I think that’s what you call a “d’oh!” moment.

so do we get a vote and then ALL of obama’s judges on the district and circuit courts?

prolly not.
prolly just chatter.

….For whatever reason, it took until yesterday for Reid to figure this out.

Reid’s known all along how to make the Senate more ineffective. What is a filibuster in to-days Senate but a vehicle of bipartisanship and he’s been an advocate for same since Joseph Smith was a babe.

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/05/09/bipartisanship-is-dying-and-shouldnt-be-mourned/

The concern is always “if we’re in the minority we won’t be able to stop things” rather than “when we’re in the majority we can get things done”. Funny thing, that.

It’s still amazing to me the number of people of “our” side, i.e. progressives, that claim to love democracy…. yet fear democracy. Oh nooooeeeesss, we can’t get rid of the filibuster!!! What if the R’s retake the Senate??!!! OMG?!?!

So, you DON’T believe in democracy???

I do. If a party gets a majority, they deserve the ability to govern. End the stupid, UNCONSTITUTIONAL filibuster now.

And for those that fear democracy, would you prefer less democracy???

We have a constitution that is supposed to protect rights from majority abuse so I’m not talking about putting individual rights up for majority vote (something that should NEVER happen). But why so much fear over allowing the majority actually rule? That’s democracy. If you fear it, then perhaps you’d rather have something else?

Thank you, David, for highlighting the issue of the filibuster and its attendant problems – primarily a dysfunctional Senate. Sen. Tom Udall spent more than a year and a half working on the rule change not wanting to incur the wrath of his fellow Senators. Rules for the Senate are approved only at the beginning of a new term of Congress. I have a copy of the rule change Sen. Udall introduced in the Senate Jan., 2011, and I must say it should be read today because of its elegant simplicity. And, thank you David for reminding folks that Reid and his fellow Dems helped to contribute to the defeat of that proposed rule change. We’ll have to wait till Jan., 2013, to see if the Senate will change the rules.

If it ain’t fixed don’t break it. I say the universe is made of stupidity cause there is so much of it..Frank Zappa who knew a bit about politics.

If Reid actually believed that the reformers were right, he would implement the reform. It can be done any time that any of the maneuvers he believes need reform are tried. Any member just has to question the application of the rule, question whether the application of the rule leads to sound and orderly conduct of the Senate, and then a simple majority can find that, no, the rule in question does not lead to sound and orderly conduct of the Senate.

Maybe he doesn’t have the votes to carry this through to successful reform now, because he does not have even a simple majority of his fellow Seantors in agreement with him that the reformers were right. But he can still be that one Senator who objects the next time any of these rules is used unsoundly to create disorder. And he would so object if he actually did believe the reformers were right.

A Senate bought & controlled by the wealthy Dems & Repubs is what we now consider a democracy? What about the rest of us. Who represents our minority interests when the filibuster is gone?

As has been commented before on this site, sensible senate rules would place senators on the record for their votes and that is something to be avoided, obviously. Or, we can believe that Harry Reid is just stupid, but that would be wrong.

I just want to correct you on the “rules can only be changed at the beginning of the session.”

They can end the filibuster today. Tomorrow. The next day. Or the day after.

Any time the majority party of the Senate also controls the White House, they can end the filibuster any time they want to.

The Republicans have already agreed this is true, and watch them do this very thing the next time they control both and the Democrats filibuster something they deem important.

Yep. It’s a lot cleaner to alter the filibuster at the start of the session, but as I understand it, the President of the Senate (Biden) can end a filibuster at any time by invoking the “nuclear option”. (I think this is usually called “moving the previous question” in Robert’s Rules.)

From the Nuclear Option wiki: “The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. “

I completely agree with OFG, the Wisconsin State Senators who ran off to a nearby state rather than to allow really bad laws to be passed were on our side, but as the minority, they had to undertake really strenuous efforts to prevent those bad laws. In other words, the burden was on the proper party, the minority party. If the majority had been trying to pass something reasonable, the minority wouldn’t have felt obliged to take such extreme actions.

The filibuster rule will be changed in the Senate as soon as Republicans gain control. Reid is an ass.

“It took until yesterday for Reid to figure this out.”

And that little 3 year time-delay, in which period Obama and the democrats have squandered a mountain of political clout, makes pissing and moaning about it now, practically irrelevant.

And, don’t forget, it was Reid who killed Byron Dorgan’s amendment to the HCR bill that would have allowed for re-importing cheap generic drugs to force Lilly and Pfizer to drop their outrageous prices. He did it at Obama’s direction since it was part of the sellout, but he didn’t have to; he could have told Obama to go fish, and brought it up for a vote.

It’s hard to believe we pay these people. It really is. This matter was discussed sixty ways from Sunday over the last few years. Many of us even wrote Reid to reform it and when to do it and how to do it and he just now has an AHA? Call me a cab.

We are going back in time to the days of the founding fathers. Soon, only property owners will be allowed to vote and/or run for office.

Taxi! Is that adequate?

Reid is a Moron, er Mormon, and they actually worship Mammon. He’s doing his best to fill the shoes of Tom Daschle, whose claim to fame was the “let’s get this vote to cede war powers from the Congress to President Bush over because there’s an election coming”, and pimping for Big Pharma.

I stand corrected OFG. My thinking on rules change is that it is easier to change the Senate Rules at the beginning of a new term when only a simple majority is required to make the change. Should you attempt to change the rules at anytime during the term it would require a supermajority (2/3 vote) which is almost impossible to attain in the modern Senate.

BTW, Udall’s proposed change would not have removed the filibuster (unlimited debate) from the Constitution nor the cloture rule which is in the Constitution. Rather his change would have involved the way filibuster, or its threat, is currently used. Today an individual Senator can invoke filibuster without remaining in the Senate for the duration of the filibuster and be at a cocktail party in Georgetown tonight. And this is the kind of democracy we want to export to Afghanistan and the rest of the world?

The “democracy” we’re trying to export via military/humanitarian intervention is more accurately described as stability for corporate extraction of natural resources.

I agree with your comment! In addition, we want military bases in perpetuity and immunity for our troops for any crimes they commit while stationed there. Can you believe the PTB are describing wars as humanitarian? Man, we’re living in strange times.

“It was a cold day in late April and the clocks were striking thirteen.” George Orwell, in 1984

As usual, OFG is right on the money. However this time you missed one thing:

It is imperative to remove the fillibuster before the R’s retake the Senbate so that Dems can’t prevent the R’s from passing all the laws their mutual (D&R) campaign contributors want.

But it doesn’t require a 2/3 majority to end the filibuster today, tomorrow, next week, next month. As long as the same political party controls the Senate and the White House, they can end the filibuster with a simple majority vote. That was my point.

The Democrats could end it today if they really wanted to, which is why Reid’s “crying” is all bullshit and no tears.

And like I said, the Republicans are already on record as agreeing this is indeed the case. The Democrats, with a simple majority vote, could end the filibuster this afternoon if they really wanted to.

That they won’t, and that they haven’t, is by choice, a choice for which it is entirely fair to hold them accountable.

All the trappings of empire.

Ya think ol’ Harry has any regrets about the gentlemen’s agreement he made with Mitch McConnell about preserving the filibuster rule in 2011 and foregoing any rule reform? And Congressional critters wonder why their popularity is slightly below that of anthrax (not the band). As you said, they’ve made a choice and we should hold them accountable.

This is a copy (verbatim) of several paragraphs from a January 2011 Bloomberg News article. I think it says it all:

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell: Public Enemies, Private Friends

Posted: 01/23/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/23/2011 01:44:59 AM MST
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Laura Litvan
Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON — They are public enemies and private friends, men who refuse to campaign against one another and are masters of the back-room deal.

It’s a partnership between two senators in their fifth terms who share common bonds amid ideological differences — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 71, a Nevada Democrat, and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell, 68, of Kentucky.

An initial challenge plays out this month as Reid and McConnell negotiate the ground rules for Senate debates. A dispute over the use of the filibuster — a procedural tactic that can block action on legislation and nominations — doesn’t register much with the public, but is a hot topic within the chamber itself.

McConnell, in an interview, said: “It’s important for us to have a good relationship, and we do. I consider Harry a friend, and I think we trust each other, and I think that’s important for the institution.”

Looming issues that could tie up the Senate include the administration’s request to boost the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit and proposals to overhaul the tax code. McConnell doesn’t rule out a push to revamp entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as long as Obama embraces such an effort.

More immediately, a group of Democratic senators led by Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado is pushing for changes to the rules for the filibuster, arguing that its routine use has rendered the chamber dysfunctional.

Republicans oppose weakening the tactic, the minority’s most powerful tool. While Reid has expressed support for altering some Senate procedures, he has said he wouldn’t back changing the core of the filibuster — the requirement that 60 votes are needed to overcome it.

That leaves Reid and McConnell with the task of figuring out adjustments they both can live with and that satisfy majorities of their caucuses.

Thank you (whoever you are) for “fixing” the format of this article for me.

Blue