(of all people warning of poisoning bipartisanship...) "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blasted Democratic-led efforts to reform the filibuster, warning that the changes would “poison” relations in the already-gridlocked Senate. The Kentucky Republican said changing the filibuster – which was designed to protect the minority but has become a tool for constant gridlock in the modern Senate – would fundamentally alter how the Senate operates. McConnell accused Democrats of trying to employ a “naked power grab.” “In the name of efficiency, their plan is to use a heavy-handed tactic that would poison party relations even more,” McConnell said in a lengthy floor speech Monday. “In the name of efficiency, they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like mere pillow fights.” Once a cause championed by a few Democratic senators, changing the filibuster has become a top priority for Senate Democrats who’ve repeatedly complained about Republicans blocking legislation from even being debated on the Senate floor. Reid noted on Monday that in his nearly six years as majority leader, he has faced 386 Republican-led filibusters in the chamber. “We can’t continue like this,” a visibly frustrated Reid Monday said in a response to McConnell. The menu of options has included banning filibusters that block the start of floor debates and House-Senate conference committees from convening. Another change would force senators to actually get up and talk endlessly in order to filibuster legislation – in the mold of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Also on the table is a so-called “nuclear option,” which would call for just a simple majority, or 51 votes, to change Senate rules. Changing the rules usually requires two-thirds of the chamber, or 67 votes. The proposed package of changes, which will come in the beginning of the next Congress, has yet to be finalized. But Republicans have cried foul over the proposals, arguing that those changes would allow the majority in the Senate to run roughshod over the minority party. In the 113th Congress, Democrats will control 55 seats in the Senate, while Republicans will hold 45 seats. “Make no mistake, what [Reid] is proposing is a Senate where the only rule is his whim, where the rest of us are bystanders, including the members of his own party,” McConnell said. “The Democrats really want to go down this road? They really think they’re going to be in the majority forever?” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84237.html ...“We cannot allow the Senate to be dysfunctional by the use of filibusters,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid’s No. 2. “We’ve had over 300 filibusters in the last six years — it’s unprecedented. What we’re talking about is very basic — you want to start a filibuster, you want to stop the business of the Senate, by goodness’ sake, park your fanny on the floor of the Senate and speak. If you want to go to dinner and go home over the weekend, be prepared, the Senate is moving forward.” ...“I think the backlash will be severe,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the conservative firebrand, said sternly. “If you take away minority rights, which is what you’re doing because you’re an ineffective leader, you’ll destroy the place. And if you destroy the place, we’ll do what we have to do to fight back.” “It will shut down the Senate,” the incoming Senate GOP whip, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told POLITICO. “It’s such an abuse of power.” ...."But Democrats don’t think the changes will prevent the minority from exerting its rights. And if Democrats push through their “talking filibuster” plan, both Barrasso and Coburn say they’d be willing to go to the floor and make their objections heard. “I’ll filibuster any way I can,” Coburn said. “If you want to filibuster, you ought to be willing to get out and earn it. I don’t have any problems with that.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195_Page3.html <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HX8aFpnWxPA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> C-Span lookout! I'm in favor of blocking filibusters that prevent a debate entirely. Anything concerning people's livelihood deserves at least a discussion. Not sure that a majority changing the rules to further weaken the minority is a good thing. But what else could be done to mitigate filibuster abuse/obstructionism? People still need protection from the "party first" partisans.
I heard a congressional historian on NPR suggest (like last year) that instead of needing 60 votes to override a filibuster, you should need some number just to start one. Right now you just need *one* senator to raise his or her pinky finger, and BAM, all work comes to a standstill, and he can go back to his posh apartment and watch Fox. But if you needed forty votes, thirty votes, even twenty five votes, just to start one, I think you'd see less than the hundreds employed now.
I believe there is a rule in place that senators can vote with a simple majority on the first day of a new session to change any rule in the senate. All it takes is 51 votes on the first day of the new session and the filibuster is changed. Come on Jan 3rd
You can already see the talking points emerge in the OP and in FOX coverage: we have to have the filibuster when you have such "bad leadership" as Reid, blah blah blah. Riiiight. Bad senate leadership is why you declared your top priority for four years was making the president lose the next election and why you constantly refused to even *discuss* legislation. Anyway the historian also suggested that a simple rule change would be you only get one chance to filibuster a given piece of legislation. Right now you can filibuster the discussion, the move to bring it to the floor, the vote itself, and so on (if I understand it correctly.) That seems insane, as a current practice.
Filibustering was used in extreme excess over the past couple years. However, if the roles were revesred and the Dems were the minority and the gop was trying to pass this rule, the Dems would have issues with it. I see both sides point. Children acting like spoiled children. They care about themselves first, and the nation comes second.
deja vu all over again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option I think having the filibuster option is important, but not as the tool it has become over the last decade. Not sure how it gets reconciled.
The roles were reversed, the Republicans threatened to get rid of all filibusters because the Demos were only letting through a paltry 90% of Bush's judicial nominees and let most other legislation get ot an up or down vote. This unprecedented defiance was grounds for "the nuclear option" according ot Senate Republicans at the time. Today's stats are that ow Repubs only let through 74% of Obama's, and almost no legislation without a supermajority vote gets through. If you abuse the incredibly lax filibuster rules the way they've been, they get changed, and that's good for everyone. On a partisan basis, it's probably good for the democrats because their demographic "edge" in Presidential elections probably ensures that the veto rather than the filibuster will be their tool for blocking legislation for the next few decades
It's hilarious to hear Senate Republicans babble about "abuse of power," when that's exactly what they've been doing for the last 4 years by abusing the filibuster.
There is nothing worse than holding up a vote on the Defense Authorization Act by filibustering it in the Senate. ABUSE! ABUSE!
Except these days it isn't even that. I do like the "You actually have to get up there and filibuster" rule change a lot, because now a days it's more the threat of filibustering that's the problem.
I agree, the more pontificating the GOP is forced to do from the Senate floor, the better. They have already proven that if they speak what is really on their minds, they show themselves as the greedy misogynists that many of them still are.
Hope the moderates and ranking members on each side have the sense to leave it alone, don't set the precedent of changing and then reversing the rules out of convenience.