Skip to main content

Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats -- exasperated with GOP obstruction -- are on the verge of finally killing the odious filibuster. Yesterday, I pointed out why there was no practical downside to this move.

But, as is typical for the timid Democrats, they are only doing it in a half-assed way.

According to the Washington Post, the Senate Democrats are threatening to get rid of the filibuster for all Presidential executive appointments, and for federal judicial appointments below the Supreme Court.

This, of course, prompted the obvious retort from Senate Republicans, as expressed by Chuck Grassley, that if the Democrats do this, the Republicans will also get rid of the filibuster -- if given the chance -- on Supreme Court nominees as well.

And, frankly, he has a point. The Democrats are foolish to think that the Republicans will restrain themselves from abolishing the filibuster on not only Supreme Court nominees, but legislation as well. So, what good does it do to voluntarily restrict your own power -- Senate Democrats -- for absolutely no payoff or benefit?

What if a vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court before the next election? Are you going to allow the GOP to filibuster the President's nominee for that seat until after the midterms in the hope they can take back the Senate? What if, say, Clarence Thomas of Antonin Scalia leaves the Court? Would the Democrats, for the sake of some pie in the sky naive wish for Senatorial comity (as opposed to COMEDY) allow the GOP to filibuster a replacement who could swing the ideological majority of the Court back to the left for decades?

Retaining the filibuster for Legislation, at least, has no practical impact for now. Because the GOP controls the House and can veto any legislation from the Senate anyway. BUT, it also removes a powerful tool from the Senate that they can use to highlight the ideological and policy differences between the parties before the next election. Imagine if the Senate passes a minimum wage increase, an Obamacare fix, and a whole host of other progressive legislation. Then, the House continues to kill it.

They will get pummeled, like they are now getting pummeled on Immigration Reform.

So, there is some utility in killing the Legislative filibuster as well. Although, I think the Constitutional justification for doing so is weaker than for Executive appointments.

In any case, if you are going to kill the filibuster, go all the way. Don't be half-assed about it.

There may be, of course, another reason why the Senate Democrats won't get rid of the legislative filibuster. Right now, the filibuster gives the Senate Democrats cover -- and an excuse -- for not passing progressive legislation. If you get rid of the filibuster -- there go all their excuses.

If there's no filibuster, what's to stop the Democrats from passing a large minimum wage increase? Or passing a new Voting Rights Act? Or passing a new national Abortion Rights Protection Act? Or passing a law to strengthen the right to collective bargaining? You see where this is going, right?

They would no longer be able to hide behind the GOP for not doing what we elected them to do. And, all those corporatist Democrats in the Senate would be exposed for the frauds that they truly are. And, we can't have that, can we?

I think we should apply pressure on them to go all the way. Force them to do the people's business....for once.

7:00 AM PT: UPDATE: This quote shows that Harry Reid - and the Democrats - know the GOP promises can't be trusted on the filibuster:

Senate Democratic leadership aides tell TIME that the move is preemptive; when the Republicans eventually take over the Senate, the aides assert that the Republicans will push the button.
Yep.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  something about camels & noses - (2+ / 0-)

    the nose is in  the tent now.

    The rest of the camel will follow soon enough.

    When the world doesn't end with a simple majority vote on a few appointments, the need for the rest of the reform will be obvious.

  •  It's the way of the politician. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hesiod, wilderness voice, grover, Simplify

    If there's a simple, straightforward thing that needs done, count on politicians to look for a different, 'half-assed' as you put it, way to try and achieve the same goal.

    If there's a major change that is needed, look to them to instead go halfway, going for the low-hanging fruit, thus making it infinitely harder to get the rest of what needs done done, because they didn't want to spend the effort to get the whole thing done.

    Then we end up waiting decades for anyone to even look at the rest of what needs done.

  •  The fact of the matter is, there (10+ / 0-)

    simply aren't the votes in the caucus at present to totally eliminate the filibuster -- even on judicial nominations.  Those who are reluctantly moving to support "nuclear" action still feel the need to cling to the figleaf of mere incremental change.

    I've recc'd your diary primarly because you do NOT, like others, seem to think that this is all Harry Reid's fault.  It is the fault of a (thankfully decreasing) portion of his caucus.  Reid can only do what his caucus will support him on.  Up until now, they have not been willing to support him on fully going nuclear.  Even now, that support is with caveats.  

    To paraphrase someone rarely quoted approvingly on this blog:  You go to the nuclear option with the Senate caucus you have, not with that which you wish you had.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:25:36 AM PST

    •  What is wrong with these people? nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, Simplify
      •  Incumbency is a preexisting condition. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify, Roger Fox

        They get too comfortable with the rules and traditions that they have, whether they're in the majority or minority. It means they never have to work too hard -- or upset their powerful donors too much.

        While I'm not a fan of official term limits, I'm also not a fan of guaranteed term renewals. And a lot of federal politicians seem to have those-- especially, I'm afraid, those on the left.

        We often mock the fact that the RWNJs will primary a sitting GOP politician  with an even far more rightwing guy, and that's just for one or two "wrong" votes.. It keeps the GOP hopping. They run some crazies, and it's bad for democracy especially when some of those crazies win.

        But if we put a little enthusiasm and money into  primarying sitting  Dem politician who continuously votes against our values, we might have a caucus that actually represents us and upholds our values.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:41:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Some speculation: (0+ / 0-)
        • Not wanting to give up their power to block*
        • Maintaining/increasing their power within an institution, regardless of the effect on the institution or everyone else
        • Fearing the accountability of everyone knowing they actually do have the power to address the country's problems
        • Psychological conflict-aversion

        More in a prior comment...

        * Though they don't use it much, while Republicans do

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:39:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How Does the Constitution Justify (5+ / 0-)

    The "rule of 60" in any situation?

    Although, I think the Constitutional justification for doing so is weaker than for Executive appointments.
    •  It's a complicated legal argument. (0+ / 0-)

      But, it boils down to the fact that the Congress has the Legislative power under the constitution, so the power to create rules for the passage of legislation are at their constitutional height.

      The power of the Senate to block Executive appointments to the executive branch -- due to the separation of powers -- are at their weakest.

      And, to the Judicial Branch in between.

      So, in the case o executive appointments to the Courts or to the Executive Branch, you must strictly scrutinize any Senate Rules that impede the President's right to appoint.

      •  It's not complicated at all. (7+ / 0-)

        Article I, Section 5 provides that each House can make its own rules.  

        The filibuster is one of the rules made by and for the Senate.  

        It's constitutional under Article I, Section 5.  

        Constitutional does not always mean "good idea."  While this rule (like all Senate rules) is constitutional, whether it's a good idea is a different question.

        •  It's not that cut and dried. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wednesday Bizzare

          The Senate cannot make rules that violate other provisions of the Constitution. It can't, for example, create a rule to allow the ratification of treaties that only requires 60 votes as opposed to a 2/3 majority.

          Nor can it - arguably -- create a defacto supermajority confirmation of executive appointments under the "advice and consent clause" that directly violates the separation of powers by both hindering the President's appointment power and also the power of the Judicial Branch by blocking Judges.

          But...rules on the passage of Legislation are probably constitutional, because that is under the plenary authority of the Legislative Branch.

          •  What "provision" of the constitution is violated? (6+ / 0-)

            You can't rely on an unstated principle.  There has to be an EXPRESS provision that is violated to make that argument.  

            If the Constitution said "other than as expressly provided for in this document, all Senate votes shall be by simple majority" you'd have an argument.  But it doesn't.  There's nothing in the Constitution that mandates that cloture votes be by simple majority, because even the concept of cloture is created by Senate rules.  If the Senate can create cloture votes, it can create the procedure for cloture votes.  

            •  Separation of powers.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wednesday Bizzare, Simplify

              ...and the power of the President to Appoint.

              You also have the problem that the Constitution creates superamjority votes explicitly for certain things. The strong and necessary implication is that for things that do not require supermajority votes, a majority vote is all that is required.

              This applies to the "advice and consent" function of the Senate on Presidential appointments.

              You also have the problem that the Senate, by creating a supermajority requirement for Presidential appointments, could cripple the Presidency by refusing to approve any of his nominees even for the executive Branch. This violate the separation of powers in a major way.

              You don't need an EXPILICIT contradiction.

            •  Think of it this way: (0+ / 0-)

              Do you think the Senate could create a direct rule that said all Presidential Appointments must receive at least 60 votes in order for the Senate to give its consent and confirmation?

              If the answer is "no," then they can't do it indirectly either.

              And, the reason the answer is "no" is because the Constitution doesn't say that a superamjority vote is required for the Senate to give its advice and consent to Presidential appointments. In fact, it's pretty clear that is NOT the case, because the Framers knew how to create Supermajority requirements, and did so in specific circumstances. None of which were applied to the "advice and consent" power.

            •  OK. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Simplify

              The Senate passes a rule that says the votes of States created after 1865 shall not be counted toward the final vote tally on any piece of legislation or appointment.

              Constitutional?

              There's nothing in the Constitutution that says the Senate cannot pass a rule that does that. The only requirement is that the representation of each state in the Senate cannot be diminished. But, so what? They're there! They can debate! Their votes just don't count.

              Now, obviously, that's unconstitutional. It violates the spirit and intent of the Constitutional creation of the Senate. But, hey...it's not explicitly VIOLATING any provision of the constitution! Right?

              •  Answers. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wilderness voice, VClib, nextstep

                The Constitution does not have to say "the Senate cannot pass a rule saying x."  The presumption is that the Senate can pass any rule affecting its own procedures as long as that rule does not conflict with another provision of the constitution.  That's the principle.  

                Your rule saying votes of certain Senators do not count would not be a procedural rule.  And it would be in conflict with the provision saying representation cannot be diminished.  Representation in the Constitution is used to mean voting membership.  So there would be a direct conflict with another provision of the constitution, not just with the "spirit" and "intent."  

                The filibuster rule is a procedural rule, not a substantive rule.  

                •  It's not a mere procedural rule, though. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's a defacto supermajority requirement.

                •  Incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

                  The District of Columbia has a representative, but no voting rights in the House. The same is true for Puerto Rico.

                  Representation clearly does not mean "voting rights" in the Legislative body.

                •  Also... (0+ / 0-)

                  The Senate could create a "Procedural" rule that does not allow a vote on a Presidential nominee unless the nominee was approved by a unanimous vote by the committee examining the nominee.

                  Is that constitutional? Nope. Not even close. But, there's no explicit provision that it violates.

                •  There's a reason for that. (0+ / 0-)

                  The founders didn't explicitly state that a mere majority vote was required for "advice and consent" to be given to Executive appointments, because they believed it to be obvious to any sane person that is what they meant.

                  They never dreamed the Senate would create a rule making a defacto supermajority necessary. In fact, during the Constitutional debates, the founders explictly condemned Supermajority requirements, except in limited circumstances. That's why they created EXPLICIT EXCEPTIONS to the general rule that all things done by the Senate or House must be by a majority vote.

                  There is no way the founders would agree that the 60 vote cloture requirement being abused to block nominations is constitutional.

              •  And look at Senate Rule 22 (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, Roger Fox

                What provision of the constitution does it violate?  

                The argument that, well, it EFFECTIVELY means you need 60 votes to pass anything, and by  saying that you need a supermajority on specific votes, the Constitution IMPLIES that the Senate cannot require more than a simple majority on any other vote it ever takes -- even a procedural vote -- well, I can't image that ever carrying the day.  

                Clearly, on a procedural issue -- like Senate Rule 22 -- the Senate has unilateral power, expressly granted to it by the Constitution.  I can't imagine a Court ever declaring Rule 22 unconstitutional.  

                Take a look at the history of Rule 22.

                •  A Court may or may not declare it unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

                  The issue is, would a Court overrule a SENATE declaration that it is Unconstitutional?

                  We'll probably find out. And, I doubt it would.

                •  Right, rule 22 used to be 2/3rds (0+ / 0-)

                  prior to the rule 22 change in 1975, it took 66 votes, after rule 22 was changed in 1975 its 60. That could be seen as the basis for a change of rule 22 today, lets say.... to 54 votes required for cloture.

                  I agree, the SC wont touch this issue with a 10 ft pole.

                  .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:34:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Those instances are spelled out specifically (0+ / 0-)

            Clearly.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:23:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This argument isn't about the power of the Senate. (0+ / 0-)

        It's about the power of the minority party in the Senate.

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:52:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Right, But That's the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

        "Permitting" the "rule of 60."  Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean it's justified.

    •  Article I, Section 5 (6+ / 0-)
      Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
      The Senate Rules, including the one requiring 60 votes for cloture, are pretty clearly constitutional.  That's a different question from whether any particular rule is a good thing.
  •  Be careful what you wish for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan
    So, there is some utility in killing the Legislative filibuster as well. Although, I think the Constitutional justification for doing so is weaker than for Executive appointments.
    There is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters.  Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

    We still need the filibuster, because right now you could probably get a bipartisan majority to cut Social Security with the chained CPI, with only the threat of a filibuster to prevent it from becoming law.

    •  I doubt that's true. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, happy camper, costello7

      It's an easy thing to come out in favor of chained CPI when you know it has no shot in hell of ever becoming law.

      And, most Republicans may not care about passing that. But, you can damn well bet every single Democrat in the Senate who votes for chained CPI are inviting a major primary challenge for slashing social security benefits.

    •  I think this is right. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NearlyNormal, Deep Texan, VClib
      because right now you could probably get a bipartisan majority to cut Social Security with the chained CPI, with only the threat of a filibuster to prevent it from becoming law.
      We'll see what happens with the budget negotiations.

      More importantly, I'm almost SURE you could get 51 votes right now in the Senate for something like Senator Landrieu's bill on the ACA.  I suspect all the red state Democrats (who are apparently very worried about what the ACA will do to their re-election prospects) would vote for it.

  •  there's this thing called the House (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Empty Vessel, Deep Texan

    so getting rid of the filibuster is not going to magically bring liberal legislation to the President's desk.

    They aren't "hiding behind the Republicans." The Republicans are a real blocking force, not imaginary.

  •  Just a rumination: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, Wednesday Bizzare

    How about this formula? If the Senate majority is held by one party and the house by another (G.R.R. Martin's: 'the others'), the filibuster is not an option. Let the other house stand as the 'filibuster' until there's agreements or deals.  
    If BOTH houses' majorities are held by the same party, then the filibuster may be used by the minority party in the Senate(that being their only option to delay/debate something they don't want). I'm thinking it may create a spotlight on the issue being held up.  
    I know...lame. It's early.

    It's about time I got off my lazy butt and do something...

    by NoStampTax on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:53:28 AM PST

  •  Follow Texas's example (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity, Hesiod, costello7

    Make the filibuster a talking filibuster with the same set of rules Wendy Davis had to follow when she did her filibuster.   The old white Republicans in the US Senate wouldn't be able to last very long with those rules in place, and it would eliminate the cutesy McConnell 'gentleman's' filibuster.  Besides, McConnell is no 'gentleman' any way.

  •  I'd keep if for legislation, for now (0+ / 0-)

    Although I'd prefer to get rid of it altogether, there's some comfort in knowing that if the Republicans manage to win the senate take the white house in 2016, attempted to privatize social security and medicare, and to roll block other progressive legislation would require them to get 60 votes.

    Admittedly, with the Byrd rule and reconciliation, they could get through regressive tax legislation and spending cuts.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:17:09 AM PST

    •  GOP could change it too, there goes your 60 votes (0+ / 0-)

      out the window.

      Lets remember that prior to 1975 rule 22 required 66 votes. after 1975 it was 60 votes.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:47:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the rethugs ever take power, the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hesiod

    filibuster is gone. Push the button NOW!

    "Drudge: soundslike sludge, islike sewage."
    (-7.25, -6.72)

    by gougef on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:18:08 AM PST

    •  Only if the Dems go first (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      There are too many old school conservative Senators in the GOP for them to be the first to change the filibuster rules if they gained control in 2014. They would never have the votes to change the filibuster. However, if Reid goes nuclear, even if just for nominees, then the filibuster will be gone on everything if the GOP takes control of the Senate.

      That's why Reid has been so reluctant to pull the trigger. He understands this is a one way street to the permanent loss of the filibuster in the Senate.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:38:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. And, frankly... (0+ / 0-)

        ...even if there is some doubt about it, the Democrats can't take that risk. They have to kill it now while they have the chance to pack the federal courts with Obama  nominees in the event they lose control of the Senate in 2015.

        •  I am not saying that Reid shouldn't do it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          but trying to help people understand his reluctance. The GOP would never have the votes in 2014 or 2016 to be the first to make material changes in the filibuster rules. However, if the Dems do it, even just for nominees, then all bets are off. The GOP will just eliminate it and run the Senate like the House. If the GOP wins the White House Janice Rogers Brown will be on the Supreme Court.

          There will be two more outcomes. If the GOP wins control of the Senate in 2014 they may not approve a single federal judge or administrative appointment for the balance of President Obama's term. Starting the day after the nuclear option is imposed they will also be even more obstructive on legislation than they have been already.

          I think Harry will make a deal with Mitch to expedite some of the nominees. That's whet the Dems did with Bush judicial nominees when there was similar circumstance and how Janice Rogers Brown was confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:06:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  DO you like changing cloture to - (0+ / 0-)

            pick a number 54 votes?

            Which is something I would prefer, for some of the same reasons you outline.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:52:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well I was clearly wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox

              Harry had 52 votes.

              The filibuster had been reduced from 67 to 60 a long time ago. Another drop to maybe 55?

              I think we lost a big safety net.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:38:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Rule 22 Changed in 1975 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                from 2/3rds to 60.

                .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Almost 40 years ago, at least one generation (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roger Fox

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:48:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And the whole purpose of rule 22 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    Congress couldn't even conduct basic business for the nation, so in 1917 rule 22 was adopted. The gridlock ended real quick. Gridlock again mired the Senate so in 1975 it was lowered to 60 votes.

                    Well today we have gridlock again, so if we follow the 1917 & 1975 precedent, cloture should be lowered again.

                    I fear you may be right about what the GOP may do if they get the Senate back.

                    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                    by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:00:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Entirely possible. (0+ / 0-)

      I dont understand the thought processes that some suscribe to that says if the GOP won the Senate back they would leave cloture at 60 votes.

      We simply dont know what they would do in that situation.

      I agree, push the button NOW.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:49:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No "may be" about it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox
    There may be, of course, another reason why the Senate Democrats won't get rid of the legislative filibuster. Right now, the filibuster gives the Senate Democrats cover -- and an excuse -- for not passing progressive legislation. If you get rid of the filibuster -- there go all their excuses.

    We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

    by NoMoJoe on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:30:25 AM PST

    •  What's the purpose in passing progressive (0+ / 0-)

      legislation that will not get a vote in the House? It will be a progressive version of voting to abolish Obamacare 45 times.

      •  You have to ask? (0+ / 0-)

        remove the word progressive, & insert real solutions to our problems.

        Cause at the end of the day thats what we're talking about.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:54:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Does anyone remember: (4+ / 0-)

    The climate/energy/infrastructure/jobs bill in the Senate (Kerry-Corker or Graham?) that got pushed back on the schedule by the Senate Stall on the ACA and Dodd-Frank, and then got pre-empted by the 2010 elections?

    The Dems should drop the filibuster and pass a JOBS/climate/infrastructure/clean energy/did I say JOBS bill and then make the gop House defend their seats against that.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:40:14 AM PST

    •  The Dems could also pass an Obamacare fix (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wednesday Bizzare, FG, David54

      ...that doesn't suck. Then, force the GOP to block it in the House.

      That would completely neutralize the attacks the GOP are planning for the 2014 midterms on Obamacare.

      "I voted to fix it. The Republicans blocked it!"

      •  And a public option. That would shut the ins. (0+ / 0-)

        companies' whining down and make them get down to the business of "competing in the marketplace.

        Actually, I know it would create more whining. Screaming, actually, but now the Dems could say, "See, a public option is needed because the ins. cos are not really interested in giving the public a good product. "

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:06:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I know I'm just fantasizing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:07:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm 1000% on board for that (0+ / 0-)

      Pass a realistic infrastructure spending bill in the Senate, that would create 20 million jobs, about 900 billion.

      Let John Boehner kill it, and then run on that.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:57:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans want Harry to do it (0+ / 0-)

    The Republicans have been forcing Harry Reid's hand on the filibuster because they want it gone as well.  Just like Social Security and Medicare they want it gone but don't want to be blamed for it.

    That being said, I like Harry's plan to keep it for the Supreme Court and legislation.  Make Republicans remove it for those two which is what most of the public tunes into anyway.  

    The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well - Joe Ancis

    by TexasJay on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:59:54 AM PST

    •  I think that's dumb, actually. (0+ / 0-)

      Why limit your own power? The Democrats should just get rid of the filibuster entirely, and then have an appointment and legislative orgy before the next midterm

      Do everything within their power to make life hell for the GOP until the next election, and see if you can retain the Senate and maybe take back the House.

      Why not?

    •  Nay, change cloture to 54 votes. (0+ / 0-)

      Or 53, its a lot safer and changes the landscape.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:59:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love your take from different angles (0+ / 0-)

    I like that you refer to it as a partial elimination, I think thats entirely accurate.

    TnR.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:44:43 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site