Harry Reid and Senate Democrats Change Senate Rules, Prevent Repeat Filibusters - Polidicks

No more endless filibusters. [release]In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules. Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill. Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming. The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation. The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats are against because it would limit tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment. McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on annual income above $1 million.) Reid’s move strips the minority of the power to force politically-charged procedural votes after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster and move to a final vote, which the Senate did on the China measure Tuesday morning, 62-38. Reid said motions to suspend the rules after the Senate votes to end debate — motions that do not need unanimous consent — are tantamount to a renewed filibuster after a cloture vote. “The Republican senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments,” Reid argued before springing his move. Reid said Republicans could force an “endless vote-a-rama” after the Senate has voted to move to final passage. He said this contradicts the rule the Senate adopted 32 years ago. “This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments,” Reid said. Reid appealed a ruling from the presiding officer that McConnell did not need unanimous consent to force a vote on his motion.[/release] [I]Source: [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters[/url][/I]

Umm... This is a good thing, I take it?

Yes, it means no more indefinite delays on votes for bills by the GOP or by Democrats.

Hell.fucking.yes.

This will only hurt them in the future when they attempt to change it back.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32670110]This will only hurt them in the future when they attempt to change it back.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be allowed for anyone in Congress.

This sounds good; maybe now the Senate will be able to do it's job now?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32670121]It shouldn't be allowed for anyone in Congress.[/QUOTE] I know, but they always seem to change the law to suit their needs.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32670411]I know, but they always seem to change the law to suit their needs.[/QUOTE] Well until they try to change it back, I'm not going to assume that they will. If such time comes, I will call them out on their hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32670708]Well until they try to change it back, I'm not going to assume that they will. If such time comes, I will call them out on their hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't be the first time they changed the law to benefit them.

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32670792]It wouldn't be the first time they changed the law to benefit them.[/QUOTE] I'd like a source on that, but Republicans have their hands just as dirty, if not more so: [url]http://www.dane101.com/current/2011/10/03/report_gop_voter_id_laws_disenfranchise_5_million_wisconsin_in_the_spotlight[/url] [url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/the-gop-redistricting-advantage-20110621[/url]

Good. This rule only served to create more political gridlock. Between two houses and a veto, I don't think a filibuster is necessary.

Democrats are finally starting to balls-up I see

I can't see this being a bad thing, really. Strom Thurmond, anyone?

Is it just me or have the democrats finally stepped up ?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32670033]Yes, it means no more indefinite delays on votes for bills by the GOP or by Democrats.[/QUOTE] That reminds me of the debt ceiling drag on. God they lost any sympathy or respect I had for them from that.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32671067]I'd like a source on that, but Republicans have their hands just as dirty, if not more so: [url]http://www.dane101.com/current/2011/10/03/report_gop_voter_id_laws_disenfranchise_5_million_wisconsin_in_the_spotlight[/url] [url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/the-gop-redistricting-advantage-20110621[/url][/QUOTE] [URL="http://standupamericaus.com.net-at-hand.com/once-more-democrats-try-to-kill-off-the-military-vote:36473"]Democrats Try To Suppress Military Vote[/URL] [URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27066.html"]Massachusetts Democrats Wary of Kennedy Law Change[/URL]

The AJA must be really important for them to use the nuclear option, considering they didn't even use it during healthcare reform, the debt ceiling crisis or the budget crisis

[QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32671928][URL="http://standupamericaus.com.net-at-hand.com/once-more-democrats-try-to-kill-off-the-military-vote:36473"]Democrats Try To Suppress Military Vote[/URL][/quote] Seriously? The bias wasn't obvious enough with the lack of citations and the giant eagle on the front? There is not one citation of any other source in that entire article, and it refers to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party", a namesake often used by Ultra-Conservatives. Bad call, man. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32671928][URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27066.html"]Massachusetts Democrats Wary of Kennedy Law Change[/URL][/QUOTE] While not a biased article, you have to actually look at what it is the Democrats are challenging. You have a district of a largely Democratic state that elected a very Progressive Senator, and it's without doubt that Mitt Romney would've appointed a GOP Senator to replace him. Party politics aside, how is that in any way democratic and how would that senator in any way represent the district he'd be appointed to?

I'd rather prevent Riders personally. [editline]7th October 2011[/editline] They should get on that, like, now.

Well, that's one problem down, countless more to go.