Harry Reid promises new filibuster rules to end Republican 'abuses' - Polidicks

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/harry-reid-filibuster-reform_n_2088767.html[/url] [quote=Huffington Post]Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to change the rules of the Senate so that the minority party has fewer tools to obstruct legislative business. In his first post-election press conference, the Nevada Democrat said he wouldn't go so far as to eliminate the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for the chamber to enter and exit the amendment and debate process. But in remarks meant to preview a more combative approach during the next session, he warned Republicans that obstructionism as a tactic won't be tolerated -- or as technically feasible. "I want to work together, but I also want everyone to also understand, you cannot push us around. We want to work together," Reid said. "I do" have plans to change the Senate rules, he added. "I have said so publicly and I continue to feel that way ... I think the rules have been abused, and we are going to work to change them. We will not do away with the filibuster, but we will make the senate a more meaningful place. We are going to make it so we can get things done." Reid has gone down this path before, flirting with the concept of rules reform after the 2010 midterm elections. But he backed off the idea under pressure from some of the chamber's longer-serving members, including those within his own party. Sources close to the majority leader say the intervening time period has hardened his belief that the Senate is too dysfunctional to leave its rules untouched. And in an interview over the summer with The Huffington Post, Reid outlined the specific details of what he had in store for the next Congress. [B]"The first thing is the most important thing," Reid said the interview. "Do away with motion to proceed. Just do away with it.[/B] I favor the filibuster. There's a reason for the filibuster. I understand it. It's to protect the rights of the minority. The Senate was set up to protect the rights of the minority ... so that's the no. 1 issue, and the rest of the stuff we can deal with if there's a filibuster conducted. Those are the kind of things -- [B]if we get the motion to proceed out of the way, we can debate it, one, to cloture. That's good. So that's the no. 1 biggie."[/B] Even with Democrats set to control the Senate -- indeed, even set to expand their current majority -- the avenues for Reid to pursue rules reform aren't entirely clear. There has historically been some debate over whether the majority can change the Senate rules at the beginning of each term, or whether two-thirds support is needed, per the Senate rules. The question hinges on whether the Senate is a "continuing legislative body" or whether each new term marks a new Senate. Those who want to change the rules using a majority vote argue that past Senates cannot bind the hands of future legislative bodies. Whatever the historical record, the basic fight comes down to numbers. No matter what the Senate chair rules, a majority can overrule the chair. However, that will likely be unnecessary, as Vice President Joe Biden is known to be a supporter of filibuster reform, and a believer that the constitution allows the majority to write new rules at the start of a term. Some Republicans may be willing to go along as well, hoping to have the rules in place for the next time they control the upper chamber, which could come as soon as 2015.[/quote]

If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.

Obama doesn't have to worry about the reelection, all the stops are coming out on the democratic party. Just like Teddy Roosevelt did in his second term.

Filibuster is annoying, since you can pretty much read out of a phonebook to keep it going.

How does this process work again? I'm not really well versed on internal conflict/debate within the senate itself.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] If the system is cancerous to the country and prevents any fucking good decisions getting past those stupid cunts who slow it down, and you're in the position to break it, break it.

[QUOTE=Mike42012;38358402]If the system is cancerous to the country and prevents any fucking good decisions getting past those stupid cunts who slow it down, and you're in the position to break it, break it.[/QUOTE] And as soon as the republicans gain a majority in the next couple decades, I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing.

[QUOTE=KorJax;38358382]How does this process work again? I'm not really well versed on internal conflict/debate within the senate itself.[/QUOTE] AFAIK it's like this So they are debating a bill, and they want to end the debate and move to a vote on the bill. If any Senators raise objections to this, then it goes to a 'cloture vote'. This means 60 votes are required to end the debate. The actual vote on the bill will only need a simple majority of 51 to pass, but you need 60 votes to get cloture and move to vote on the bill. So a filibuster is when one side refuses to vote for cloture, and drags the debate out for a long time, sometimes just by getting permission to speak and then saying irrelevant bullshit, just say anything to waste as much time as possible. Eventually, the bill will have to be dropped because it's wasting so much time. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957#Filibuster]The longest filibuster ever[/url] was 24 hours long, and involved a Senator speaking through the entire night about completely irrelevant bullshit, as well as reading through each state's entire electoral laws in alphabetical order. At the start of each Senate after a new election, they have an opportunity to change the Senate rules by a simple majority vote. In the past, no one has changed the filibuster, because they think in a few years they'll be in opposition, and then they can use it. But now Reid is going to change the rules in some way, but he hasn't said exactly how. He [I]has[/I] said one of the things he will do is to abolish the 'motion to proceed'. Currently, when the Majority Leader introduces a bill for debate, if any Senators raise objections then once again it goes to a 60-votes-required thing. If they don't get 60 votes, they can't even debate the bill. Reid says that shit is getting scrapped. This is my understanding of it anyway, some parts might be wrong

If I were filibustering I would read from twilight. Fastest filibuster victory ever.

[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;38358549]If I were filibustering I would read from twilight. Fastest filibuster victory ever.[/QUOTE] That or 50 Shades of Grey. No one wants to see Bauchman get all hot n' bothered.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Examining the Filibuster]...we have had a number of bills that ended up passing unanimously or near unanimously that had to go through filibusters on the motions to proceed and on the bills themselves and took days and days. I mention a nomination for a court of appeals where this poor woman was held twisting in the wind for months and months and then [B]ultimately got through on a near-unanimous vote.[/B][/QUOTE] If that sounds like it works at present, you're chugging bleach.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work, change it.[/QUOTE] Fixed that for you. I'm not quite sure how he's going to do it, but if it will stop Republicans from gumming up the works all the goddamn time, then sure, go ahead.

[QUOTE=smurfy;38358505]AFAIK it's like this So they are debating a bill, and they want to end the debate and move to a vote on the bill. If any Senators raise objections to this, then it goes to a 'cloture vote'. This means 60 votes are required to end the debate. The actual vote on the bill will only need a simple majority of 51 to pass, but you need 60 votes to get cloture and move to vote on the bill. So a filibuster is when one side refuses to vote for cloture, and drags the debate out for a long time, sometimes just by getting permission to speak and then saying irrelevant bullshit, just say anything to waste as much time as possible. Eventually, the bill will have to be dropped because it's wasting so much time. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957#Filibuster]The longest filibuster ever[/url] was 24 hours long, and involved a Senator speaking through the entire night about completely irrelevant bullshit, as well as reading through each state's entire electoral laws in alphabetical order. At the start of each Senate after a new election, they have an opportunity to change the Senate rules by a simple majority vote. In the past, no one has changed the filibuster, because they think in a few years they'll be in opposition, and then they can use it. But now Reid is going to change the rules in some way, but he hasn't said exactly how. He [I]has[/I] said one of the things he will do is to abolish the 'motion to proceed'. Currently, when the Majority Leader introduces a bill for debate, if any Senators raise objections then once again it goes to a 60-votes-required thing. If they don't get 60 votes, they can't even debate the bill. Reid says that shit is getting scrapped. This is my understanding of it anyway, some parts might be wrong[/QUOTE] Ahh good ol' Strom Thurman. He was a true 'Merican

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] The filibuster was abused by GOP politicians to cockblock everything Washington tried to do that made any actual sense. That's why Obamacare is so severely neutered, for example. With no re-election bid to look for Obama's got no reason to not literally pimpslap congress into submission, and I imagine this is the beginnings of such....well, I hope it is. He needs to knock some sense into Congress and get them to vote for the people, not for their party.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] have you been living under a rock for the past 4 years

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;38358307]Filibuster is annoying, since you can pretty much read out of a phonebook to keep it going.[/QUOTE] oh and tag-team that too.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, actually, that's a thing you should probably do.

I actually would not be surprised if the Republicans just let Obama get what he wants. It's his final term, and there's no real use arguing with him. It will just make the Republican party look even worse, and I think they know that. Boehner stated today that the Republicans would be willing to work with the president.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] Except the republicans have been stopping the system from working at all with constant filibustering. So this will just get it moving again. If the politicians would man up they would actually debate, not act like children.

filibuster sounds like a type of big-ass sandwich

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] The system doesn't favor the American People so yes, it needs to be changed.

I bet this measure is going to get filibustered.

I'm kinda surprised the dragging things out in debate rule was still around, I remember during the Habsburg monarchy era in central Europe it dragging debates on for days with utter nonsense was a weapon in parliament.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] If the system keeps ending up with stupid stalemates just for political points instead of for the people they represent, change it. For the better.

[QUOTE=Mabus;38372936]I'm kinda surprised the dragging things out in debate rule was still around, [B]I remember during the Habsburg monarchy era in central Europe[/B] it dragging debates on for days with utter nonsense was a weapon in parliament.[/QUOTE] Mabus revealed to be several hundred years old, more at 11

[QUOTE=-nesto-;38358304]If the system doesn't work in your favor, change it.[/QUOTE] Except the system isn't working at all.

[QUOTE=smurfy;38373136]Mabus revealed to be several hundred years old, more at 11[/QUOTE] Shit you caught me, still not as old as mikfoz though.

I'm not to sure all democrats would be fine with with fixit this considering if the lose the majority in a few years they might want to use this themselves, but I guess we won't know until they actually decide on it.

[QUOTE=plunger435;38373791]I'm not to sure all democrats would be fine with with fixit this considering if the lose the majority in a few years they might want to use this themselves, but I guess we won't know until they actually decide on it.[/QUOTE] this doesn't eliminate the filibuster, it just changes the rule so it can't be done during fucking role call so some actual debate can take place.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;38364960]I actually would not be surprised if the Republicans just let Obama get what he wants. It's his final term, and there's no real use arguing with him. It will just make the Republican party look even worse, and I think they know that. Boehner stated today that the Republicans would be willing to work with the president.[/QUOTE] that's extremely unlikely. the american people have been shown time and time again to either forget about or not care about the status of the republican fillibuster, as claims that president obama "got nothing done" and that the dems "got nothing done" didn't go ignored, it's actually something that's been parroted pretty heavily in our discourse and the blame doesn't lay solely on the republicans like it should. [editline]9th November 2012[/editline] basically there's no reasons for republicans to let obama get what he wants if nothing gets done that's good for them because the average american is too dumb to realize who's fault it is and is likely to look towards the president's party (even if the majority party would be the opposite) as the cause