I like this general idea as I don't think the filibuster should be abolished, but it does need to be severely restricted.

Does anyone have an example of a bad law that was prevented by filibuster in the past? It seems like majority rule would be a good thing.

Good luck with that. The Senate is a dysfunctional club that is completely useless.

One small ray of sunshine this rainy Sunday morn: Yesterday (the Sabbath) Lieberman had to WALK three miles to the senate chambers. . .

Won't the bill just get filibustered to death?

Part of the problem is self-inflicted. The threat doesn't cost anything and it should.

The Senate leadership should pick a bill that the opposition has promised to filibuster and call their bluff. Make them filibuster.

Once America sees the stupidity of it, the blowback will be almost as big as the government shutdown engineered by Gingrich during the Clinton years.

Not to mention the physical inconvenience of it for a minority party. T

Like "Optimist", I too would like to witness an actual filibuster.

There is a difference between a filibuster for a good purpose and one for a ignoble purpose. Once the public gets a good look at the difference, the political dynamics will take over and place political limits on the use of the filibuster.

We need to see an actual filibuster. The threat of filibuster -- and the deadlock it produces -- is all the American people know. Let's get a good look at its reality!!!!!

Here's President Harry Truman's proposal from 1949.

Time Magazine: "the President said that he thought the proposed cloture rule should be even more drastic than the one Russell Long & Co. were talking down. He said he would favor applying cloture by a simple majority vote. Under such a rule, 25 Senators (a simple majority of a functioning quorum of 49) would be able to end a Senate debate."

http://bit.ly/4xeY0u

I'm for that. Lieberman's always saying he's a Truman Democrat. Let's ask him if he agrees!

Also good, a constitutional amendment stating Congress should do it's business on a majority basis unless stated otherwise in the Constitution with an exception for the Jimmy Stewart filibuster, any Senator can talk until the drop. That's how most Americans think it works so let's just write it that way into the Constitution.

Too bad this can't pass via reconciliation.

Democrats will never get a single Republican vote for this while they have the majority. Wait a few years until there is a Republican majority again, and all the Republicans will be for it and hopefully enough Dems will join in to get the changes passed.

I have no idea what kind of support Harkin's measure would get

one vote it most certainly will not get is LIEberman's. Anything that could limit LIEberman's ability to get his hideous mug on tv and be the center of attention, he will be maniacally against with all his being.

the people need to abolish the Senate. It is an anti-democracy institution that defeats one man one man.

The problem is, any effort to change the rules of debate and abolish the filibuster, can itself be filibustered. In fact, the rules of debate say that in order to close debate, 60 votes are normally required, but in order to close debate ON A PROPOSED CHANGE IN RULES OF DEBATE, 67 are required! (This is in Rule 22.)

The filibuster will sink our country! 41 senators from the 21 least-populated states represent LESS THAN ONE-TENTH the population of USA.

Wonderful! I was actually in the middle of writing a 'guest post' for another blog on this when I saw your post on it. (Interestingly enough, I was basing much of my argument in favor of the Harkin-Lieberman bill (later reintroduced bu the 'sane conservative' Sen. Jack Miller of Iowa) on an article praising it written by Sen. John Cornyn in 2003 -- which appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Politics, Vol 27. I'm not sure if the article is generally available on-line, I found it through Questia.com, an on-line academic library.)

But Optomist is right as well. The problem is not just cloture, but is, in fact, the 'two-track' system. A true filibuster used to be a serious matter, reserved for bills that were very important to the specific Senators using the tactic, because they shut the entire Senate down for their duration.

This was changed by the system that currently allows the Senate to discuss other business at the same time, but what I've been unable to find out -- I'm still researching it -- is whether this is at the option of the Majority Leader, by unanimous consent, or, somehow, mandatory. If it is either of the first two, it should be possible to force the Senate Republicans to have a 'true filibuster' and keep them from merely wielding the threat.

Believe it or not, Zell Miller and the Wall Street Journal agreed with the Harkin bill. See
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003204.

Shalimar has it correct. We missed our chance with the gang of 14 and the cave on Dem filibusters in '05 over Supreme Court nominations. The 'nuclear option' was avoided, but to what benefit? It will take a situation where the removal of the filibuster directly helps the R's and the D's grit their teeth and agree before it gets tossed.

On the other hand, at that point a soon to vanish simple R majority could re-impose it as a nice gift to the incoming D majority.

As did John Cornyn. However, thank you for correcting one error I've been making. I had been under the impression that it was Sen. Jack Miller who reintroduced it, when it was, apparently, Sen. Zell Miller, hardly a 'sane Conservative.'

However, one point Sen. Cornyn makes in his article is that there are several areas of legislation -- at least 27 -- which do not permit filibusters. Again, it would be worth exploring how those exceptions were passed, and by what majorities. (They include the War Powers Act, the Trade Act of 1974 -- and other trade acts -- the Department of Energy Act, and even DC Home Rule.)

Thank you Tom Harkin. This has to end, and someone's got to at least try to get the ball rolling on changing the anti-democratic Senate.

I can't wait to hear Lieberman's lame-ass excuse for why he supported it then but not now.

If it accomplishes nothing else, Harkin's bill will bring the filibuster under the spotlight. Examples of abuse will be publicized, the issue will gain some little bit of prominence in news coverage. His timing is excellent.

I may be wrong, but the way I understand the rules, the party that is being filibustered, in the case, the Democrats, would suffer more than the filibusterers. What I would like to see is a cloture vote that would be 60% of those present and voting. That would keep the people doing the filibuster present the whole time rather than just the one doing the talking. At the moment 60% of the whole Senate has to vote for cloture even if for whatever reason (death or challenged vote) there aren't 100 Senators.

I, too, am in favor of abolishing the Senate, but short of that, a filibuster rule that limits each party to three (or some such small number) in a given session, would largely end the gridlock we have now.

As it is now the country is ungovernable, ala California. The likelihood of this passing now is vanishingly small. It will take a Rethug Senate to do it with Blue Dog support, but only if the know-nothings are in complete charge of the Rethugs.

Really informed debate here. Abolish the Senate. Christ. What a bunch of dipshits. Texas Aggie, however, is exactly correct. The rules favor the filbusterer. Trying to break them exact a higher toll on your own team than on the obstructionists. Gee! Do you think that's why you never see any Senate majority party, Republican or Democrat, try to break them any more? Yup.

In case someone needs the rationale behind invoking the nuclear option:

Rule XXII by its terms provides that any motion to amend the Senate Rules requires the agreement of two thirds present and voting. If all 100 Senators are present, 67 votes would thus be needed. Current Senate Rules require 60 votes for cloture on a (threatened) filibuster.
However, Rule XXII itself was enacted by a simple majority of the Senate. So, arguably, it simply represents a legitimate exercise of constitutional power that belonged to a past Senate majority. Must a majority of each new Senate have no power to revisit the Rules made by a majority of Senators at an earlier time? Put another way, does each Senate at every point in time have the power to determine, by its own simple majority, its own rules? Or can past Senates bind themselves, and future Senates, by adopting supermajority rules concerning rule amendment, such as the one in Rule XXII? That has been the way the Senate has acted as an “old boy’s Club Tradition”.. All it takes is a majority of Senators, sick of Tradition, to insist that each Senate has the power to determine its own rules, so long as a rule does not violate an Article of the Constitution (which does not occur in this instance). Bill Frist understood that in 2005. How many more IQ points or cajones does/did he have --- and almost all Republicans--- compared to Reid and 49 other Democratic Senators??..

There should be consequences for caucus members who do not even allow a vote on party issues. Right now there is no downside. Loss of chairmanships would be a start. But that would make some Senators unhappy.
Even more important would be to get rid of the filibuster -- that 19th century anachronism now so misused. The filibuster is a Senate rule. SENATE RULES CAN BE CHANGED BY MAJORITY VOTE (50 plus Biden) OF THE SENATE. Changing that Senate rule to allow a majority vote to pass any bill would make many members of the Senate Club VERY unhappy. Senators hate to make their fellow prima donna's unhappy (see above).

I am well aware of Senate Rule 22. I am also well aware of the way around it, well designed by Bill Frist when he was Majority leader in 2005 WITHOUT 60 Republicans The series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds vote requirement to change rules woulfd go as follows: The Senate moves to vote on a controversial bill or nominee. At least 41 Senators call for filibuster. The Senate Majority Leader raises a point of order, saying debate has gone on long enough and that a vote must be taken within a certain time frame. (Current Senate rules require a cloture vote at this point.) The Vice President -- acting as Presiding Officer - has the cajones to sustain the point of order. (Do you doubt that Cheney would have?? Would Biden??] A Republican Senator appeals the decision. . A Democratic Senator moves to table the motion on the floor (the appeal). This vote - to table the appeal - is procedural and cannot be subjected to a filibuster; it requires only a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote. Again cajones needed of 50 Democratic Senators.). With debate ended, the Senate would vote on the issue at hand; this vote requires only a majority of those voting. The filibuster has effectively been closed with a majority vote instead of a three-fifths vote. Do 50 Democratic Senators have the cajones to do so?? If not, forget this Senate and Congress. They, like Obama, talk a good talk but ain’t got a good walk.
This was the basis for the nuclear option in 2005. To invoke it, takes a willingness by the Vice President and at least 50 Senators to make the Senate less of a Club... and stand up to BS cries of "you're creating a dictatorship" rather than finally invoking majority rule. You think the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option if what they wanted wasn't handed to them by an earlier "Gang of 14?? [ They wanted a set of right-wing judges approved for Federal bench positions.]

Sometimes it's really that simple, isn't it? I feel a little stupid for not thinking of this myself/earlier, though.

Damn, that sound's so easy if you think about it.