New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

New Filibuster Rule

MaryAnne

Governor
This is the most important piece of legislation the Senate will debate all year.

If they don’t pass filibuster reform, we will simply have gridlock.

And the American people want governing.
‘To understand what is happening, you first need to understand the issue at hand’.

‘Right now, to pass a cloture measure, that is to close a bill to debate and then vote on it, you need 60 votes’.

‘In the past Senators wishing to block bills had to by debating endlessly. To address this, a rule was put into place in 1975 which allowed a 3/5 majority of senators sworn in to end debate’.

‘It rarely caused issues, until recently when the GOP began invoking the rule of cloture on every single piece of legislation, but then did not stand up to debate’.

‘In other words, they abused the rule intended to stop endless debate without actually debating’.

‘They would force a cloture vote, but there would be no debate for which to invoke cloture at all.

‘In 2011, when the new Senate was convened, Senator Reid met with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and made a deal to limit the abuse of the filibuster in the new session’.

‘The handshake deal lasted for 40 days, with Senator Hutchinson of Texas invoking the rule on February 15′.

‘After that, 108 more cloture motions were filed, and of those 109, 70 had the majority vote. In the end, only 38 passed cloture and the bills voted’.

‘So much for the handshake deal’.

‘After Mitch McConnell lied to Harry Reid’s face, violating the agreement, the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’.





‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5′s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass’.



Some are calling this the Mr. Smith rule, after the classic movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington starring James Stewart. This simple rule change, the tying of cloture to the debate, is one long needed in Washington. As a result, now if a minority party wishes to block a measure, they will have to go on the record as being against it, with footage of it. Now they just can go “no cloture” and can avoid the political fallout of things like blocking the jobs act or stimulus bill.



To remind people what a filibuster properly is, below is an example of a true filibuster, at 8 hours, 34 minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the floor on December 10th, 2010, to filibuster the tax-cut extension deal. This is what a filibuster will mean now, not the farce it has become:awww.democraticunderground.com_emoticons_clap.gif
 
****

I saw Evan Bayh last week saying that under current guidelines they could filibuster with a single phone call. He said they had removed all discomfort from the tactic for the perpetrators.

Good news, indeed!
 
****

I saw Evan Bayh last week saying that under current guidelines they could filibuster with a single phone call. He said they had removed all discomfort from the tactic for the perpetrators.

Good news, indeed!

I am still not understanding the minds who abuse rules when they know they can be changed.I guess McConnell was so hell bent on undermining Obama and getting rid of him he simply did not think.

I was reading an article in my morning paper from Ministers and Educators about the decline of the Protestant faith.One Minister talked about welcoming all. Anther was so dogmatic he made it clear it was his belief or the highway.They do not seem to see the damage they are doing by being so rigid.

Like Romney,it is some one elses fault. Not mine.He talked about how the internet has allowed people to find out what they wish. Like me. I found a couple of articles about Roger Williams,founder of the Baptist faith and soon realized those right wingers who bring Politics into the Pulpit are going against all the Church Founder stood for. So many have ruled the ignorant and cannot understand why so many now turn away.
 

Yes,Wordly. This will affect both sides,no matter who is in the majority.Such a shame that Republicans had to abuse this time. Democrats abuse too.

Bernie Sanders fillibustered last year,but he stood and talked for over 8 hours. I admire men like him who are working for us. What do you think?
 
Yes,Wordly. This will affect both sides,no matter who is in the majority.Such a shame that Republicans had to abuse this time. Democrats abuse too.

Bernie Sanders fillibustered last year,but he stood and talked for over 8 hours. I admire men like him who are working for us. What do you think?

I think the US Senate is getting more like the UN
That is, if just one vote is a no then the measure is shelved.
Republicans in the House are accused of doing nothing, yet little is said about Reids shelving 95% of every bill the R led congress has sent him.
 
That's fantastic news.

It does seem a bit complicated, but this is what we need.

Had we done this in 2009, things would be a lot different in this country now.
 
It's a very dumb rule most of the time. One that was meant to speed up the process so the senate could do the ongoing business of the country instead of having someone read from the dictionary or some book. The reason for a Filabuster is maybe good, the way they changed the rules, in most cases is not, when they use it in this manner.. I would say maybe a two day limit on a filibuster on paper before one would have to stand up in front of the chamber and talk to keep it in force.
 
I don't see this as a threat to the minority, as some will say. This is also a far cry from what the GOP was threatening to do before Tom DeLay fell from power.

This will force the minorty out in the open. If it want's to defend it's position, it will have to do so in public and in front of the court of public opinion.

We've seen any number of very popular measures go down to defeat because of the current filibuster rule, which allows the minorty to block things without being seen doing it.

Under the current rule, the filibuster is a very damaging thing, but its use carries no political cost.

Under the new rule, the GOP will be forced to defend an unpopular position, like, say holding the country hostage over tax changes in order to retain a tax break for the top 1% (as they did in 2010).

Under the new rule, the minority will have to defend it's position at length in public. And on television.

One has to remember that the old filibuter rule went away before televsion cameras were allowed in either House.

Watching the GOP hold the nation hostage on national TV night after night will change the debate in this country.
 
I think the US Senate is getting more like the UN
That is, if just one vote is a no then the measure is shelved.
Republicans in the House are accused of doing nothing, yet little is said about Reids shelving 95% of every bill the R led congress has sent him.

Juat for fun and discussion purposes, howzabout you cite one bill passed by the GOP House, that you're convinced the Dem Senate WOULD have agreed to, if only Reid had allowed it to come up for a vote.
 
****

Watching the GOP hold the nation hostage on national TV night after night will change the debate in this country.

It would be refreshing to see them have to defend their crap instead of the guerilla tactic of obstruct and hide. We'd see a lot more of their designated prevaricators....the ones they send out who have nothing to lose in the integrity category. Kyl, King, Graham, Chambliss, Cantor, et al.....the usual suspects when their "conservative" positions are nonsensical to patriots.
 
Juat for fun and discussion purposes, howzabout you cite one bill passed by the GOP House, that you're convinced the Dem Senate WOULD have agreed to, if only Reid had allowed it to come up for a vote.


What? You don't think the Senate Democrats were licking their chops to redefine rape and outlaw contraception?
 
Back
Top