Reb-1013231 - The filibuster is not being used as intended. As it stands now, anyone can get up and start the filibuster then go home and get some rest, eat dinner, watch a movie, and come back in to continue. When you watch "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" you see him standing there the whole time talking or he has to yield his position to the body thus ending the filibuster. That is how it should be. With the majority of the house and senate being old cronies, I hardly see that ever happening, they may croak from exhaustion.

You also mention that if it would switch back to the Democrats being in charge that they would try and repeal the changes. Just thought you should know that it has been the Republicans who have used the filibuster the majority of the time. Especially in the last few years.

REB, your argument is flawed in so many ways:

1) Republicans have used the filibuster in the minority FAR MORE than Democrats ever even considered during their time in the minority.

2) The filibuster isn't meant as a means to "protect" anything. In fact, this idea that the filibuster is a protection is absolutely outrageous. The makeup of the Senate is due to the will of the people via elections. Hell, even that's not 100% Democratic, given that a state like California is represented by the same amount of senators as the state of Oklahoma. Regardless, if 55% of the Senate is comprised of Democrats, that speaks volumes as to where the country feels governance should lie. It's not the job of the minority to obstruct the will of the people via the technical oversight that is the filibuster.

Whether it be Democrats or Republicans in control of congress, or whether it be a split, the ONLY thing necessary according to what the founding fathers invisioned is an up or down vote, with 60 votes in the Senate to override a veto and 66 to ratify treaties and other measures. These are basic, simple, and common sense ideas that the founding fathers put a lot of thought into prior to implementing them.

john-98241 Read a little then you would know that the Democrats hardly ever use a filibuster. Overwhelming majority of the filibusters have been done by the Republicans, especially in recent years. Try doing some studying before making a ridiculous claim.

The only reason that this has become a court case is because of the extreme and abusive use of a last-resort procedure by the obstructionist party of NO, that they now invoke it in almost every topic. Even to stop not only voting, but DEBATES about an upcoming bill.

The extremists have used it more in the last couple of years than the last 60 years...COMBINED.

You know...party first, country last, and all.

I thought you wingnuts were strict constitutionalists? I guess that's only when it suits you. The filibuster was never part of the constitution and was never intended by the framers. It was created later on and has been abused by the GOP to the extreme. It's only purpose is obstructionism. The Conservatives know they are the minority in this country so they use every trick in the book to try and control things for the benefit of the few, from gerrymandering districts, to voter fraud, to the filibuster, it's one dirty trick after the next.

As you say Terry, Article I, Section 5, 2nd Section: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." So the Democrats have the majority in the Senate then they should decide what the rules are. Or better yet, since we are suppose to be a government of the people, for the people and by the people then why not let the people decide. I guarantee you that if the people vote on it in a non-rigged election, the filibuster will quickly become history just like the Dick Army Tea Party did during this last election.

Brenda,

I'm a Dem and I disagree, to some extent, with you. The Dems have used the filibuster quite a bit. In 2005 the Senate rethugli-cons wanted to do away with the filibuster because the Dems were blocking many of bushie's appointments. However, the last two sessions of Congress they 'cons have become the most filibustering party ever. To show how bad the 'cons have become I saw a video the other day where Mitch McConnell actually filibustered a bill he proposed. He wasn't expecting Harry Reid to allow a vote on his bill. When Reid did, McConnell filibustered. Somehow I don't think an example like that was something our forefathers had in mind.

The problem I have with this article is that they list the number of filibusters from 2010, saying congressional Republicans used it 92 times.

The real number now, today, is at least 200+ times the last time I checked. And I believe its closer to around 270. In any case they broke the historical record of using the most filibusters years ago. This congress has passed the historically lowest amount of bills introduced, around 2.5% of what's been introduced. This congress is the least productive and the least popular congress in American history.

Seriously, their approval rating bottomed out at 9% a year ago. And they want to make up excuses as to why they lost the election. They lost because of their own obstructionist failure of an ideology.

It's time to reform the filibuster. In my lifetime I've never seen Democrats act like these bunch of idiots with the filibuster.

I wholeheartedly agree, change it back to what it was. Make these fools stand up and talk for 24 hours if they believe that strongly about their traitorous pledge to Grover, a dirty lobbyist. The idiots only work around 9 days a month, which they spend saying no to everything. Make them work for it if they want to abuse the filibuster. Make them sit up there and read the dictionary until they pass out.

Reb and John: The next time a Democratic Senator filibusters HIS OWN BILL like your guy just did, then you can talk about both sides abusing it. Until then, go crawl back under your rocks.

It is really just a FARCE..... With the Dem's in firm control there should be no problem getting rid of it..... But low and behold the Party of no will not let it come up to do that...... Based on that the Courts need to step in so the balance can once again be reset..... A Filibuster is fine as long as you have the Balls to Stand There and do it, what we have now is simply Obstruction of Legal Proceedings..... What we currently have again I say is just a FARCE.....

The problem is, is that this country is filled with old outdated concepts, that people refuse to change because it may benefit them someday. Take a look at the electoral college system. That system should have been done away with years ago, but it's going nowhere anytime soon.

The Filibuster rules are not the problem.

The problem is Mitch McConnell.

The rules worked for many years but the Current Republican Senate Leader Mr. McConnell has used the tactic as a normal business procedure. The Senate will change the rules back to force the Senator who is doing the filibuster to be present on the floor of the Senate. That will stop this Republican foolisness.

I don't think the Democrats need to worry about ever being in a minority again. And if they are, they are going to be in a minority because the Republicans turned reasonable and were therefore voted in by us. If so, then they are not going to be peremptorily overruled and the Senate would be a much friendlier place.

Either way, Democrats have no reason to oppose the changes to the rules and every reason to support them.

Taking this to court seems on the face of it absurd as the separation of powers clearly delineates who decides what in the government. Unpopular laws can only be struck down if they are outside the constitution...the senate is clearly within its rights to conduct its business or to abdicate its role as it sees fit.

Easy to fix. If you want to fillibuster, you need to stay at the podium the entire time of the fillibuster. No one can last more than a day so the fillibuster ends when they drop from exhaustion.

I am not going to take a stand on whether or not I think the filibuster should exist under its current rules. All I will say is that the courts have no business getting involved in this issue. The Constitution clearly gives the houses of Congress the right to make their own rules. As such, the judicial branch has no business dictating, in any way, what rule are acceptable or not acceptable. That would constitute the judicial branch usurping a right specifically given to the legislative branch by the Constitution. That is something that simply should not, and can not be allowed to happen. The fact that Democrats have brought this case shows that they only feel they should have to follow the Constitution when it suits them and will throw it away when it dos not. This has been increasingly the case under the current administration as Obama has repeatedly violated the separation of powers clause with some of his executive orders that tell the administration to ignore duly passed federal statutes simply because he does not agree with them.

I agree, you can change the rule, otherwise, force people to filibuster like it was supposed to be, at the podium all night long, and all day long.

JRSuperstar, you're right on when you say "It's not the job of the minority to obstruct the will of the people via the technical oversight that is the filibuster." I was taught that my vote counted for something; it would be nice if that could become fact.

Ken you are either delusional or purposefully spinning the truth, it was Mitch McConnell A REPUBLICAN who filibustered his own bill.

What happened with McConnell and his filibuster of himself was the final result of abusing the filibuster being taken to its most illogical extreme. I would like to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of Common Cause on this one. I must say, however, that McConnell has provided for great entertainment in turning himself and the legislative process into total laughingstocks.

Look at what McConnell did. He sends a totally cynical bill, one he has absolutely zero intention of voting for, to the floor. Reid thought about it, then called his bluff by motioning for a straight up/down vote in 20 minutes. McConnell then tries to play his filibuster card, only to have it blow up in his face. The problem: McConnell needs to have the 60 votes to override Reid's up/down amendment, and he does not have them, meaning he has to blow up a piece of legislation he sent to the floor but had no intention of voting for. Reid played an absolutely brilliant game of parliamentary poker, showing McConnell for the mindless buffoon he really is.

Where the filibuster process went wrong is not requiring the person to take to the floor and rail against the legislation for hours on end. If you're going to do what McConnell did, you deserve to stand out there and rail against your own bill for hours on end. If you want to abuse the legislative process to the point of complete mockery, you should be forced to take the floor against your own bill until you are laughed off the floor, pass out or get knocked out. C-Span should be allowed to cut in across all channels and broadcast the spectacle nationwide. When someone wants to abuse the legislative process and the filibuster the way McConnell abuses them, the rules of the filibuster should not allow for the person to save himself from himself. And this is exactly what happened when McConnell could call the filibuster without having to take the floor. He was spared the proper humiliation and ridicule while the public was denied hours of live entertainment at his expense.

Well, the argument the 4 dems make is applicable to most any rule that is made, except for the fact that the Constitution allows each chamber to make their own rules.

Eric: That's the way it originated. The thing is that the politicians are no longer to be trusted. We've seen this at the Conventions where the the Chair ruled that there was unanimous consent even though people were screaming objections. I can easily see Harry Reid stepping in when a speaker stops to take a breath or a sip of water and ruling that "the speaker has ended, there being no other speakers a vote is called!" The current provides for a sense of civility. It's for the convenience of the Senators themselves so they don't have to be up all night.

The suit will be thrown out because the Representatives have no standing to challenge a rule in the Senate.

But, if the Reps are successful, then there could easily be challenges to a ton of rules. For example, a Senator or Representative wants a bill brought before the chamber, what happens now? It gets referred to some committee or another. It's easy to see that there's something wrong with that and all the procedures that are used to prevent legislation from being brought up for a vote. Take the legislation that the House passed that prevented taxes from being raised this January. Yes, the House passed that legislation! And Obama and Reid said NO WAY! Reid prevented the Senate from even voting on it. Imagine that! The Republicans said we don't want taxes to go up and the Democrats said YES WE DO!

So, the rules cut both ways. Do you really want, or even think, that the Courts should be the ones to determine what the rules of Congress should be? Well, I suppose if you think the Constitution is a document to be ignored, then you might. But, it is clear that the Constitution gives each chamber the right to make it's own rules. That should end the discussion. This is especially so when you know that the each party will change sides of the argument it supports based on whether it is in the majority or minority. And that's why you leave it alone. After all, have you ever seen anyone in the minority arguing that it's unconstitutional that their side is using the filibuster?

I know for a fact that if a majority of us working behaved this badly at work, we wouldn’t have a job. So, if those in WA can’t do their jobs, they need to quit, or be fired.

I am not an overpaid politician, but it can’t really be that difficult to out. How about if the Founding Father’s principal of majority rules be restored to the USA? Does it really matter who the “majority” are? Then who cares who controls the White House or the Senate. It will be the “majority” rules.

It is time for WA to grow up.

Terry and Reb at 1.0 and 1.1 hang their hat on a complete misunderstanding of Article I, Section 5, 2nd Section, which reads: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Those rules govern procedure in the same way that many legislative bodies use Robert's Rules of Order. In no way did the framers intend for Congress to use that clause to re-define mathematics. Indeed, it is quite clear what the framers meant when they gave tie-breaking power to the Vice-President. A majority was then, and is now, 50% + one. The 60% rule is not only unconstitutional, it is an insult to anyone with more than a first-grade knowledge of arithmetic.

Ken-1593428 said:

Reb and John: The next time a Democratic Senator filibusters HIS OWN BILL like your guy just did, then you can talk about both sides abusing it. Until then, go crawl back under your rocks. #1.10 - Sun Dec 9, 2012 9:35 AM PST

-----------------------------------------------

Ken, try doing some research before spouting off blatant untruths. It was Senate Minority Leader -- a Republican -- Mitch McConnell, that filibustered his own bill !

Sen. Mitch McConnell filibusters own bill on debt ceiling when Democrats agree to vote

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121207/NEWS01/312070087/Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-vote?odyssey=nav|head

And as for you, Ken, posting what you just said, that's been a chronic problem with conservatives like yourself; so arrogantly rigid in what you believe (and neurological and physiological research is finding your politically conservative brains seem to be almost, "hard-wired," in that propensity), that you and your peers don't bother to fact-check your own shallow statements, and end up in quick fashion publicly saying some pretty moronic things -- and GOP Tea Partiers have been saying a few humdingers about women and rape that were paramount in their losing this past election !

Jindal: GOP Needs to Stop Saying 'Stupid Things'

http://www.nationaljournal.com/sunday-shows/jindal-gop-needs-to-stop-saying-stupid-things--20121118

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains
16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different

http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

Why don't we stop Harry Reid from preventing any Republican Congressional Bill from getting to the floor.

Does Harry read them? I doubt it. His staff is working, preparing a formal proposal to the Senate Rules Committee to allow, at our expense, waiter served, un-buttered popcorn in the Senate auditorium. Goggle "Harry Reid Senate Popcorn".

I don't think the court should decide this case, the political question doctrine prevents the court from deciding exclusively political issues that should be resolved in the political process among senators themselves, not by the court.

Gil-2872519

Why don't we stop Harry Reid from preventing any Republican Congressional Bill from getting to the floor.

Does Harry read them? I doubt it. His staff is working, preparing a formal proposal to the Senate Rules Committee to allow, at our expense, waiter served, un-buttered popcorn in the Senate auditorium. Goggle "Harry Reid Senate Popcorn".

Same reason we can't stop Boehner from being a boner and stopping everything we try to do in the House. I think Harry Reid would be more in Cline to bring things to a vote if Boehner started passing some things Obama wants. Quid pro quo.

Gil-2872519.....

That "popcorn" thingy goes well with FLYeisty the Redhead's comments about having popcorn all the time.

I think she is still on the Obama campaign payroll.

Senator "Pocket Veto" Reid needs to retire and go back to his numerous Nevada Gold Mines.

BTW:

If Mr. Obama does not get "My way or the highway" Progressive legislation through normal Congressional procedures, he just writes another Executive Order or has one of his Progressive Cabinet Members change their regulations to meet his agenda.

Do a quick check of how many new regulations this administration has implemented RECENTLY.

spcTorres:

Actually, it's getting worse. While there are many trying to do away with the electoral college, or at least try to square it more with the popular vote (by trying to split electoral votes according to the popular votes in the states), Ohio is busy trying to split its state vote by congressional district. This would give the rural landowners - who vote overwhelmingly republican - a much greater voice than the urban voters, who are all crammed into few districts.

So, if the rules the republican governor in Ohio wants were in place for the last election, even though Obama carried the state by a large margin in the popular vote, Romney would have gotten 12 electors, Obama 6.

This is what republicans call "fair". At least right now. At think at bottom they realize that this kinda stuff is the only way they can 'win' a national election.

deprogrammer and rradiko -

You both cited Ken's statement, (rradiko actualy quotes it) and obviously neither actually read or understaood it. He was taking the Democratic side in reponse to two earlier Republican-side arguments.

Please don't post on behalf of Democratics or liberals until you learn to read. You give credence to the less than polite Conservative and Republican arguments that liberals and Democrats have less than stellar intellects. That's not helpful.

So last year the republicans forced the full Bush tax cuts extended. Then they've gone on to say they are now Obama's cuts. Obama now wants the top cuts to expire and republicans are pitching a fit and trying to make Obama identify 'entitlement cuts'. Of course, they would love to be able to blame Obama for the cuts they insist on, and blame him for more high deficits if he caves on the rate increase. And they have the nerve to whine about this whole fiscal cliff THEY set up? Do not cave, dems, do not cave.

The filibuster has been used at increasing rates by both parties in minority since the 70's. Yes, Republicans have used it more often during this session than in the past. Often an "official" filibuster has not been called as much in the past because it has been used as a bargaining chip in negotiations to reach bipartisan support. This usually has meant that the majority gave enough to the minority to get the hand full of votes needed. If you actually look at the statistics usually a Republican senate has been able to bring over several democrats to get a bill passed more often than have democrats have during recent years (ie. more negotiation). Both parties are at fault for this shift, don't be naive to think that somehow one is magically more friendly than the other. It's interesting that both can come together when it is in their personal financial interest.

The process of negotiation has came to an end because BOTH parties have refused to negotiate in good faith and both have presented with a take it or leave it attitude!!! Even during the Reagan years, Reagan and Tip O'Neil would get together over dinner and figure out how to get things done because both did what was right for the country not just their party.

For those saying remove the filibuster, what if the other party came to power and decided to re-write abortion laws making it all but impossible to obtain an abortion, Would you then think a 51-49 vote was sufficient? Be careful what you ask for!

Want to fix the problems??

Simple solution: Stop payment on every representative's/senator's and president's paycheck; end their parking privileges, gym access, free food, free postage, etc.; turn off their heat and a/c; stop paying for travel; and so forth. until a budget bill is passed with a super majority. You'd quickly find that most find methods of getting along and doing the work we send them to DC to accomplish. I bet we'd see 70-80% vote on a budget deal fast. The same could be done with most major legislation.

The reason our politicians aren't getting along is simple: We the citizens can't even have a discussion on a message board without people being nasty to each other and becoming polarized, so why should they??????? They only mirror us!

Terry-1394958

Though it should be eliminated or greatly curtailed I don't know how it can be seen as unconstitutional. It is part of the Senate rules and the Constitution gives both houses of Congress the power to make their own rules of procedure. Article I, Section 5, 2nd Section: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Terry-1394958

You are correct. Some Dems only read the Constitution to find ways around it and not to follow the law it makes.

Both sides when they are in the minority use this tactic. It is one of the few protections they have from being run over by the majority. My guess is the Dems will want to revert back to the way it was as sonn as they lose the majority - which of course will happen some day.

So then, according to some legal scholars' comments like those above, the Senate could for example make a rule that no Black, Woman, Islamic or Jewish Senator was allowed to speak on the Senate floor and the rule would be above the Supreme Court's ability to determine whether or not it is Constitutional???

I know nothing about the law except I do know the law twists and bends to fit the occasion. 2 people doing identical crimes with no arrest record, one is sentenced to years behind bars, the other is given probation.

Republicans use the filibuster way too much so I hope it is illegal then they will have to talk with democrats about real issues and not only things concerning rich people.

wire557

libtards just sore because they can't get their sh!tty legislation passed.

That is way too funny. So sorry you got your feelings hurt when we did a smackdown on the Republican nominee Mitt and Ryan. Better get a tissue for that nose bleed you got from the upper cut on the election. LOL, nice try though, but really, YOU LOST, lol, deal with it. Don't come on here crying like that, its not becoming of you. LOL.

Can you imagine if the Democrats had filibustered everything between 2000 and 2006? The Republicans would have been beside themselves! No taxcuts, No, No Child Left behind, No Medicare part D, No wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

brenda: Why didn't you mention Nancy the demigod of the "pocket veto". Or is she just your favorite Dems and you rewrite history at your will.

I believe tha,t by allowing the filibuster, we have given unconstitutional weight to a minority. It is as if the senate has, superconstitutionaly, given an extra 1/3 vote to each minority senator. Now, the TeaParty has more power than the people of the United States have voted to it.

wire557, your statement just goes to prove that TPs don't actually believe in democracy. You only believe in whatever serves your end. You are as Egypt's President Morsy. Ending the filibuster will stop your sedition

Sorry children, but has been the republicons setting records for filibusters all along.

Filibusters peaked in the 1990s when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress and then fell dramatically when the republicons controlled Congress.

Then again when the Democrats gained a slim lead in Congress the number of filibustered doubled in one year.

This abuse of the filibuster is a republicon specialty and needs to be ended. Harry Reid has a plan too.

111th Senate Breaks A Filibuster Record | TPMDC

Republican Obstruction at Work: Record Number of Filibusters | NEWS JUNKIE POST

Troll Alert!!

The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the Senate or its rules. The Senate alone has jurisdiction over its own operation and rules. The ridiculous scenarios proposed by commenters here, such as banning all blacks, women, etc, from speaking in Senate debate could be created and would be political suicide by any Senators who did. And just how would the Supreme court enforce some rules of its own over the Senate??? Send in police and military with guns to force the Senate to obey and then arrest or shoot those who don't??? What is this country, some banana republic??? Elections are what prevents egregious abuse of Senate rules and rule making. Let Harry Reid have his popcorn, it's a total non-issue. Every two years, the voters get to replace a third of the Senate. Every Senator is there representing their constituents because a majority of them put them there. If you don't like what they are doing, fire them and elect a new Senator. The purpose of the filibuster rule is to prevent the simple majority from buldozing a sizeable minority without debate. Filibusters can't go on forever, the do actually have an end. The ability to coerce some debate on any contentious issue that is closer than 60/40 is probably a good thing.

If they are gonna filibuster, make them take the podium and speak of their opposition to the bill. Simply threatening to filibuster should not require 60 votes.

The use of the filibuster has been abused by the Republicans since Obama has been in office. They have more than tripled the number of filibusters by previous senates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

"The purpose of the filibuster rule is to prevent the simple majority from buldozing a sizeable minority without debate. Filibusters can't go on forever, the do actually have an end. The ability to coerce some debate on any contentious issue that is closer than 60/40 is probably a good thing."

If they actually debate. That is not what is going on today. Today, a REP Senator stands up and threatens a filibuster and right away, a 60 vote is needed to advance the bill any further, all without any debate.

They need to enforce the rules of the filibuster and demand the opposing Senator stand up, and start talking. When he is done, then move on. the problem with this is, the next GOP Senator stands up, and invokes his right to filibuster, and on and on. The party that swore to make Obama a one term president has been obstructing our nation's business since Obama took office. It's getting ridiculous.

The filibuster is being used exactly as it was intended. We are a republic not a democracy. The filibuster is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It forces compromise, the alternative is "my way or the highway" autocratic rule.

brenda1964 --- Do you even have a clue about the Congressional process? Maybe you liberals should go back to school. Harry Reid has blocked just about every bill that came before the Senate, like the budget which used to be required by law but not under the Harry regime. McConnell filibustered his own bill because fruitcake Harry loaded it up with amendments, but you loony toon liberals and all your enlightened knowledge do not know that or refused to point it out. The filibuster has changed like other rules in the Senate over time but suddenly the lefties are crying trying to go back in time to 1906, very progressive. I am surprised that there are some liberals on the vine who have read and understand the process, that is very encouraging.
I find it amusing liberals all over the site are jumping up and down about being the majority and getting to make the rules. Sounds like first grade stuff to me considering you all are so intellectual. Get over it the rule is there and when it is not I know who will be crying. This is not something that can be settled by the court you boneheads.

Gil-2872519

brenda: Why didn't you mention Nancy the demigod of the "pocket veto". Or is she just your favorite Dems and you rewrite history at your will.

Umm, it is my understanding that only the President has the ability to VETO anything, not sure what this pocket veto is, but I have never heard of it. LOL.

Oh and wire557, don't go away mad, just go away. LOL

Irvmani - You are soo funny. Yelling at Harry Reed for doing what Boehner is doing. That's like the Pot calling the kettle black. Too funny. And your boy McConnell, that takes the cake, filibustering his own bill. To quote my favorite President, "That takes some brass." LOL

Every time I hear you Republicans trying to turn things around from reality it just makes me laugh.

LOL LOL LOL LOL etc etc.

Brenda: "Pocket veto" is a Presidential term, however, it has been used in many posts when referencing a Speaker's refusal to put proposed legislation up to the floor for a vote (i.e.killing the proposal -- essentially vetoing it). As you can see, "pocket veto" says the same thing and is a lot shorter. Commenters, like myself, like to keep things brief.

BTW: You criticized my English but never responded as to my comment about your demigod Nancy. Why?

Typical liberals, they love the filibuster when the Republicans controlled both the Senate, House, AND White House during the Bush administration because otherwise the Republicans could have passed anything they wanted. It was the filibuster they LOVED then.

But now since it blocks their desire to ramrod even MORE controversial policies that they couldn't "fit in" when they DID have the super majority NOW they don't like it. Just goes to show liberals don't give a tiny rat's behind about the country but only their power. And if anything gets in the way of their power whether it be limited government, the Constitution, or laws that they LOVED 10 years ago but now no longer like then they will go to any length to damage the country, economy, or citizens of this country to get there.

Gil-2872519

Brenda: "Pocket veto" is a Presidential term, however, it has been used in many posts when referencing a Speaker's refusal to put proposed legislation up to the floor for a vote

Oh you mean like the speaker of the House Boehner. How he refuses to put to a vote the middle class taxes? Oh yes i guess you could call that a pocket veto.

ProBusiness

Typical liberals, they love the filibuster when the Republicans controlled both the Senate, House, AND White House during the Bush administration because otherwise the Republicans could have passed anything they wanted. It was the filibuster they LOVED then.

But now since it blocks their desire to ramrod even MORE controversial policies that they couldn't "fit in" when they DID have the super majority NOW they don't like it. Just goes to show liberals don't give a tiny rat's behind about the country but only their power. And if anything gets in the way of their power whether it be limited government, the Constitution, or laws that they LOVED 10 years ago but now no longer like then they will go to any length to damage the country, economy, or citizens of this country to get there.

Wow, how disfunctional are you. It is the corperate greed that only cares about themselves and the Gop that works for them. They are willing to throw 98% of the people under the bus to try and stop taxes from going up on them. They already have more then anyone really needs in a life time and yet they want more. When Obama is done with them I guess they will have to live in only 5 mansions instead of 6.

For anyone arguing the party usage of the filibuster/cloture here are a few facts gathered from:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate

The first is a list of cloture motions for each Congress and the second contains information regarding which party was the majority in the Senate.

- Over the last two decades (1993-2012) there has been a total of 891 cloture motions or an average of 89 per Congress.

- In the two decades prior (1973-1992) there was a total of 401 cloture motions or an average of 40 per Congress.

-In the last three Congresses (Republican minorities) there has been a total of 388 cloture motions or an average of 129 per Congress. That is 43.55% of the cloture motions in the last two decades. That is also 145% above the average (129/89) for the last two decades.

- The last two Congresses with a Republican majority (2003-2006) there was a total of 130 cloture motions or an average of 65 per Congress.

- There has been a 199% increase of cloture motions (129/65) when the Republicans have been in the minority.

Sorry don't do that with little children, thats against the law. Grow up some, then come chat with the adults. LOL

The Democrats have been in control of the House for 46 of the past 60 years, and 40 of the past 60 in the Senate. So being in the minority far more then Democrats would leave the filibuster as the only means of combating a Democrat led Senate that does not work across the isle in order to put forth bi-partisan legislation. Which really gets to the heart of the problems in Washington, supporters now feel that winning an election means you get your way. Even when differences in winning margins are typically just a couple percentage points. The blame for the unmitigated partisanship in Washington falls squarely on Obama, he is suppose to be the leader, and as such it is his job bring both sides together on issues. But when Obama says Republicans to the back of the bus. No deal without a tax increase. Blame. Blame. Blame. Washington is broken solely because neither side is willing to compromise, except in sound bytes for a media that only covers the side of the story that fits their ideology. Supporters claim Obama is the smartest president ever, but he seems to have no clue how to lead. Threats and blame is not leading. Book smart maybe, street smart not at all.

Newsvine account for wire557:

Oh my. There doesn't seem to be a page here anymore. Sorry about that!

Yes, "lol" indeed...

But when Obama says Republicans to the back of the bus. No deal without a tax increase

Rick-3416939 - Wow Fox news says he said back of the bus, but he never did. You probably believe the world is going to end on the 21st as well because the mayan's said so. He said Republicans will have to hop in back meaning it's his turn to drive. Never did he even mention a bus, that's just standard Republican elephant do do.

Book smart maybe, street smart not at all.

I think both because he sure schooled the GOP on who is the boss. Won the election on popular vote and electoral vote. Plus he did it with everything the GOP could throw at him from Berther's to racists.

You Libs that are saying that Republicans are the ones that are abusing the Cloture rule just don't know the facts. Beginning with the 92nd Congress, where 20 votes for Cloture were held, Democrats have averaged 25.3 "filibusters" per Congress when in the minority and Republicans have averaged 23.3. According to the Senate web site:

Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964.

The Southern senators were Democrats. For those who cannot believe anything that does not paint Progressives in the best light, the Senate web address is http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Funny how the left wing wackos in this country only want "majority rule" when it is on their agenda. Live with it. You do understand that we wouldn't have an awful lot of rights today if you guys were incharge with your majority rule crap? How about you dems filibustering equal rights in 1964? How about "very blue" state California not allowing gay marriage? Are you sure that you want to set a new rule that says majority rules?

Brenda - It was a democrat Deputy Attorney General from Pennsyvania that started the "birther' movement. Why do you clowns always twist things? And it was the democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But now you'l tell me that those guys turned republican. Did Robert Byrd become a republican, how about Al Gore Sr?

Beginning with the 92nd Congress? 42 year averages?! Kind of grasping at straws to get the Republican average low enough. The last 3 Congresses have made that difficult to do since there are 139, 137 and 112 cloture motions respectively. If the last 3 Congresses had the average of the 7 Congresses before them, then the cloture motion average for the last two decades would be 71 instead of 89. That is just how much the last 3 Congresses have skewed the average. From 2003 to 2006 the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency and the Democrats only averaged 65 cloture motions when they were in the minority. The 110th Congress had a Republican President and the 112th Congress has a Republican House, yet the Republican have still used the filibuster to obstruct the Senate even with a Presidential veto (110th) and a Republican House (112th).

Find it amusing that you talk about the Civil Rights Act which occurred prior to the 92nd Congress (1971-1972) that you are using as a starting point for your average. Kind of interesting that cloture was invoked under a Democrat controlled Senate and afterwards the southern states started voting for Republicans after a long history of voting for Democrats. Now why would southern Democrats start voting for Republicans? Could it be that they felt betrayed by the Democrat party that allowed the Civil Rights Act to pass? The Republican party that began in the north has all put disappeared from the region and their base of power is now the south. Those that used to support Democrats in the south now control the Republican party.

The Constitution is valid until it is invalid. By definition a constitution cannot be self-eliminating, so a fundamental challenge by the Supreme Court would only refer back to the amendment process. Since as stated in the Constitution the Senate makes its own rules, then it must have been designed by a class of men called 'honorable'. We can then come to know, once again, that having a long lived series of honorable men is not as reliable as it might have once seemed. A recent retired Justice said that the Constitution would mean little if it were not based on 'trust'. So should seem to some contemporary to this age that 'trust' has been lost by some combination circumstances, that also should be clearly identified so that they can be addressed squarely. Why the public should be concerned that the elements of the Constitution can be turned one against the next to create uncertainty, and then to take advantage of the created uncertainty to obtain a gain of some type. The forces of evil would be certain to undermine that 'trust' and have worked diligently to ruin a nation of … we 'trust'.

Even the earliest versions of the Constitution have had a storied history of needing hastily created amendments, the tenth amendment in particular has in modern interpretations been taken to mean that individual States Executive Power can be enhanced while the history of technical progress has so interconnected the commerce and economy that it is obvious that it would be more efficient and less of drag on the economy to implement federal regulation. It is true the interconnected commerce, transportation, travel and communications have enabled the private sector to build corporations spread nationwide and globally.

This commercial success once applied to wring maximum profits then, bring upon itself the expectation of the same or similar profit from some future investment scheme. It is clear enough that the first attempt at national integration of business would come at the cost of requests for federal level legal enablements. Those same federal enablements would become an impediment when the nationalized facilities where located across the country, and all the states were to consider state regulations. Thus to continue to profit those same corporations would cease needing federal help, and resort to laws from fifty state houses, to further the profit line of some interminable scheme. The states could reduce regulations, lower wages, eliminate benefit and work assiduously against the lowly wage workers ability to bargain for better conditions.

So what does this bring, except so called State competition to keep profits high? As will be the case, as soon an all the locations of all the business will have reduced wages, and profits at maximum. But after all that can be wrung out the federal and states, then it is only the local regulations that become the next obstacle. Below that would regulations conditions and a product that is failing, and then, as if you didn't know the business with inflated books is sold to your grandfather pension fund. Those pension funds would become the subject of failure and again become a ward of the federal government. Who then is the proper recipient of the blame for this hellish predicament?

Of course I wish I didn't have to remind all that the technological miracles when applied against the simpleminded concept of honorable men have consequences. Those technical innovations have enabled so called business interest to form lobbying groups, who attack federal, state and local regulations. When the rules of the Senate that have been subverted to the purpose of a huge encircling scheme to make profit without honest business risk, invest and developed interests then it is time to consider the Constitution invalid, waiting not one minute longer, for the branches of government to conclude that it is unconstitutional to represent the people within the nation.

Many a legal scholar has pointed out that the Constitution only grants protection to individuals and through many legal cases does not grant those rights to groups, unions, political parties, or moneyed revolutionaries. Apparently the right to assembly means only to stand peaceably until you drop dead. Yet the Courts constantly find ways to support assembled groups as such as corporations, purchased charity groups, lobbyist and so called civic groups to be oddly dedicated to only themselves, and the neglect the very individual mentioned so often as the sole beneficiary of the Constructions protections.

The wolves in the forest are not groups of citizens seeking protection from the Constitution that they own, but are the very threat that is seeking group protection from a system that was not designed that in that way at all. The modern corruption that the Constitution has become would have supported King George III, over the patriots, patriots so naïve in law that the infamous words "We the People …" are not parts of that Constitution. The rules of the Senate have become the extra Constitutional exception that could be jiggered to eliminate a Constitution that could otherwise not eliminate itself.]

If a new revolution needs to started then lite the fire here: Resolved there shall be no group that is formed or funded any corporations, wealthy individual or purposed civic organization that cannot be recognized to represent individual petitioners citizens that can lobby Congress persons. Any Congress person to accept support from any group will be removed from Congress and cannot be replaced until the next biannual or hex annual election, those citizens who elected that Congress person will be without representation, until that election. A second offense punished by permanent imprisonment and the loss of all assets, current of in the future.

The GOP filibusters are unconstitutional, the only ones that follow the Constitution is Harry Reid for the better, Dem's Rule !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simple. If the GOP keeps obstructing the will of the majority, use the SENATES OWN RULES, and ABOLISH the filibuster using a simple majority on the first day of the senate. Done and done. No more GOP BS. The Democrats use it so infrequently, it won't really matter to them. The Senate can then get to work and actually fix the economy and the GOP will never win another election ever again. Simple.

We can all argue anyway we like but the fact is this nation is set up as majority rules. The fillibuster was enacted so the minority party could make its case and it required the person that objects to state their case without any stopage until done, then he/she has to shut up.

We have had the minority party for some time rule this county which definitely is unconstitutional.

It is clear from the election outcome the majority wants Democratic party views enacted and still we have states trying to pretend the Right won the election. Keep that up and in 2014, the Republican party will disappear. We need both parties in government but not one that would rather kiss rich men's asses than take proper care of the nation by following the will of the people.

@ David Walker (#1.25):

Terry and Reb at 1.0 and 1.1 hang their hat on a complete misunderstanding of Article I, Section 5, 2nd Section, which reads: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Those rules govern procedure in the same way that many legislative bodies use Robert's Rules of Order. In no way did the framers intend for Congress to use that clause to re-define mathematics. Indeed, it is quite clear what the framers meant when they gave tie-breaking power to the Vice-President. A majority was then, and is now, 50% + one. The 60% rule is not only unconstitutional, it is an insult to anyone with more than a first-grade knowledge of arithmetic.

This is certainly the argument that will be made. But it is somewhat less than the whole story.

A quick review of the Supreme Court cases in which the internal operations of Congress were sought to be challenged reveals a very consistent pattern. The Court declines to hold that the "Rules" clause or the "Speech or Debate" clause are absolute bars to judicial intervention. That is, the Court holds out the possibility that Congress might do something unconstitutional under the guise of regulating its own proceedings.

But I'm not aware of a case that could be fairly characterized as an internal procedural rule that the Court has ever actually struck down. And that even extends to the issuance and enforcement of House subpoenas that were challenged on the ground that the subpoenas were meant to deter the free speech of the target of the investigation.

So, the Court has said that it reserves the right, someday, to exercise judicial review over some unspecified evil in an internal Congressional rule (a not-surprising thing for the Court to say), and yet it steers far clear from actually exercising that power.

This history, plus the fact that three previous challenges to the filibuster have been thrown out by lower courts, mean that one would surely have to say that the current challenge faces an uphill battle at best.

In one decision from 1983, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals declined to get involved in a case where Republican House members alleged they weren't being allotted committee assignments in the correct proportion (a "mathematics" challenge not unlike the one to the filibuster), saying that the "Rules" and "Speech or Debate" clauses deprived the courts of the power to tell Congress what rules it must adopt, while leaving courts with the power to tell Congress what rules it must not.

Although it might be argued that the filibuster rule could be a rule that Congress must not adopt, it is equally plausible to argue that the filibuster opponents are asking the courts to tell Congress what bills it must pass, and I simply see no likelihood of the courts going there.

@ Rich M. Jones:

So, to sum up....?

brenda1964
Grow up some, then come chat with the adults.

Pretty funny comment for someone who appears to have obtained her knowledge of the filibuster from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

And of course "it has been the Republicans who have used the filibuster the majority of the time. Especially in the last few years." Why would the Republicans use the filibuster when they had control?

Your comments did make me LOL though - at you; not with you

It is a Congressional Rule and not a Law, so the Courts review authority is very limited. However, the courts oversight is often negligible until the court intervenes. Maybe this will be the case, maybe not (history seems to say no, but history says the court changes its mind some times) If this case does work its way up to SCOTUS, their current make-up favors judicial restraint. This problem is solvable by the Senate itself, no need for judicial intervention. Elect members that promise to reform the filibuster.

1. Is there a clause for "Extraordinary" circumstances? question mark

2. I'm not so sure that the Court would be "usurping" in any way because they would be being asked to look at an actuality, "something that has already happened", in terms of affect to substance and give an opinion on that, ie, they are being asked to look at the question of whether or not "Majority rules" is being UNconstitutionally "usurped" by "Minority rules". (which is an ABUSE of power, by overreaching)

2. Asking that question and getting an answer to it would then allow the answer to be presented to The People and then it would be up to The People to insist that their Representatives change "the rules" to what would be considered "consistent" with the Constitution.

3. The Court wouldn't be directing the Senate to do or not do anything by clarifying to answer the question that's being asked.

It's interesting to see that the "Lawyers" for the Senate are pretty much going directly and immediately to not even allowing the question to be asked, based on "precedent" of a different question and different affect to substance!

mendy07

brenda1964
Grow up some, then come chat with the adults.

Pretty funny comment for someone who appears to have obtained her knowledge of the filibuster from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

And of course "it has bee

Actually you assumed that I learned it from watching a movie. In reality I said that is how it should be. If you are going to, as a minority, hold up congress, then you should damn well be there speaking. You should not be able to go home and enjoy a leisure dinner, watch a movie, get a good nights sleep, and then come in the next day. You want to filibuster, then stand there and do so.

What we have to consider here is the spirit and intention of the filibuster,whether it is to protect minority rights or abuse of the process and on this test most of the filibusters fail. The Senators should seriously think of assisting the governance of the country by positive contributions...having seen the spectacle enacted over the last four years. This can be done only by revising the rules wisely and nation wants to know what to be done when one party declares that they are interested to make the elected President one time president and nothing else.

The Orange man is leading an organge revolution!! It's so strange that RepubliCONs try to stop the forwarding wheels of history. The only result is for the GOP to be crushed.

Kick Boehner out of Congress.

Boehner is the WORST House Speaker ever.

Let's give Boehner a minute. It looks like he is finally smacking the TeaParty down.

Boehner has had his minute. Time is up.

Clean the House and throw the GOP trash out. We need leaders for the majority.

Most Republicans felt the same way about Pelosi, remember she said we won we write the bills. Partisanship and nothing else is keeping Washington from compromise. Since voters kept the House under Republican control, too bad for Democrats if they can't have their way. It would appear voters feared having Democrats in total control. When you put forth bi-partisan legislation, it passes. But one sided ideology driven legislation is what a divided Congress is meant to stop. Harry Reid seems to have no clue how to compromise. So we hear endless blame, finger pointing, and crying in the press about those mean old Republicans. What a bunch of crybabies. Rather then doing the job the right way, they want to change the rules. Too bad Obama wasn't a leader, or none of this would be happening.

I saw Dylan in Seattle in Oct. Along with Mark Knopfler. For a guy in his early 70s he put on quite a concert. Mark was better though.

Yeah, but Dylan sure pegged the reichwingers with that line "you've got many lumberjacks to get you facts when someone attacks your imagination"

Rather then working within the rules the Democrats want them changed. More proof that the Democratic Party is driven by ideology and not compromise, common good, or what is in the best interest of the country. Winning does not mean you automatically get your way, especially when voters purposely left the congress divided. The division in Washington falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama, a testament to his lack of leadership skills. If Obama actually wanted to get something done in Washington, his first call should be to Harry Reid, who is the roadblock to compromise in the Senate.

Since McConnell agreed to not abuse the filibuster, then went back on that word and allowed the most filibusters in US history, we know the GOP can't be trusted with a handshake agreement. The rules have been changed over the years, it is time to change them again. The GOP will never have a majority in the Senate again anyways.

The Republicans have literally created a "minority rules" situation in the senate, and they can do it without any effort at all. I agree that the minority should have a voice, but they should not wield such power. They are a minority by the will of the people. The majority should have final say. Filibusters should require some passion, energy and conviction on the part of the person doing the filibuster. Heck, maybe a filibuster should come with a price tag too - like maybe $10,000 paid out of the senator's office budget.

They are a minority by the will of the people.

Exactly. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Also, many people have this idea that the filibuster is a "protection" for the minority. It's not, it's simply an oversight that was never meant to be used in the manner that it is today. Hell, there have been more filibusters used in the last 4 years than in all of the 20th century. That's ... disturbing.

If the filibuster should be eliminated then so should the rules limiting debate.

The fact that this country is a republic should help you understand the rules in Congress.

It doesn't need to be eliminated, it needs to be used properly and in the way it was intended originally. No phoning it in...you actually have to commit to doing it in person, on the floor and continuously.

Just my opinion, let's have less chronic use (or abuse) of the filibustering option, and more open debate of these hotly-contested issues on the congressional floor.

Lost count how many times members of the minority in congress over the past four years, have said let's debate this issue or that issue -- and then they quickly end up filibustering it and everything else, instead of talking it out, and in their zeal to obstruct because a man of a mixed-race that won a majority of votes sits in the Oval Office -- so the Congressional minority refuses to engage in any debate or negotiations... doing quite the opposite of what they said they wanted to do in the first place!

So is it any wonder why they suffered significant losses in this election cycle?

Correct, WTF...but it should also have the threshold reduced. It has not always been 60 votes. In fact, Frist threatened to change the rules almost every time the dems threatened a filibuster under the bush monarchy. So the dems laid down for Frist when they were the minority, and then they laid down for McConnell when they have the majority. See a pattern here? I believe that back when the filibuster actually required a speaker to speak, it could also be carried out by multiple speakers, not just one. They could trade off, but only one Senator wouldn't be able to sustain a filibuster indefinitely. A senator back in the 60's, I don't recall who, spoke for many hours on the severe shortage of timber wolves in Peru.

A filibuster itself is not the problem, the problem is, how republicans have abused it. Republicans said at the beginning of President Obama's first term, we must not allow President Obama to accomplish anything, we must all ban together and no matter how important or how serious, all of us must vote no on everything the President wants to do, that way we can make him a one term President. So they filibustered everything.

Republicans caused this recession, caused such high unemployment, then filibustered President Obama's jobs bill that would have helped so many people.

Republicans knew the President wanted to help all Americans, but republicans decided to use the filibuster to prevent any of the President's policies from turning things around, to make things as hard as they could on the poor and middle class, and then blame the President for not helping them. Only die-hard republican voters believed them, everybody else knew who caused the gridlock and who almost shut-down the government.

The reason republicans used the filibuster should be deemed illegal.

Die-hard republican voters, whenever republicans used the filibuster against President Obama, they dangled you out there as hostages as well as the rest of us.

No one person should be able to stall a vote? But one person, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid wields the exact same power. Reid prevents votes on all Republican legislation, so Republicans filibuster theirs. Seems fair when two children can't learn to play nice. Since Obama took office compromise has been replaced with ramming through using any parliamentary rules possible. Washington wasn't meant to run that way, and voters clearly said it will not when they left it divided. If Democrats want their way, they are either going to learn to play nice, or they can just continue to cry in the press. Democrats only want the rules changed because they are in power, don't want to compromise, and will want the rules changed again when they are in the minority. Obama has set the tone in Washington for partisanship, and the great divide. You reap what you sow.

Great reasoned post!

Rick, your comments proved my point, Republicans filibustered everything President Obama tried to do, then blamed the President, because as they said, our voters will believe us when we say President Obama caused the gridlock.

Democrats didn't start this filibuster mess to get their own way, that was just another in a very long line of republican lies, one of many lies a lot of republican voters believed.

Every issue that came up, no matter what it was, republicans tried to add another tax cut for the rich, when democrats rejected the tax cuts, they filibustered the issue.

From the beginning, President Obama tried to work with republicans, they refused to work with him, so if anybody needs to learn how to play nice it's the republicans, democrats are just playing their game by their rules and they don't like it.

Topane725 from the beginning Obama tried to work with Republicans? Where have you been for the past four years? Obama came to Washington with Democrats in Control of both Houses and rammed through a stimulus with no Republican input, and the same with ObamaCare. Filibusters only occur when one party doesn't allow legislation to be bi-partisan. Harry Reid has blocked everything offered by Republicans, turn around is fair play. When Obama took office Pelsoi announced we won we write the bills, and Obama said Republicans to the back of the bus. That is what you call trying to work together?

Rick, listen to yourself, Democrats rammed through a stimulus package without republican help. Republicans wouldn't help them, also the Presidents healthcare bill, but that's not all, everything the President and the Democrats did to get this economy going again, they did it without republican help.

Republicans planned from the beginning of President Obama's first term that they would vote no on everything the President wanted to do, no matter how important or how serious, if he could get nothing accomplished they could make him a one term President.

Republicans refused to help President Obama and the Democrats climb out of the hole dug by Bush and the republicans, just like they're doing again right now.

Everything Democrats brought up for a vote, no matter what it was, republicans tried to add another tax cut for the rich, Democrats said no to the tax cuts so, republicans said no to the bill.

Republicans themselves said, if we block everything the President wants to do then all we have to do is blame the President for not working with us, we don't need to worry about our voters because they believe everything we say.

For 4 years President Obama and the Democrats tried to work with republicans.

How long would you keep trying to work with anybody that refused to work with you before you just give up and say I'll do it myself??

Democrats are not looking for republican support because they know all too well that none is coming, they know the only way to get republicans to do anything that will not give rich people another tax cut is to back them to the wall and force them to vote.

Just like leaving it up to the legislature to raise their own pay?

Plotinus, I agree that the Senate should decide its own rules. However, if you ask most Senators, even the ones in the minority currently, they will tell you that the filibuster needs to be fixed. There are just so many problems with the filibuster that it makes governance very difficult. One idea floated (by Republican Olivia Olympia Snowe, I believe) is to pass legislation that abolishes the filibuster in six years. No one knows who will be in charge of the Senate in six years, so it's fair to both the current minority and the current majority.

The Senate has the option of changing the rules on the first day of convening the new senate. It is up to the majority leader to introduce the new rules. It only takes a majority vote to pass and no fillibusters of the rules change is allowed.

Dennis, you are correct, and many of the new Senators coming to Washington plan to fight for filibuster rule changes, as they should, in my opinion. Whether or not I'm Democrat, Republican, or Independent, as a newly elected Senator I would want to govern. The filibuster is anti-governance if ever there were such a thing.

I fully agree that the filibuster is seriously abused and should be done away with or regulated in some fashion. I only hesitate to bring the judicial system in to straighten out a legislative problem. It would be so much better if it could be worked out inside the legislative branch.

Now, having said that, if it can be definitely shown to be a constitutional issue, then the courts would not be overstepping their bounds.

Plotinus: One of the changes proposed: The filibustering Senator is identified and reported to the public.

As long as a Senator can hide his identity, which he is allowed to do currently, the public cannot vote the jerks out. The filibuster is used as a cloak of obstruction.

Dennis C: You are right and I do believe that just that is Dirty Harry Reid's plan right now.

Methinks the republicons will not be feeling very lucky on that first day.

But shouldn't protecting the rights of the minority, especially when that minority is at least 40% of the country, a valid goal. That is the purpose of a balance of power. Neither side can swing too far to the extreme. If 40% of the population opposes it, then it is probably too extreme to pass.

That minority has been acting like a bunch of spoiled brats and needs to be spanked.

Filibuster reform is good for America. We do not care about what is best for you party of country republicons.

So who is the "we" who doesn't care?

Last figures I read indicate tht the country is pretty nearlly divided into Dems. Reps (see, no need for grade school-clever twisting of titles) and unaffiliated.

And just who are you to determine who needs to be spanked?

Moe Howard often noted that "every time you think, you weaken the nation."

The Boehner should learn how to conduct business in the House before sticking his nose in the Senate's business. He can't even get his own GOP bills passed.

Why not make it 100%. IMO

Dad Gummit, the recent UN treaty regarding the disabled that failed to garner 66 votes due to black helicopter paranoia refutes your point.

Yes, treaties require 66 votes and not 60, but the UN treaty was an extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act that garnered enormous bipartisan support 22 years ago. Yet, because the mere mention of the United Nations scares right conspiracy theorists silly, Republican Senators who voted for the ADA in the past chose to vote against this treaty.

Again, 66 votes are needed to ratify a treaty, not 60, but for you to say that a bill is "crap" simply because 60 Senators or more don't vote on it, than I would argue that by simply saying that you haven't watched enough Senate politics.

Yeah we right wingers absolutely refuse to let Oblunder and Harry the Barrier subjugate our soveriegnty or Constitutional rights with insidious treaty language to anyone... especially a two bit organization like the UN. We have ADA legislation in this country... and we don't need third world @!$%#holes telling us how to treat disabled Americans. Same goes for their ploy to limit our 2nd Amendment rights with treaty language... ain't going to happen.

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers were about ten orders of magnitude smarter than you... so that "what you like" is irrelevant to legislative rules.

I would agree that there needs to be a consequence for a filibuster. Actually, I would argue that after a low number of filibusters, that should automatically remove that senator from his seat. This way, if he really feels strongly about a bill, he has the ability to filibuster but it has to be a bill he actually feels strongly about and not any appointment or bill that comes across his desk he doesn't like. This way the rights of the minority are still protected but the minority can't go about stopping everything until they get what they want.

Well, if we're wishing for new rules... let's make one that if the Senate Majority Leader shelves one bill, then he gets replaced by a member of the opposite party. That'll stop Harry the Barrier's "hide the legislation" behavior.

Our constitution is far from obsolete. The real problem is that it is not being followed to the letter.

If it's not, tell me why there are still electors.

Following the constitution to the letter is a bad idea. There's a reason the founding fathers allowed changes. If you followed it to the letter, blacks and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Also, the constitution doesn't cover various aspects of governance other then to say a particular branch of government has that power. This has led to situations where that branch of government has set up rules that would appear to be in opposition to what the founding fathers intended. But, how can that be if those same founders gave that power to that body and didn't specify how that exact situation was to be handled?

doggysaywhat, the Constitution explicitly grants the right to vote to blacks and to women. You really should read it sometime.

As for Lucas2, there are still electors because the system still works. What needs to be changed is that the electors need to be divorced from ties to "candidates" and allowed to pick the best man or woman for the job.

The constitution is not obsolete. Our forefathers recognized the need for change at times. This is why amendments are allowed to the constitution. The best part of these amendments, is they have to be voted in by the people of the United States, and not just a vote in congress.

Electors was a system set up to communicate. It is a very poor system and subject to abuse. In the days when the Constitution was crafted and ratified, lines of communication were rough roads and muddy trails. If you wanted to send a message to the tiny town of Los Angeles It was faster to send it on a sailing ship. I'll leave it to you to estimate how long it would take.

One Man, one vote is pure political propaganda. That was true when the Constitution was enacted and it's still true today.

As a side note, does anyone remember when Michelle Bachmann was telling her constituents not to fill out the Census because of ACORN conspiracies? It's funny how her conservative friends quietly told her to shut the hell up because they knew that the census data would most likely help them in redistricting.

Not saying there is anything wrong with the redistricting, but I just found it funny.

Seriously ? you say Gerrymandering is only a GOP thing ?

I live in Shelia Jackson Lee's district, take a look at the map of that district, and tell me it is not a result of Gerrymandering. Unless of course you believe that black reps, are entitled to a certain number of "safe" seats, and therfore Gerrymandering should be allowed in those cases. That is Shelia's take on it.

I would perfer a law passed that limited the ratio of the boundary of the distict to the area of the district, this would greatly limit the amount of Gerrymandering that could be done, without specifying the result.

If congress never passed another law that would be ok with me. IMO there should be a branch of government dedicated to repealing laws. If only I were king.

Excellent post, Harry. IN Ohio and Pennsylvania, as examples, the repugnicans control their state legislatures and are trying to change the rules so that each individual district casts one electoral vote rather than winner take all. In Pennsylvania, this would mean that even though Obama won the popular vote, Romney would have won most of the electoral votes because of the gerrymandering by repugs. Romney carried lightly popuated heavily repugnican districts. The repugnicans really don't believe in majority rules. Obama would have also lost Ohio even though he won the popuar vote. The GOP has absolutely no shame in doing whatever it takes to acheive control, to hell with the will of the people. The party is absolutely disgusting. And I'm not a Democrat. But I absolutely loath the GOP. I am ashamed that I once was one.

Bill Kamps,

you're right. They both do it and it should be stopped. Good luck on that,though...

Well, there is one thing about progressives, we are willing to try new ideas.

Have you looked into California's new districts drawn up by a bunch of non politicians? This is especially pertinent to the situation in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

California Elections Influenced By Redistricting, SuperPacs

"there should be a branch of government dedicated to repealing laws"

That's one of the best ideas I've heard yet! Every law has a price tag, so getting rid of all the laws that make no sense would sure go a long way to cutting expenses.

I'd propose that every law have a one year duration, with a positive cost/benefit analysis required before it could be renewed.

No, for every law passed by congress, exisitng laws of the same bulk should be repealed. Want a 5000 page congressional act? Great - find 5000 pages to delete somewhere else.

Also should be true for departmental/agency directives. Need 25 new EPA regs? What 25 are you gonna give up?

And the cost benefit analysis is a great idea - but should be done in advance of passage. And, we should hold the bastids accountable for their math.

The continual use isn't about being obstructionists right now. It is about trying to force the majority to work with the minority. They need to com up with some sensible compromise solution on each bill. That is their job. Right now, neither side is doing a good job with that.

The filibuster doesn't force compromise when its used to prevent debate in the first place. The point in having elections by majority rule is to elect a govern that will do the will of the majority, not to compromise with those that lost the election.

President Obama offered a compromise years ago don't you remember? He offered Boehner a 3 cuts to 1 tax increase ratio and was refused.

Obama spent most of his first term trying to compromise with crazy jerks who abused the rules to say 'No' to everything. They did this solely to try to make him fail at election. They hurt regular Americans to try to gain power. That should not be rewarded with compromise.

The majority voted him in this time not to compromise but to get it done. Good bye tax cuts for the 2%, we're going off the cliff since Republicans can't help themselves abusing the filibuster and refusing to work.

Then you guys can point your fingers all you want. We already know who the polls say the people will blame. And it's not Democrats.

And Boehner countered with 3 to 1 cuts vs. revenue increase by closing loopholes. Harry Reid agreed and Obama shot it down which started the process for the fiscal cliff.

Put American First, I don't believe Boehner (or Romney before him) specified which loopholes would be closed or which deductions eliminated, did he? Without knowing that, it's impossible to estimate how much revenue would be increased, if any at all.

And some deductions now benefit the middle class more than the very wealthy. Mortgage payments, for instance, which is a middle-class benefit. The wealthy buy homes with cash and avoid mortgages.

I don't see how negotiations can proceed until we know exactly what loopholes will be cut and which deductions eliminated. Not that I blame Boehner. He seems like a sensible guy who is stuck with trying to run a House full of unruly children.

Culheath -

"The point in having elections by majority rule is to elect a govern that will do the will of the majority,"

So, I don't remember you arguing against Obama care when 60% of the population was against it . . .

Actually I did...I was for single payer health care.

Honestly, Laser, the filibuster is an issue for everyone -- minority or majority. Minority members who actually went to Washington to govern cannot do so because they're held hostage by their own party wanting to envoke the filibuster at every turn.

Eliminating the filibuster allows Senators some much needed breathing room. This has nothing to do with party, and BOTH parties have called for filibuster reform.

So happy angry white men are a diminishing minority.

Are you you seriously comparing the minority party in congress with minority citizens?

You do realize that the minority party in congress receives the same pay and benefits as the majority party, right? They are not being discriminated against in any way. They are in the minority party by the votes of the people, not because of how they were born. The filibuster gives the minority party ample voice in the senate. Unfortunately they have abused the filibuster, effectively giving the minority party more power than the majority. The result is, the will of the majority of Americans (regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc) is being effectively ignored.

PutAmericaFirst, the filibuster issue is more than just votes. Often, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents debate from even taking place on the floor. As a result, bills lay dormant in the Senate regardless of overall support.

Also, remember that, just because a bill gets 51 votes, it doesn't mean the President won't veto the bill. There's a reason why John Boehner was quoted saying, "Obamacare is the law of the land". There is no possible way that, so long as Obama is President, Republicans could repeal the bill. In fact, even if Romney had won, if Democrats held control of the Senate, Obamacare would be unrepealable (unless some Senate Democrats voted to repeal with Republicans).

First, the filibuster doesn't shut down debate. It prevents the cloture vote which shuts down the debate. It prevents voting on the issue.

PutAmericaFirst, if you read what I said entirely, you would see that I said, "the threat" of a filibuster... as in, just KNOWING that the filibuster could occur limits debate. That is the number one reason why the filibuster needs to either be abolished or reformed. You don't even have to filibuster to wield the power of it. All you have to do is use phrases like "Dead on Arrival" to get your point across to the majority that bringing it to the floor will be a dead end.

Don't kid yourself. If that happened, the liberals would blame republicans because they didn't do enough.

I actually agree with you. I wish the GOP would demand that ALL of the bush tax cuts expire and watch the lefties complain about paying more taxes. Suddenly they will realize those Bush tax cuts were not "for the wealthy 1%"

All the Bush tax cuts will expire righties, and it's because your party can't bring itself to compromise. So we're going over the cliff. I will gladly pay more in taxes to see the leeches at the top cry about a 4% increase on their millions. I'm so tired of hearing wealthy people in my circle of friends and family complain about their taxes going up. Oh boo fricken hoo for you. How will you ever survive? Why don't we make them pay the 18% payroll tax on their market gambling, that all of us pay on our paycheck before state and federal tax?

On January 2nd through Senate procedure the filibuster will be neutered, and there's nothing your party can do about it. Then if we want to pass a jobs bill we will, and tough sh** for the naysayers who offer no solutions, only gridlock.

Maybe you guys shouldn't have blocked everything, trying to hurt the economy, just to get the black man out of office.

Those of us in the middle (the majority) might say the same for the neo-fascists on the right, but who in their right mind would want to give either extreme group the opportunity to seize control?????

There is an underlying fear that Obama's policies would work. The GOP demise loop would be complete. The public would realize that the Republicans broke the USA, and the Democrats fixed it! Totally unacceptable!

you mean because Obama's Marxist policies worked so well in the entire Soviet block and all of Europe.... funny! China's booming because they embraced capitalism.... (well, and manipulated their currency)....

So you would rather screw your self now in order to avoid being screwed later? That is asinine. I'm for one am tired of none of the country's business getting done.

When pigs fly unless they keelhaul the teapots.

What happens when the Republicans get a majority in both houses and the filibuster is gone?

Most are not calling for abolishing the filibuster, but rather tempering it to a sensible and useful position.

As it is, it's merely serving to allow the minority to paralyze the Senate.

Culheath, I must be one of those few that are calling for complete and total abolishment of the filibuster. There is NO REASON FOR IT. It wasn't an idea that the founding fathers envisioned, which is why they put in place vote rules regarding simple majority, veto-proof majority, and supermajority. I think I've posted this 4 times on this thread alone, but this idea that the filibuster is some sort of "minority protection" is just absurd. If the majority wishes to govern in a careless and stupid manner, especially given our ever changing demographic and social environment, then let them answer to the people come next election. However, it was the people who put them in power, and it is the people who should decide whether or not their governance style is acceptable... not the minority and some Senate rule.

In short, the PEOPLE protect the minority, just as they elect the majority. The filibuster IS NOT NEEDED. Call me a purist, but I just don't see any rational need for the rule.

Dr. Chuck: That was the reasoning behind the Democrats not abusing the filibuster when they were the minority. The republicons have proven by their actions that they have no morals or conscience and need to be controlled.

Filibuster reform is necessary, and will be done.

JRSuperstar

In short, the PEOPLE protect the minority, just as they elect the majority. The filibuster IS NOT NEEDED. Call me a purist, but I just don't see any rational need for the rule.

Couldn't agree more.

The GOP won't have a majority for a long, long time. Statewide offices aren't gerrymandered, it is hard to sell crazy to everyone in the state.

The GOP was constantly calling for "up or down vote" "up or down vote" when the Democratic party was in power in the Senate.

Thanks for making it easy to inform the needed congress people about the filibuster changes rtkMD. Laziness can not be used for not sending letters to congress to support needed changes. Send a letter to congress whether your senator is listed or not. The more they receive, the better.

Why didnt you show them last month ? why are you waiting ?

The reason is that voters like to hear that they can get $10 of government for $6.50, which is the nonsense all of these guys have been selling for a couple of decades at least.

Filibuster can be constitutional when filibuster protects the minority from being overwhelmed by a tyrannical majority. But Democrats at least don't fit the definition of a tyrannical majority, often it's a tyrannical GOP majority - such as Boner's House - or a tyrannical GOP minority such as GOP minority in the Senate under Mitch McChicken.

The death of the filibuster will be the rebirth of democracy in The United States of America.

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I have personally asked Bernie Sanders to stand up and make that case -- four separate Fridays on the Thom Hartmann Program's "Breakfast With Bernie" segment. Each and every time, he danced around the question. It's been a major frustration of mine. Naturally, I support Common Cause in their effort, and they have indeed petitioned the government for redress in my name and yours.

If this passes, and the filibuster is declared unconstitutional, this will be one of the biggest decisions in history, and it will change the path of America and, quite possibly, the world.

If it doesn't pass, America is going to fall off a much different cliff, and it's going to bounce on the rocks on the way down. Thump, thump, thump, squish, crunch.... crickets.