Sen. Tom Harkin Tells Reporters He May Reintroduce A Bill To End Filibusters
Via MyDD, here's some encouraging news. Saying that the filibuster wasn't supposed to be used to stop legislation, Sen. Tom Harkin told Iowa reporters he's thinking about reintroducing legislation he first put forth 15 years ago. I say, call and write to let him know you support it:
Given what he sees as the abuse of power by a couple members of his own party whom he said are threatening to join the minority party if their every demand is not met, Harkin is considering reintroducing the legislation.
"I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something."
Harkin noted with interest that his original legislation was cosponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who has been threatening to filibuster the legislation.
"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.
He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.
To keep the spirit of slowing down legislation, though, Harkin's proposal back in 1995 would have kept the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessening the number required in subsequent votes.
He said for instance if 60 senators could not agree to end debate, it would carry on for another week or so and then the number of votes required to end debate would drop by three. Harkin said it would carry on this way until it reached a simple majority of 51 votes.
"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better."
Sounds like a better solution to me.
It's not all or nothing.
According to US Census and Wikipedia figures for state populations, the state of Connecticut has about 3,501,252 people.
That's about 1.5% of the total US population.
(Nebraska has fewer than 1,000,000.)
It's time to get beyond the political extortion that these jerks are pulling on the other 98.5% of Americans.
The Senate is absolutely dysfunctional.
Good on Harkin; the prima donna behavior and the kind of extortion that Landrieu pulled are disgusting -- particularly given the fact that Wall Street remains unbriddled by these same electeds.
This is a structural problem.
The Senate has to change its rules.
Joke Lieberman? Howz Ned Lamont look now Connecticut?
It's not all or nothing.
Nice video work by the SEIU on a much-needed topic.
...would of course be filibustered to death by the party of 'No' while their well paid operatives in the media portray it as "the theft of democracy by the fascist Democrats" or some other such bullshit propaganda. This government has a mandated majority. They should stop dicking around and use it, as the GOP would surely do if they held power.
The GOP wanted to do this very thing not long ago.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Harkin should be majority leader, but he has too much spine for the rest of the pathetic Senate Democrats.
They still haven't had their fill of eating Lieberman, Snowe and Nelsons shit. They are shamefully weak and incompetent.
We need a young firebrand to be the Majority Leader, as much as I respect Senator Harkin. But, as it is, there aren't any "young" firebrands in the Senate.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
n/t
vote with repugs.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Senator Harkin is a great senator from my home state of Iowa, but on this I believe he is wrong. There is a much better, even simpler solution: Actually require a true filibuster, not just this "threat" of a filibuster. We all win and no one can legitimately demagouge the Democrats for instituting this rule.
The second better and simpler solution is to strip Senator Lieberman of his chairmanship and let him run to the Republicans if he wishes to.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
(Jinx)
"If the majority insists on voting on this measure, I shall talk until I pass out!"
"OH NO! Don't do that!"
Thanks for stating this so succinctly... saved me the trouble of crafting my own response. Best way to fight the persistent obstructionism is to force them to actually filibuster... let the American people actually see them blocking the people's business.
I have a sneaky feeling that many citizens now think it has always taken 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, by design. How far we've fallen...
They could insist that Senators ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER. This 60-vote cloture nonsense is that you need a supermajority to eliminate the THREAT of a filibuster.
and the right thing to do regarding the current state of the ridiculous use of the filibuster these days. Of course, that means it is DOA in this Senate.
How you guys can even sit and watch this poor excuse of a Senator is beyond me, my stomach turns just to look at him.
A super-majority is required for:
We should get back to the original idea that 3/5ths (60 votes) is required for only the most important things not regular session bills and votes.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Maybe the Democrats shouldn't cave with every threat of a filibuster and actually let the Republicans try to filibuster. Republicans are bullies, when you stand up to them they'll crack. Let them try to filibuster for 24 straight hours, we'll be able to easily pass legislation with 51 votes if they know we're serious. Senator Reid caves in too quickly.
Agreed. It’s like that Star Trek episode where two planets waged perpetual virtual war. The rules were established and everybody just walked into the disintegration machines when they were virtually hit by the rules.
Reality is much messier. I’m with you. If they want to filibuster, let them get bloodied by the experience.
3....
2....
1....
done!
Huffpo and AP will be the first to report it. Reid will claim that LIEberman will vote for the final bill. The earlier thread gives us a picture of the final bill and the Dems will be gnashing their teeth and claiming that it was such a difficult compromise.
Some stuff you can't make up!
but I know many on this site will start complaining if (hopefully never) the republicans get control back, because they couldnt filibuster. Remember-if you pass it-the other side can use it as well.
The way things stand, the GOP was able to have their way with a sub-60 vote majority, while the Dems are unable to pass anything even with a 60-vote majority. I suspect that even if the filibuster disappeared tonight, we would suddenly start hearing about how we can only muster 49 votes and are therefore unable to pass anything that isn't watered down beyond all recognition: I think the Democratic caucus is riddled with hypocrites who are careful to show their true colors only when absolutely necessary to save their master's bacon from the fire.
make amends to the country for puting THIS ASSHOLE back into the Senate.
Take your unpaid medical bills from collection services, prescriptions and their bills, unaffordable insurance premiums and send them to Joe....have him pay them.
Something like this would blow up the senate even worse than it is now. It's not necessary anyway. The correct thing to do is to impose the original requirement that those seeking to filibuster legislation must do so by talking it to death. I, of course, would LOVE to see Lieberman be the one that has to do it, but I'll settle for the spectacle of the GOP senators yammering on about all kinds of nonsense while simultaneously bringing all other aspects of government functioning to a stand still. Work on a jobs bill? Not while McConnell reads from the DC phone book! Fund the pentagon? Nope! John Kyl is busy reading the dictionary! Great political theater, and it would completely backfire on those practicing it.
So, the only question is why Reid doesn't do it....
...because he's a spineless pansy.
Also for the most part on the same corporate payroll as the Republicans.
Republicans are sure to exploit the current system as far as possible to sabotage the country while undress Democratic rule.
This was supposed to be a "government by the people, for the people, and of the people". I´m ashamed of these clowns that call themselves our representatives. They are not blind! All the polls I´ve seen show the majority of the American public is in favor of a "public option". They know the truth. Demagoges, all of them. It´s not us, the citizens, being heard... It´s the large corporations. In no other first world country can a citizen go bankrupt for getting sick. When people say "only in America", they are right! Only in America. We should get rid of lobbying. It´s just an euphemism for the real word: "bribery".
Just as a curious note, for those that think the world revolves around them, "America" includes the WHOLE continent of the "New World", not only the USA.
Corporations are people, too, you know.
Nothing will be better until Reids gets the guts to kick LIE-berman out of the DEM. party, and off all his Commities.
The problem lies with the fact they don't filibuster anymore. You can make lieberman fold in a bout 2 hrs by making him "stand" on the floor and actually have to defend his position.
It's been too long since these clowns have had their feet held to the fire.
If he has a legitimate point, make it, but I'm betting he can't.
To repeat about 2 hrs of having to "stand" and actually filibuster and he'll fold like a cheap chair.
I could be mistaken, but when there was talk of exercising a (different) "nuclear option" to bypass a potential Democratic filibuster of a Republican-controlled congress, this site and a lot of people who share in the sympathies of it were lamenting the undemocratic nature of trying to circumvent the only redress a thin-minority party has to prevent really, really bad legislation from happening. Now that the tables are, in a general sense, turned, we're advocating for the removal of the entire process.
You can't have it both ways. If you remove the filibuster and four or six or twenty years down the line when there's a thin conservative majority in congress I don't want to see anybody crying about it.
That said, the fact remains that the current Republican party is threatening to filibuster pretty much EVERYTHING they don't like, and rather hamstringing government as a result. I to a degree blame the Democratic leadership for not making them follow through on it, though--it's only a filibuster if you make them do it, rather than go weak in the knees at the threat thereof.
Not saying that having no filibuster option is any better than having the current state of affairs, just that any time you talk about changing the rules you need to think about whether you're doing it for a good reason with a reasonable degree of forethought, or because you're being a reactionary to something you don't currently like.
This is nothing like the "nuclear option" the Republicans threatened to employ.
When the GOP wanted to introduce the "nuclear option" I supported it, even though I thought it was scummy. They were going to pass what they wanted to anyway and fizzle out, but we would not have the problems we have today with now-OK obstructionism.
I do sympathize with those for removing the filibuster, but I do not think the filibuster is the root cause of Congressional problems. Though I'd love to stick it to the GOP, I'm more interested in protecting minority rights. The reason I supported the GOP killing the filibuster is because the GOP was rotten and they would pay for it when they found themselves in the minority.
The Dems haven't tried yet making anyone ACTUALLY filibuster or use reconciliation yet. Emphasis on "haven't tried yet!"
The truth is that the Democrats can pass what we want them to without killing the filibuster. If the Dems had a fraction of the resolve and cunning as the GOP, there would be no problem. Believe me, it is difficult for me to credit the GOP with anything, but the Dems could use some measure of their ruthlessness.
The GOP passed deficit-creating tax cuts with 51 votes and declared unbudgeted war with NO proper Congressional mandate. Reid seems to want to move heaven and earth to gain one GOP vote in the name of "bi-partisanship" instead of using the majority the American people gave him to help tens of millions. We can get done what needs to get done.
The problem isn't with the GOP anymore. I mean, once you catch a disease, there's no point in negotiating with it. You just do what you need to to move on. But removing the filibuster is like cutting off body parts before trying to take asprin first.
Back up Reid is Not going to lead us for a Health Bill, as Mr. Back Up has NO Leadership ability. Remember this is a man (sic) that has sat for over 8 years on the side lines wishing he has had what he has been given and now that he has it he does NOT know what to do with it.
We as a Country have found it the hard way, this is a CONGRESS and SENATE that does NOT have a clue how to LEAD, between Cave In Pelosi and Back Up Reid I can see NO further proof of a do nothing government.
They refuse to use the tools they have been given and insist on reaching across the aisle, which after having watched the respect they had handed to them under the last Supreme Court appointed president I can see is now much deserved.
At no time did I see the racist Nazi Fascist of the right weaver in their attempt to show total disregard to the Spineless, Gutless left and these Cowards sit their taking it.
Well you Clowns reached across the aisle now lets see if they give you the necessary contributions and voted for re election.
I have Finally cleared myself of ALL Democratic mailings so good luck on what ever your told to vote on because95% of it will NOT be what the people want.
The proverbial road to Hell is said to be paved with good intentions for a reason. Granted, I supposed that argument could just as easily be applied to whoever was originally responsible for setting the rules for the Senate in the first place with regard to filibuster. However, I don't think the fact that the practice of filibuster has since then been abused and used as a threat to indefinitely stall legislation should necessarily mean it should be abolished -- even if it doesn't get voted down, which I think it very likely will.
One of the reasons why the filibuster exists in the first place is to make it difficult for a majority party with a substantial lead to simply ram through whatever kind of legislation they see fit simply because they know the minority party doesn't have the votes to stop them -- and especially if the majority party also occupies the White House. Granted, this is not quite the situation we are in at present because of the Blue Dogs. However, this was why I considered the Republican proposal to eliminate filibuster while Bush was in office to be such a troubling one...because it was clearly nothing more than an attempt to weaken the Democrats even further and make it nearly impossible for them to prevent the Republicans from doing anything they saw fit, even perhaps enacting dubious legislation on behalf of a minority group (such as the Religious Right) rather than a majority of the American people. If I believe that it was unethical for the Republicans to propose eliminating the filibuster, I have to believe that it's likewise unethical for the Democrats to do it. Let's remember that once filibuster is abolished, it's gone and could probably only be restored through another Senate majority vote. If the composition of the Senate does not stay stable -- and frankly, it's totally illogical to expect that it would -- abolishing the filibuster completely will open the door to the potential scenario described above in which a minority party is left with absolutely no bargaining power with the majority party over legislation. No, I don't like what Lieberman and others like him are trying to do -- but I also know that there's probably no way to make the system perfect (human nature being what it is). I also know that like it or not, allowing certain freedoms almost certainly means that some people will exploit them for their own purposes. In my opinion, Harken would be better off proposing a change in the rules which govern how filibusters are brought to an end -- perhaps by requiring only a simple majority vote rather than a supermajority.
Let's face it...like it or not, if there's one thing which the Republican Party is better at than the Democrats, it's party unity -- the fact that the Democrats don't really have a filibuster-proof vote in spite of having a 60-member majority is more than proof of that. If the Democrats can't find a way around the threat of filibuster without sacrificing most if not all of what they want to accomplish, a large part of that is their own fault! They're supposed to be working for the benefit of the people, not simply their own -- and if some people are determined to cater to their corporate contributors rather than their constituents, they don't deserve to be re-elected.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
I can't think of ending the filibuster w/o thinking of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." If we don't have the chance for one person to stand against the tyranny of the many, we've lost a lot of what we're supposed to represent. I understand the filibuster is used often enough (or at least threatened) as an obstruction, but to end it completely seems like a dangerous decision -- especially when the Dems won't always be in the majority. The Conservatives wanted to end filibustering, too, and we all jumped salty over that, so... Why are we being hypocrites about it now? Just because it's getting in our way? Seems shortsighted...
Comments are closed on this entry