30 hours of floor debate before a cloture vote must be dropped. That is how Republicans have been able to block legislation with the mere threat of a filibuster. Spending a week of floor time to debate one filibuster hamstrings everything else on the legislative calendar for that week, so filibusters are rarely challenged. With that gone, and the requirement changed to 55 votes for cloture, Democrats could force Republicans to keep 45 Senators on the floor around the clock until an issue is resolved. I could live with a solution like that.
While changing the rules, the individual hold must also be eliminated.
Here’s the worry. The Senate is not without DINOs. With such a narrow majority, we could lose the vote on the motion to table the Republican objection. In that case, the rules will remain the same. Bought Bitch Mitch and the filibuzzards will be able to continue as before. Let us agree to work to defeat any Democrat, who votes against filibuster reform, in their next primary. In the meantime, tell your Senator or Senator-elect to support filibuster reform.
I am grateful that Oregon’s Jeff Merkley, a man I worked to elect, is taking a leading roll in this effort.
Insider-trading charges are being prepared against a vast network of consultants and traders across the US financial industry in a years-long probe that a report suggests will reveal a pervasive culture of backroom dealing.
US [sic] security chiefs have condemned former President George W Bush’s defence of torture yesterday, and disputed his claim that information obtained by subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or ‘waterboarding’ had scuttled Al Qaeda plots to blow up Canary Wharf and Heathrow airport.
Excellent news. I cannot think of anyone who will be more capable of keeping Darrell Issa in check than Dennis Kucinich. His