"Instead, he wants each Congress to set its own standards, giving lawmakers the chance to put the cloture threshold wherever they want at the start of the year."

The Senate goes through a process very similar to what Udall is describing at the beginning of every Congress, adopting the rules that will govern for the next two years.

I fail to see how anything Udall is proposing is substantially different.

I fail to see how anything is going to change the course this country has taken. It is going to come down to an uprising by the people.

The question is do Americans have the guts. I seriously doubt it.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5: "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."

It seems to me that the Senate has the affirmative Constitutional authority to set its own rules, by majority rule.

If it did so, who would stop it?

Hell, that's what the GOP tried to do with the 'nuclear option.' While they ultimately went for the 'gang of 14' compromise, the issue at the time was, did they have the votes, rather than whether such a vote itself would be illegitimate.

Instead, (Udal) wants each Congress to set its own standards, giving lawmakers the chance to put the cloture threshold wherever they want at the start of the year.

And while the Democratic majority would try to play honorably, a Republican majority would pervert the rules to give themselves complete control.

Better to have some built-in safeguards.

I don't see this making a dime's worth of difference in the current sharply-partisan environment. The last time Congress buried their differences and cooperated on major legislation that inarguably benefited Americans across the board was the 60's.

Legislation always contains loopholes if you know where to look. One of the parties makes it their business to look, and to exploit any advantage for partisan gain.

Could someone please explain something to me? When the Republicans controlled everything, they threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster altogether if the Dems filibustered Bush's judicial nominees. From what I read then, it seemed that the GOP could do this on a simple majority vote. Why can't the Dems do this?

Also, why did the Republicans really control everything when they controlled everything, and the Dems couldn't get anything done even when they had the stupid 60 votes? I know, I know, because Reid is a jellyfish. But the Dems need to come up with a better strategy. Or any strategy.

It sounds easy - just pass new rules at 50/50 at the start of the new Congress.
But what rules do you think cover the debate of those rule changes? I suppose it's the old rules.

So then they can filibuster, under the old rules, the new rules being proposed. With a 60(or 67?) vote requirement. So now we're back where we started.

I suppose the parliamentarian could rule that extended debate unconstitutional, and put it to a 50% rule.

Lucia said:
When the Republicans controlled everything, they threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster altogether if the Dems filibustered Bush's judicial nominees. From what I read then, it seemed that the GOP could do this on a simple majority vote. Why can't the Dems do this?

Because when the Republicans threaten Democrats cave.

Look at the Democrats who joined the "Gang of 14" and agreed to approve any Bush judicial nominee that didn't wear his Klan hood to his confirmation hearing:

Mark Pryor (AR), thinks that "young Earth creationism" is a credible idea.

Joe Lieberman (CT), enough said.

Mary Landrieu (LA), a holdout for watered-down health care reform

Ben Nelso (FL), who supported Alito to SCOTUS and John Bolton as U.N. ambassador

Ken Salazar (CO), who voted against increasing CAFE standards and against repealing tax breaks for oil companies

The Democrats have an awful lot of party members who can't be counted on when their votes are needed. I admit I don't know what the solution is. The Republicans have purged all their moderates except for Snowe and Collins, and they've got those two on a very short leash. But the Republicans also have small minorities in both houses of Congress.

Maybe if Democrats force rule changes in the Senate they can include a provision to be able to remove committee chairpersons with a simple majority vote, or for the majority leader to be able to suspend a chairman.

Instead of altering the numbers needed to do a filibuster, how about altering the rules to MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER each time. Why use this bullshit "gentleman's agreement" to the threat of a filibuster?

MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER. For hours and hours, day after day, on each and every issue.

Eventually, the fact that they are holding government hostage will sink into the dumbest American's in this land.

The filibuster should not be changed. It needs to be used properly and that starts with MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER!

It is pointless to argue about how to change the Senate's rules until the Senate leadership agrees that filibusters are a problem.

The Udall quote sums it up perfectly. Senate debate should be as long as necessary in order to debate an issue, but no longer. We don't need to abolish the filibuster, we need to abolish the abuse of the filibuster.

Until I see Harry Reid agree with that sentiment, or until we replace Reid, we are screwed.

"Until I see Harry Reid agree with that sentiment, or until we replace Reid, we are screwed."
Posted by: square1 on January 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM

The upcoming election will likely take care of this for us. Reid is already polling double-digits below every one of the three likely Publican prospects, and the trend lines suggest increasing numbers for Publicans. Of course, by that time it'll be too late.
Which brings up the following question:
Why are we so eager to abolish the one mechanism that might prevent the completion of the Publican despoliation of our country when (not if) they take the Senate back in name, as well as in fact?
Wouldn't it be just like the current crop of Congressional Democrats to abolish the filibuster, just in time for a Republican resurgence...
Then again, what am I saying? The Dem's didn't use the filibuster to any substantial effect last time the Publicans held the Senate, so why would we assume they'd wield it any more aggressively next time?
Especially since the media would immediately revert to referring to the "need to get 51 votes," and the "need to get 60" will be gone down the memory hole, either forever, or til the next time the Democrats hold the Senate majority, in which case "the need to 60" will not return to the media -- it will always have been there.

I agree with MsJoanne - the flibuster should be a process, not just a word that the average citizen believes isn't even American, probably some fancy-pants term borrowed from the Damned Frenchies. Seeing live TV of a Republican reading the Memphis phone book aloud would bring it home how stupid it really is.

Besides, it was meant to exact a penalty, and allowing the threat to carry the same weight as the process is a little like threatening to slap you in the face, but never doing it.

O/T: Mark, while you brought up those damned Frenchies, I wonder how many GOP lovers, who agree with this atrocious SCOTUS decision about corporate personhood and spending on political campaigns (er, I mean FREE SPEECH!), realizes that those same corporate persons are often headquartered in other countries. So our SCOTUS has allowed foreign nationals to determine US elections by funneling as much moolah into our political system as they can to benefit their own corporation and their own countries.

I wonder what Scalia had to say about that since he has always been one to hate international law and our using other countries laws as a basis for our legal decisions (except when he doesn't, as Steve Benen recently noted with a Jewish law).

Damn, the French!! (shaking fist) Bunch of smart fuckers.

I'm with citizen_pain.

Corporations are busy marketing too many shiny objects, their wholly-owned government is dumbing down the schools by requiring all teaching adhere to a simple curriculum repeated over and over and over, and the masses can hardly be pried away from watching YouTube videos on phones smarter than they'll ever be.

"...but to debate and never vote is imbecile." Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) quoted by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).

Never thought I'd live to see the day I'd agree with Henry Cabot Lodge (I don't care if Teddy DID like him!).