Political Hotsheet
March 11, 2010 12:07 PM

Liberals Clamor for Filibuster Rule Change

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Leaders in the Senate indicated yesterday they will begin discussions within weeks about how to change filibuster rules -- which have allowed Republicans in the Senate to block legislation that does not receive 60 votes.

Liberal activists and bloggers hailed the news, after clamoring for Democrats to take action against GOP tactics, which has kept Democrats from advancing key items on their agenda like health care reform.

In a discussion with liberal media outlets Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the Senate would look at new filibuster rules at the start of the next Congress, the Huffington Post reports.

"The filibuster has been abused. I believe that the Senate should be different than the House and will continue to be different than the House," Reid said. "But we're going to take a look at the filibuster. Next Congress, we're going to take a look at it. We are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that just like the spitball was abused in baseball and the four-corner offense was abused in basketball."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs, would start holding hearings on "how to undo the filibuster rule" in two or three weeks from now, according to the Huffington Post.

Left-leaning commentators say the need for filibuster reform is too obvious for Democratic leaders to ignore.

"When even bills with unanimous support are tied up for weeks on end simply to make a political statement, then the chamber has lost its ability to govern," Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent writes, referring to the drawn-out debate over unemployment legislation, which Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) singlehandedly blocked.

David Dayen of the progressive blog FireDogLake writes that Reid was compelled to address the issue, since both Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) have spoken out in favor of filibuster reform -- and either Durbin or Schumer would be expected to take up the role of Senate Majority Leader if Reid loses his re-election bid this fall.

Durbin and Schumer "are each reaching out to junior members who are clamoring for rules reform," Dayen writes. "Whoever comes up with the best option wins the support of the rank and file. Reid, even if he wins, has to get out in front of this by going along... We're getting close to a critical mass on this, provided that Democrats keep their Senate majority and hold enough seats to be able to push this without relying on the problem children of the caucus."

Chris Bowers of the blog OpenLeft agrees that "The dam is breaking wide open. This is no longer a quixotic campaign--it is very winnable."

Bowers is keeping track of senators in favor of changing the filibuster rules and cites 12 senators likely to return to Congress in 2011 who are in favor of letting bills pass with a simple majority, as well as nine likely returning senators in favor of some sort of reform, if not a complete abandonment of the filibuster.

The Senate requires 67 votes to change the rules of the chamber. Matt Yglesias of the Center for American Progress Action Fund explains that Reid could avoid that by taking up the matter at the start of a "new Congress": "To change the Senate's rules takes 67 votes. But one way of looking at it is that after each election you have a brand new Senate that needs to adopt a set of rules and can do so by majority vote."

Conservative pundits are scoffing at the notion Reid would pursue such a tactic.

"Now, with voters trending conservative, the public recoiling at the ruthless partisanship of reconciliation, and the seven most vulnerable Senate seats this fall all held by Democrats, they're going to start talking up some dicey new procedural strategy for next year -- when they'll be on the brink of being returned to the minority themselves in the next election cycle?" asks Hot Air blogger AllahPundit. "I guess, when there's bad news on almost every front, sometimes it's helpful to believe a lie that makes you feel good."

AllahPundit pointed to a Politico article playing down the prospects of filibuster reform.

"Most people don't want to do it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) said, according to Politico. "I wouldn't waste time on process. I would spend more time on bringing about goodwill."

Tags:
filibuster
Topics:
Congress

Add a Comment See all 60 Comments
by erichsh March 11, 2010 11:06 PM EST
Reid and Co. are utter hypocrites. Everyone knows damn well that the millisecond that Republicans again regain majority control, the very same liberals currently howling, screaming, and demanding that the filibuster be scrapped will be bellowing for its unrestricted usage at every turn. And the way things are going, the current Democratic majorities may well not survive the very next election.
Reply to this comment
by RobAla March 11, 2010 7:44 PM EST
The old saying "What goes around, comes around" may apply here. If they do this, wait for what will happen when the Republicans are back in charge. So much for all this lovey-dovey talk of bipartisanship from the President -- oh yeah, he hasn't practiced an ounce of what he preached. I'm sure he will be good with whatever gives him his way over the will of the majority of Americans (most of us dislike his ideas of reform).
Reply to this comment
by esq1991 March 11, 2010 5:35 PM EST
The Dems better watch what they do because they are not going to be in power forever. I do not want to hear ANY whining when Repubs/conservatives get back into power and use the same tools that the liberal progressive Dems used to shove stuff down our throats. But I guess they won't realize the hypocrisy that exists in that party, whether it be involving scandals of their members or using things like signing statements and executive orders. It's OK when they do it and when they ignore the scandals of their Dems, but they scream bloody murder when its Republicans. All I can say is that when Repubs get back in power, I don't want people like John McCain to sing kumbaya and hold hands with them. I want them locked in rooms holding private meetings to design legislature, etc., just like Dems have been doing. Payback is hell.
Reply to this comment
by vetxcl March 11, 2010 5:15 PM EST
the filibuster, as it stands now has never been established as constitutional, and is not likely to be challenged, as long as "nojustice" roberts is seated. as it is, the dems. in the senate appear to be frightened of filibuster threats. i say let it happen, as long as it can be televised nationally. that way obstructionists can be shown for what they are. eventually, blowhards run out of hot air. in any event, it's being abused, and the protocols for it's use should be changed.
Reply to this comment
by ianlou March 11, 2010 4:30 PM EST
In the past, didn't these lard-azz senators need to stay on their feet and keep talking to maintain a filibuster?

What happened to the days of "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"?
Reply to this comment
by USA_is_back March 11, 2010 4:27 PM EST
by stormerF2 March 11, 2010 2:37 PM EST
If the Insurance companies could compete across state lines,you could shop around,with about 1,300 choices,but no the Democrats do not want that.It would keep the Government from taking control.
--------------------------------------------------------
stormer - Anthem / Blue Cross operates in all 50 states. Do you consider that across state lines? They just raised their premiums 39%
Reply to this comment
by retm-w March 11, 2010 4:43 PM EST
USA_is_back

Anthem/Blue Cross is a seperate company in each state. And it's the State insurance commission that says what company can sell in their State. Do you understand kickbacks and monopoly.
by USA_is_back March 11, 2010 4:54 PM EST
by retm-w March 11, 2010 4:43 PM EST

Anthem/Blue Cross is a seperate company in each state. And it's the State insurance commission that says what company can sell in their State. Do you understand kickbacks and monopoly.
-------------------------------------------------
Ah, so the Insurance company is a corrupt monopoly?
by USA_is_back March 11, 2010 4:26 PM EST
by IndepTex20 March 11, 2010 2:43 PM EST

You're missing the point........it is my choice to buy or not to buy insurance. That is a liberty afforded me by the constitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Tex - let's use this scenario. You decide you don't want insurance, you will pay cash for your medical procedures. You go to your doctor and are diagnosed with a life threatening disease, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment. You have that type of money sitting under your mattress? Do you go bankrupt tying to pay your bills? Do you just rely on other taxpayers to foot your bill for you?
Reply to this comment
by tsigili March 11, 2010 4:16 PM EST
No way, Reid. Either get the votes, or kill the bill.
Reply to this comment
by bumpedoff1 March 11, 2010 3:52 PM EST
Most here need a real history lesson bad
Reply to this comment
by imnho March 11, 2010 3:08 PM EST
I am pro health insurance reform; but it would be a real mistake to get rid of the fillbuster. Both sides would become embroiled in going nuclear on each other. That would wind up screwing the whole country.

That being said I am very disappointed that the republicans are so fixated with regaining power that they plan to oppose all of Obama's plans inreguardless of the merits.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 March 11, 2010 3:09 PM EST
Look, it is only maneuvering. The inference is that the threat of changing the filibuster rule can be used to squelch it not remove it.
by esq1991 March 11, 2010 5:38 PM EST
They are opposing his plans because they don't agree with the content of those plans. He's a far-left liberal who wants to take over everything and is trying to do it how he can without legislature. He can't get cap & trade so isn't he giving the EPA certain powers that they can take steps to almost effecuate the same result as a law? I just heard today, too, that he is going to designate millions of acres out west as "monument" status which means there may be no drilling, etc. It's a payback to his green friends, yet it could impact private property. Google the issue. Everyone talked about the number of signing statements that Bush used. Ummm, this guy is out of control because he is making fundamental changes in our country and govt. without the legislative process because he knows he can't do it. I am waiting for him to suddenly sign an executive order making him king.
See all 60 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com. Follow us on Facebook.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
September 11th. 9 Years Later.

Our daily Web show, Washington Unplugged, gives an insider's view of politics & those that make it happen.

More Washington Unplugged
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER
CBS News on Facebook