Democrats Plan to Push for Limiting Use of Filibuster
- Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:18am by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
While they still hold a simple majority, Democrats are eagerly anticipating a vote on a proposal to curtail filibusters and other methods of slowing Senate proceedings — a move that they plan to press forward with Wednesday when Congress reconvenes in Washington.
“The Senate today is dysfunctional,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the Wall Street Journal. “You just can’t run a 21st century superpower using 19th century rules.” Harkin wants to set up a series of votes when a filibuster is launched, with the final one requiring just 51 votes to end debate.
Joining Harkin in calling for changes in the Senate’s rules are Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. Senate leaders predict that such changes may be enacted this week. Advocates for change, including Udall and Merkley, are not proposing to abolish the filibuster. Instead, they plan to propose more limited means, such as preventing senators from filibustering a motion to begin debating a bill.
At least one Republican has signaled he may join Democrats in pushing for the rules changes. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has signaled support for disallowing individual senators from anonymously putting “holds” on legislation.
In addition, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., says he supports new limits on filibusters that would require individual senators to be present on the floor if they intend to object. “I am intending on offering my constitutional option on the first day,” Udall told the New York Times.
In no bipartisan agreement can be reached, supporters of rule changes say they will force a debate, a move senators from both parties warn could permanently damage bipartisan relations in the Senate.
“One of our main focuses is making people stand up and explain to the American people why they are filibustering,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., a fellow supporter of rule changes. Klobuchar claims that he and others would prefer to work with Republicans to reach a bipartisan agreement but would not shy away from a fight.
On Monday, Sen. Merkley took to MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow Show to plug the Democrats’ plans. Filling in for Maddow was a noticeably excited (though completely unbiased, obviously) Chris Hayes:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 679 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 531 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 434 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 330 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 285 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 292 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 176 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 285 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (57)
Pyx
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 10:06amAnd if John Boehner and the Republicans CAVE INTO the Democrats, that should spell the end of them as well.
Report Post »stmike
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 9:09amAnybody remember tar and feathers???
Report Post »stmike
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 9:06amYep they learned so much from November. I’m getting REALLY tired of democrats REALLY REALLY TIRED! When are we gonna get to the point where senators get into fist fights on the floor like they do in Asian countries? Seems that’s the only way to get through to these blockheads.
Report Post »benrumsley
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:45amHarkin said that the Senate today is dysfunctional. Yeah it is Harkin, but the American Voters have already taken steps to fix that. This is just additional proof what whiney, evil little jerks Liberal Progressives really are.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:39amThey want to limit the filibuster now that they don’t have a filibusterproof majority. Wait ’til they’re back in the minority again, then watch them kvetch when the same is pulled on them.
Nevermind. The GOP is never ballsy enough to try to do this crap. They *always* buckle and *always* meet Dems on their side of the argument.
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 1:12pm@ LeftFighter
“Nevermind. The GOP is never ballsy enough to try to do this crap. They *always* buckle and *always* meet Dems on their side of the argument.”
The Republicans that think they can still play appeasement games with Progressives will get a rude awakening next election when they find themselves unemployed.
Report Post »clipper@work
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:35amWhen the rules don’t work for you ,change the rules .Simple.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:33amThe Demunist mad power grab. Who needs that dusty, old Constitution?
Report Post »In-God-I-trust
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:30amEnd the Fed and you then cut off the head of the snake.
http://www.truth-it.net/federal_reserve_conspiracy.html
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:17amI don’t ever remember hearing any of the Democrats pushing for this rule change when the Republicans were the majority in the Senate. If they pass this wait and see, when they lose the majority they will want to change the rules back just before the Republicans take over. After all, then it will be what is best for the Republic. Progressives are disgusting.
Report Post »Helldogger
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 8:08amYou gotta give ‘em credit. The dems never dig in. They are always on the offensive. When are our guys gonna learn to fight like this.
Report Post »No MORE RINOs!!!!
GEW
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:54amThis is the slow painful death of the “grand experience” called self government.
Report Post »BoilitDown
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:50amThe lack of adequate debate with the rapid fire passing of these unread bills is part of the reason we are in this mess now. Slow the process down and do some honest deliberation.
Report Post »The filibuster remains a usefuel tool, leave it alone!
dataweaver
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 5:06pmAs I’ve posted elsewhere, I’m not so sure that the filibuster is the right way to “slow the process down and do some honest deliberation”. That said, it’s the main tool for the job at the moment; and unless the proposed rules revisions include some alternative methods to allow the minority party to ensure adequate consideration and debate of bills before they’re passed into law – if the only thing being changed is to place restrictions on the filibuster without any compensating measures to preserve the rights of the loyal opposition – the rules changes are a bad idea and should be opposed.
The lack of adequate debate with the rapid fire passing of these unread bills is part of the reason we are in this mess now. Slow the process down and do some honest deliberation.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:47am“The Senate today is dysfunctional,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the Wall Street Journal. “You just can’t run a 21st century superpower using 19th century rules.” Harkin wants to set up a series of votes when a filibuster is launched, with the final one requiring just 51 votes to end debate.
Harkin is a progressive. Thanks for playing Tom.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:46amFilibuster abuse is when someone other than DemocRATS use it.
Report Post »Ronko
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:39amThis is a bad idea limiting power on Filibusters. This will backfire in a huge way it is fine at 60 votes and any Democrat that votes for limiting Filibusters deserves to be thrown out in 2012 or 2014. The reason why I say that is if the Democrats succeed at doing this we will have a situation that is similar to 2009-2010 where Congress can just pass bills and then the president signs them.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:22amTime for Repubs to get down and dirty. Stop being polite. Do none of them have a backbone?
Report Post »Eagle in NYC
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:15amWhen the Republicans were in power and Democrats were pushing the envelope in how best to obstruct Republicans, the term in vogue was that the Senate was the “cooling saucer” to prevent the overheated partisanship of the Republicans from governing. Now, of course, the Democrats feel entitled to proceed with their lemming launch off the cliff unimpeded by the will of the people, as voiced by the overwhelming repudiation of socialism in this past November’s election.
Report Post »SnapTie
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:10amDid Rachel get new glasses?
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:03amSince the Dems have been having SO much fun changing the rules to suit the situation, how about using one of the recent rule changes by the Democrats that allowed the Democrats to “deem” that Obamacare-related legislation passed without a vote, to “deem” the Obamacare repeal is passed?
The rules cut both ways, right? The rules (whatever those may be at any given time, and regardless of party origin) apply equally to both parties, right?
Never let a Progressive’s dirty trick to go to waste?
To wax a bit “Dennis Miller”, it would be schadenfreude on a cosmic scale if Obamacare was done-in by clever usage of some of those same Democrat bad-faith rule changes that got it passed to begin with.
If something like that happened, I’d love to own a lot of stock in an “Irony-Meter” company, as the profits from replacing all the broken ones would have me golfing with Bill Gates!
Report Post »dizzyinthedark
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:03amAnd the problem with debating is……………?
Report Post »PatriotDaze
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:08am….they don’t debate.
Report Post »bbquizzle
Posted on January 5, 2011 at 7:28amIt makes them look bad when they have no evidence support their arguments
Report Post »gillijm
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:57ami’m taking my toys and going back home, but before i do ill make sure nobody is happy! how typical of the power hungry kind (dems)…
Report Post »taskmaster78
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:56amI believe they’d like to shut down all debate as they attempted in the last congress. This is not a dictator ship, this 1900 century rule has work since it’s inception and was put in place to keep the system slow for true debate in order to have time to see the implications of each bill and to provide time for a change of mind.
Report Post »seeker9
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:49amRapid change is disruptive to a society and to the economy. Just because it is “change” does not mean it is good. Keep the slower process to allow thorough debate.
Report Post »giresse
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:56amYes sure they want this now. Another attempt to stop the GOP doing its job and stopping these socialist policys.
Report Post »LibertyUSA1
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:54amWhen the tides turn….these babies, cry fowl and want to change the rules. They are so corrupt.
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 9:15amDoes This Mean That We Can Get More 2000+ page laws that we have to pass to learn the content?
Report Post »Where is the outrage about the tyranny contained in those four 2000 page laws?
http://commonsense21c.com/
MamaofJ5
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:05pmYou said it. If they still held super majority you wouldn’t be hearing a thing about this. I think its time we curtail all their power and set up some term limits.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 12:20pmThey’re spinning this whole thing as “GOP abuse of filibuster prompts reform.” Are you kidding me? The filibuster is providing exactly the sort of protection that the founders intended. The cry of every out of control government and dictator has always been for more power, less restraints and an urgency that these things must be done now to stem off great calamity!
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:46amHow about a plan that limits executive power?
Report Post »taskmaster78
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 6:54amThis seems so good when it is the Dems who sit without power. Why wasn’t it so critical when they held the power?
Report Post »quiet little lamb
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:01amthey have that. checks and balances. it’s being ignored. This plan will backfire on the dems when they lose power. i say go ahead and let them take away the filibuster. see how they like it when they can’t stop the GOP at all in 2013.
Report Post »sidenote: would it be possible for the blaze to overdub anything Weiner says with a robot voice or maybe fabio? that guys voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
oldguy48
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:18amYes, I know we all hope that it is politics as usual. But is it?
Report Post »Moocephus
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 7:22amJust another example of the “Living, Breathing Constitution” the dems want to re-interpret for their gain. The rules were set up for a reason. If they want to speed up the process. Stop all the pork add-ons to every bill.
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 9:04amTHE BUREAUCRACY- OBAMA’S ENABLING ACT?
According to news reports, Mr. Obama plans to increase the power of the Executive Branch by having the bureaucracy create new rules and regulations that have not been sanctioned by the Congress. The Executive Branch will be creating laws. Regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA is an example of this plan. This making new law by the executive branch is exactly the power the Enabling Act conferred on Adolf Hitler.
When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany one of his first acts was to convene the legislature to pass the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act gave the Executive Branch of the government the power to enact laws. With the passage of the Enabling Act, Hitler assumed almost total control of the German Government. The dictatorship was created that produced the carnage of World War II.
Recently, the Democratic controlled Congress has passed four laws containing over 2000 pages. At the time of passage, only the Democratic leadership in Congress had any idea of what was contained in the new law. The speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, stated, we have to pass the law to find out what’s in it. All four laws significantly increased the power and size of the bureaucracy. So the stage is set for Mr. Obama’s coup.
The bureaucracy is charged with creating new rules and regulations within the power granted by the Congress. There is nothing but the courts and the President to stop the bureaucracy from exceeding the congressional mandate. If the President instigates the tyranny only courts offer any protection. The bureaucracy acts as legislature, policeman, prosecutor, plaintiff, judge and jury. So the tyranny can be quickly enforced and irreparable damage created before judicial relief is possible. It can take years and cost millions of dollars to obtain relief from such bureaucratic excesses. Few citizens have the resources required to challenge the bureaucracy in court. Even if the tyrant is challenged in the courts, the coup will be complete long before the courts act.
If the bureaucracy creates and enforces tyranny at the direction of the President, the only hope we have to retain our freedom is that the Congress recognizes the coup and impeaches The President. Even if Congress acts, before irreparable harm has resulted from the tyranny, a constitutional crisis will result that may destroy the American Revolution.
The Republic has not been in such danger since the British aborted their attempt to capture Baltimore in the war of 1812. http://commonsense21c.com/
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 10:41amHere we go again.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 11:15amtobywil2 – First, stop with the Hitler analogies. That’s getting old, and frankly a little pathetic, even by Tea Party standards. Hilter was a mass murderer who tried to conquer the world. The analogy makes you look uneducated and brings your credibility to zero.
For the last two years our government has required a 60% majority to pass anything. That’s a Senate rule and not what our Founders wrote into the Constitution. The threat and use of the filibuster in the last two years is unprecedented has quadrupled at least. A government requiring a super majority of 60% to pass any legislation cannot function, particularly when one party is resolved to block all legislation. The government shuts down. You may cheer that through a procedural mechanism, not in the Constitution, that a minority party can prevent votes on legistlation, but if the Democrats chose that route, our government would become completely impotent.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:50pmIf the Repubs go along with this they are crazy.
Report Post »Krutch
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 3:56pmHow about OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on January 4, 2011 at 4:52pmWhile I understand and share the sentiment about why Dems are pushing for this now, I humbly ask that we consider their proposal on its own merits, not based on ad hominem arguments concerning the people proposing it. I haven’t liked tar-and-feather arguments when they’ve been directed at Republicans, and I don‘t like them when they’re being leveled at Democrats.
If the proposed rule changes involve doing away with the filibuster, I’ll be 100% against them. But from what I’ve heard, that is not the case; rather, the changes that I’ve been hearing about seek to make the filibuster a tool of last resort rather than a standard practice. They would require a Senator who wishes to filibuster to put his name to it at the very least, and quite possibly to inconvenience himself (by taking to the floor of the Senate for the duration of the filibuster). In and of itself, I don’t find anything objectionable with the above.
The defenders of the current filibuster rules state that they’re needed to protect the rights of the minority party. Granted, some sort of safeguard is needed; the last four years have amply demonstrated that, with Dems often restricting or outright forbidding the amendment process or otherwise taking steps to disenfranchise the loyal opposition. But I wonder if those safeguards need to take the form of the current filibuster rules? Certainly, I’ll look more favorably on a proposed revision to the Senate rules which puts in place alternate safeguards to the rights of the minority party even as it restrains the use of the filibuster.
Mind you, it‘s entirely possible that the proposed rules revisions won’t stand up on the merits, in which case they should be opposed with everything that the Republicans in the Senate can muster. But please, no more of this “if the Dems are for it, it must be bad” attitude that I’ve been seeing here. Certainly, the ideal circumstance would be for the Republicans to take control of the Senate and then implement common-sense reforms, perhaps even ones of this nature; but if it’s a good idea, it shouldn‘t matter who’s suggesting it, when it’s suggested, or why.
@Poverty.Sucks: you mentioned that we need to limit executive power. Certainly, we need to restrain Obama so as to minimize the damage that he’s doing to the country; but there’s a difference between that and limiting executive power. Indeed, a case could be made that executive power is currently _too_ limited, and needs to be beefed up a bit. In _Broke_, Glenn Beck proposes two such expansions of executive power: first, a restoration of the President’s ability to impound spending; and second, some form of a line-item veto. Note that these measures are geared toward restraining Congress, and they empower the Presidency only to the extent that those restraints are put in his hands. And while I don’t trust President Obama, and I can pretty much guarantee that he’d find ways to abuse these new powers if given them, considerations of the balance of power in the Federal government go far beyond the current office holder.
Report Post »