Why couldn't Biden have ruled that before?

Fix the Senate. End the filibuster.

Start the revolt by taking action here -> here.

Let the majority rule.
Is this dangerous? I don't see how it can be any more dangerous than what we're seeing now. It takes a cloture vote to do anything except have lunch, go on vacation, or give themselves pay raises. Then the BS stops.
Look, for good, bad, or ugly, let the majority rule. And yes, I know, the last two describe when Republicans have power.

Great, I've been advocating this since they took over. I am now lukewarm to it as the nuts may be taking over very soon. Not that I don't think they'll change it the minute they get a majority but when they change it at least we can reduce the amount of nonsensical recriminations. or not..

When Republicans were in the majority, all they had to do was threaten to use that "nuclear option" and Democrats would fold. Time to use it for real, if they can somehow locate their, er, manhood (and of course, womanhood) and do it. The filibuster has been abused beyond tolerance. You abuse it, you lose it, and good riddance.

The 1960 Democratic platform called for "A change of Senate rules to end filibustering".

In case you are counting, that was fifty god damn years ago. Today it is a point of contention among the Democratic caucus. A measure of how far we have regressed.

Real Democrats knew in 1960 that this was the only way that you could defeat an intransigent enemy hell bent on obstructionism. Then it was Civil Rights. Today, it is pretty much everything, but essentially Corporatism. But the essential point remains. As long as the filibuster exists the forces of obstruction will win the day.

If this could have been done before, the fact that it wasn't is as great a betrayal of the American people as the theft of the 2000 election.

I'm not sure I buy it. Do senators really want majority rule, or does the current situation allow them to rail against the filibuster and the special interests it supports while raking in big bucks from the same interests? It strikes me as a "having your cake and eating it too" situation.

Why couldn't Biden have ruled that before?
Posted by: Michael7843853 on July 27, 2010 at 10:16 AM
From prior threads, rules get set at start of each 2 year session; on day 1 of 2009 Democrats didn't realize how Republicans would use filibuster to stall everything (including appointments that eventually were approved by overwhelming majorities). Next chance January 2011.
There is also the problem, that for individual senators their individual vote becomes much less important if rules changed. Hard for many to give up this power; and if filibuster eliminated completely 50(51) votes could rule when other party in power. Some uncertain if you really want that.

Unless they break the filibuster, Democrats are Toast. What is lacking is the will to do so. It takes 50 Senate votes plus Biden and can be done any any time, occasional screeds to the contrary not withstanding. It's not a Constitutional or judicial issue. It's a Senate rule originally passed over 100 years ago by a then- normal-majority of Senators to bind future Senate sessions to a super-majority.

Senate rules don't have to be changed at the beginning of a session-- the latest change to reduce the number for cloture from 67 to 60 did not occur at the beginning of the Senate session. The nuclear option threat made by Republicans several years ago was valid then and now--- and can be used at any time during a Session. The Republicans will use it whenever it suits them.

It's hard to see how continued Democratic majorities in Congress will make any difference unless they change their policies and break the filibuster. Who knows what could have passed in the way of real health care reform, adequate stimulus package, adequate financial regulation, whatever. Better and more Progressive bills were never strongly and consistently advocated by Obama. "Not very good, but better than GWB and the Republicans" is hardly a rousing political rallying cry Most of what Progressive's want today would have been supported by Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Ford, FDR, TR, Truman-- Hell, even Dewey. So don't give me BS about advocating left-wing Socialist policies.

As noted by Digby: "The party in power is expected to do what's necessary to pass its agenda. If it can't, it is held responsible for the failure, not those who stopped them from doing it. This is particularly true in the present circumstance. The president blaming a "do nothing congress" only works when the congressional majority is of the opposition party. When it's your own party [AND you have a near-supermajority], you just look like a weak leader and people think the underdog Republicans are simply "playing the game" better and so deserve to "win."

Glad to see this is being pushed. Please urge your dem senators to support it.

@michael...: I agree. And I want to know why they haven't outlawed war and destroyed all weapons yet either. They could have done it at any time.

@gdb: Don't you get tired of copying and pasting the exact same comment over and over? Ever have an original thought?

One of the most pervasive and pernicious arguments for the filibuster is its mystique. People have this idea that the filibuster is a vital democratic tool used by crusty old Senators of yore and Jimmy Stewart.

Put another way the filibuster has become synonomous with how people think the Senate is supposed to operate and tinkering with it is an affront to democracy and separation of powers. This is so so wrong on so many levels. The main one being the mere existence of the Senate (small states getting equal representation in a deliberative body as bigger state) is the separaton of power. The filibuster was devised as a tool for Senate to deliberate then ultimately resolve an issue of the moment. Not needlessly obstruct any and all business by an elected majority.

Progressives need to be careful what they wish for here because it would cut both ways. Unintended consequences and all that. It would make an all Republican government all the more onerous.

On the other hand, when the Republicans take over the Senate in 2011, they might just abolish the filibuster, individual holds, etc to prevent the Democratic minority from "doing unto them."

If you have a Republican Senator, call them up and suggest they support filibuster reform. If your state has a Senate seat up, contact the Repub and Tea-Baggie candidates.

Do like the corporate lobbyists do - cover both bases.

Didn't Dems think the Senate rules & obstructionism was a GOOD thing when the GOP was in charge?

I'm actually a believer in gradual change.

How about this:

To filibuster you raise an objection. You get 1 hour to get 40 "votes to delay a vote." At that point, if you get 40 votes to obstruct, you have to keep the floor and keep talking. Floor managers (or whatever they are called in the Senate) for the bill can ask for a check that 40 obstruction votes are present every 2 hours.

You get the point. The minority retains power to object to some perceived tyranny of the majority. But they have to actively object, on TV, and they have to do the work. Current rules make waiting out a filibuster almost impossible. This would change that dynamic.

Ending the filibuster is the key to reforming the Senate and getting more Progressive legislation. To advocate otherwise is naive and/or disingenuous as is "saving the filibuster for when Dems are in the minority". What is the point of delaying the reform, as some might advocate?

I'd love to see the filibuster finally die. However, my understanding when the Republicans were threatening the "nuclear option" was that they couldn't simply change the rules because the rules themselves were subject to filibuster. They only way they could do it was the VP making a ruling that completely ignored the rules and precedents of the Senate.

In other words, the only way to change the rules was to break the rules governing how they're changed. Is it somehow different because it's the beginning of a new session?

From prior threads, rules get set at start of each 2 year session; on day 1 of 2009 Democrats didn't realize how Republicans would use filibuster to stall everything (including appointments that eventually were approved by overwhelming majorities).

Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but given the lunacy of Republicans, that outcome wasn't that hard to foresee.

Granted, the Dems theoretically had 60 votes, so perhaps they didn't foresee the Ben Nelsons of the world doing everything possible to advance the Republican agenda. But with Liebermann one of the 60, even the difficulty in holding the supermajority was pretty clear from Day 1.

Let the majority rule.
Is this dangerous? I don't see how it can be any more dangerous than what we're seeing now.

If the lunatics get a Senate majority, you can bet they'll set the rules to win with simple majorities.

Gunner -- yes, the threatened "nuclear option" was breaking the rules because that was the only way to do it during the session, rather than the beginning.

The problem is th blue dogs will nix it as voting with democratic party is not their mission.

Gunner. You have it backwards. It's following the rules of the Senate.Getting rid of the filibuster takes 50 senators plus Joe Biden willing to do so and goes as follows:

Senate Rule XXII by its terms provides that any motion to amend the Senate Rules requires the agreement of two thirds present and voting. IHowever, Rule XXII itself was enacted by a simple majority of the Senate over a century ago. It represents a legitimate exercise of power that belonged to a past Senate majority. A majority of each new Senate can revisit the Rules made by a simple majority of Senators at an earlier time. The supermajority rule is a tacit agreement that has been the way the Senate has acted as an “old boy’s Club Tradition” for over a century. It was amended about 40 years agoDURING A SENATE SESSION to require 60 votes for cloture.
The way around the filibuster tradition takes no change in the Senate Rules and is certainly no "challenge to the Constitution".. It's rather simple and was well designed by Bill Frist when he was Majority leader in 2005 WITHOUT 60 Republican votes. The series of steps designed to bypass the two-thirds/60 vote rule change/cloture requirement to require a simple majority vote proceeds as follows:

The Senate moves to vote on a controversial bill or nominee.
At least 41 Senators call for filibuster.

The Senate Majority Leader (Reid) 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 needing 60 at this point.)

The Vice President -- acting as Presiding Officer -now must have 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). 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 eliminated with a majority vote instead of 60 votes.

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 much 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 -- and they got most of what they wanted by threatening the nuclear option.]
You think they wont the minute they are in power and need to??

Do 50 Democratic Senators and the current VP have the cajones to do so?? If not, forget this Senate and Chief Executive. . Without 50 votes to end the filibuster, votes on health care, climate change, etc., etc,, , have been and will be essentially exercises in pass inadequate bills and call them " ground-breaking".

redshift. Basically, you're saying that one set of Senate Parliamentary rules should take precedence over another set of (older) Senate Parliamentary rules -- and that a previous Senate Session majority should be able to bind all future Senate session to a supermajority. Nice work if you can get it.

MLJ. Who knows if the Dems have enough votes... If Reid and Obama get tough, they probably do. If not, what is really lost?

I hope these senators realize..."Everything depends on this". If they refuse to get rid of the filibuster altogether, then at least they should limit its use. Its abuse has made the senate dysfunctional and anti-democratic.

What good does it do to elect a majority if they are prevented from acting like one?

Maybe try a rule as in American Football - you get to throw the red towel so many times a game, and after that you can't.

A Party can have, say, 5 filibusters per two-year term. No more.

But then, I can see how Republicans would put up crazy legislation such as "all white people must have pickup trucks with rebel flags paid for by the Government", thus forcing Dems to use one. But maybe there can be strings attached; e.g., only applies to bills with price tags greater than $500 million or something.

"the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which would be approved by a simple majority."
They.must.do.that! Or we can never forgive them.

Somewhere there are a bunch of Republicans who have these huge smiles on their faces.
Imagine, just as they are about to become the beneficiaries of a huge electoral shift at the ballot box, there is talk of lowering the needed votes to run the Senate.
Come January, the Democrats will be talking of raising the cloture level back to 67.

Very informative and great body structure of articles , now that's user friendly (:.