Skip to main content

A little late to break here, I suppose, but Yesterday on All Things Considered, Senator-Elect Dan Coats (R-IN) said he would support filibuster reform.

Link and Script below the fold.

SIEGEL: Republicans in the minority in the past couple of years have invoked the threat of filibuster a lot more often than was common when you were in the Senate in the 1990s. And I wonder: Do you think that it serves the institution well to require 60 votes for every issue of consequence since your party aspires to be in the majority within a couple of years? And wouldn't Democrats do the same thing to every bill that your party wants?

Mr. COATS: I think what we need is the opportunity to debate and have an up-or-down vote on every issue. Filibustering the motion to proceed - that is, we can't even go forward and talk about an issue without overcoming or without gaining a 60-vote majority for it - I would support removing that provision. I think the American people deserve to have the issues debated regardless of which side they're on, so that they are fully aware of what their representatives and senators are voting for and voting against.

SIEGEL: That would be a change of tactics from what's happened in the past couple of years.

Mr. COATS: It would be.

SIEGEL: And you would favor that change in the way business was done.

Mr. COATS: I would support that, yes.

NPR.org

That's good news for Tom Udall and progressives working to pass a rule change in January.  While making the motion to proceed non-debatable doesn't get rid of the 60-vote threshold doesn't eliminate the filibuster, it does make it easier to end it, since it cuts the time the majority has to spend on ending debate on legislation and nominations in half.

If the president can at least have an administration that's confirmed by the senate, that will be a big improvement.

This is good news.  Lets see what happens to it...

I hate to diary and run, but I have to head to work.  

Originally posted to Adam Blomeke on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 04:55 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Unemployment Insurance doesn't keep people from working. A lack of jobs keeps people from working. --Sen. Al Franken

    by Adam Blomeke on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 04:55:02 AM PDT

  •  Of course they support it now. (8+ / 0-)

    The 2012 Senate math looks very good for Republicans.

    I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

    by psychodrew on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 05:00:33 AM PDT

  •  I won't believe him until I see his vote. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HylasBrook
  •  It's a trap. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    second gen, HylasBrook, LaurenMonica

    Filibuster reform must be opposed at all costs. In 2012, the GOP will control the Senate.

    •   (0+ / 0-)

      Dems ought to end the filibuster. (60+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
         cdreid, MadRuth, ferg, askew, SlowNomad, mrblifil, ctsteve, gmb, maybeeso in michigan, marina, Paul Goodman, basquebob, Brooke In Seattle, reflectionsv37, Pam from Calif, John DE, Ice Blue, mozlover, peacestpete, grada3784, begone, Naniboujou, Wary, greenearth, AllanTBG, TheUnknown285, bear83, arodb, FishOutofWater, jayden, snowshoeblue, yella dawg, madgranny, Badabing, sable, cville townie, pamelabrown, icebergslim, bakenjuddy, psilocynic, 1BQ, J M F, JesseCW, wmdrpa, Losty, Nonconformist, Livvy5, Jyrinx, blueyescryinintherain, DrFitz, sfcouple, Mistral Wind, Liberal Lass, Dixie Liberal, LiLaF, nutbutter, SaintC, We Won, halful, PeakRaider

      Period. They filibuster only things that would have been considered a reasonable filibuster 5 years ago.

      by randomfacts on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 09:58:49 PM EDT

      •  yup (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HylasBrook

        Period. They filibuster only things that would have been considered a reasonable filibuster 5 years ago.

        If Dems abused the filibuster and other Senate rules like the GOP abused it in 2009-10, then yes the GOP could reform. But I doubt that's going to happen. Dems are too reasonable.

        •  Which begs the question. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          randomfacts

          Is the filibuster a general good which needs retaining or tweaking, a general evil which needs to be gotten rid of, or a short term tactical issue?

          •  the issue is balance between (0+ / 0-)

            two democratic principles that go back to the 18th century: majority rule vs. minority rights. Even though the rules have changed, the general outlines of this balance have persisted. For example, in the 19th century all it took to mount a filibuster was one single, solitary Senator. But this did not impede the working of the Senate because filibusters were so rare. What matters is not the specific rule but to preserve the checks and balances of the Senate while still allowing it to work. When minority Senators launch multiple anonymous holds for no reason that grinds the Senate to a halt, then rule changes are called for. But if minority Senators are using their perogatives responsibly, then the majority should respect the rules. It is not a very fine line but it is a clear principle.

        •  Unfortunately Democrats are too concerned with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flhiii88

          actually governing than power plays like the Republicans.

          It's a sad place to live in an upside down political system, but that's the reality of things.

          As for a Dem Senate majority, count on Ben Nelson and Lieberman to stab us in the back.

          HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

          by HylasBrook on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 06:54:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HylasBrook

      I thought most people where in favor of filibuster reform. Of course that means that when the democrats are in the minority that filibuster reform would still apply.

  •  Why the hell are we so interested in giving that (0+ / 0-)
  •  As I was saying..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica

    Don't give up the one tool we may have left to stop this fascist push.
    We don't have to use it like the Republicans have, but we need it when we need it.

  •  What if one day GOPers gain the Senate and the WH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HylasBrook

    ? Filibuster might be Dems only salvation?

    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 05:16:54 AM PDT

  •  All it takes is 28 Democratic Senators. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boreal Ecologist, lcarr23, HylasBrook

    The filibuster is a rule adopted by the Senate majority at the start of each session.

    All it takes is 28 patriotic Democratic Senators to kill the filibuster. I don't hear any of them trying to organize it or Harry Reid, his last term in Congress, trying to organize it to have at least two years as an effective, Constitutional Senate leader.

    •  I do hear them. (0+ / 0-)

      Several of them, in fact.

      •  Cries and whispers. (0+ / 0-)

        Whispers in the hallways I guess, nothing that makes any impact, few voices, no loud voices, none from leadership like Reid, Durbin or Schumer or even Obama, all of whom are content to let the GOP "walk them like a dog" as Ed Schultz so aptly put it. And to walk them right out of office in 2012 for not learning the lesson of 2010 and letting the GOP minority run the show...again.

        •  doofus, there is lots of talk. Tonight on PBS, (0+ / 0-)

          Tom Udall (D-NM) spoke at length about it and how it was used. He talked about the Constitutional issue, (it is not in it, so maybe we could get Ron Paul) and how it blocks getting anything done.

          A number of Senators have signed a letter in support of getting rid of it. Obama has spoken out about it several times.

          You sound like the anti evolutionists: I haven't heard of evidence so there is no evidence.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours. Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:24:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The point of the Senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HylasBrook

    Is to ensure a simple majority can't literally take over the country.
    If only 50 % + 1 wins, do you think the Republican Party wouldn't run roughshod over the Constitution ???
    It sucks when it is abused like they have the last several years, but when they gain control, it's all over with the type of
    " Sarah Palin constutionalists" the repubs are electing.

  •  I would still keep it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HylasBrook

    I think they need to reform how it is abused but in 2012 most likely the republicans will take over the senate and we may need the filibuster especially if somehow a republican gets to be president.

    •  Yes the Republicans will keep the fillibuster (0+ / 0-)

      because they know the Democrats won't use it the way Republicans do.

      HylasBrook @62 - fiesty, fiery, and fierce

      by HylasBrook on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 06:56:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look up Truman, 1946. That was a bigger loss (0+ / 0-)

      of Dem seats than this on. So Dewey won in 1948? And Repubs increased their control?

      Uh uh. I think this year is more like 46 than '94.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours. Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:33:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mr. Smith goes to Washington filibuster rule (0+ / 0-)

    They should change the de facto 60 vote requirement rule too.  If the minority wants to filibuster to end debate, they should have to hold the floor and do real filibusters.  

    •  An alternative solution... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Senate Agenda, laker

      would be to require Senators to commit to a fillibuster, with at least three commitments needed.  That is, each of the three would commit 8 hours a day for holding the floor.  Once a Senator has committed, he cannot commit to another fillibuster... his 8 hours are already used up.
      In this way, 48 GOP Senators can fillibuster 16 different bills, but that's it.  Any additional fillibustering would require spending time on the floor (the Mr. Smith approach).

      Don't be a DON'T-DO... Be a DO-DO!

      by godwhataklutz on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 05:58:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All it would take... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jae1227, Senate Agenda, laker

    ...is one quick wording change.

    Where it says "3/5 of the whole Senate," change it to "3/5 of Senators present and voting."

    If either side wants to filibuster, the whole Senate is forced to stay in the chamber.

    That accomplishes, I think, both the goals of filibuster reform and the principle behind allowing the filibuster in the first place.

    If the minority party really believes that something's being pulled over on the American people, they can filibuster it and bring immediate press attention to the matter, hopefully mobilizing enough public opinion against it to pull 11 other Senators to the "no" column. But they can't block it forever, at least not without a whole lot of suffering on their part.

    What have you done for DC statehood today? Call your Rep and Senators and demand action.

    by mistersite on Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 06:04:52 AM PDT

    •  Right, there are many different ways to reform it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Theston

      I am just surprised how many people now oppose filibuster reform because the democrats lost some seats and might be in the minority in 2012.

    •  This is the age of C-Span. You do not want a real (0+ / 0-)

      filibuster with republicans talking for hours. It would not be a telephone book they would recite but the sins of Obama and the suspicions" and questions. They would spew venom. They have enough unimpeded TV time. Let's not give them more.

      Thank you.

      I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours. Barack Obama

      by samddobermann on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:29:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You don't want to give them open Mikes (0+ / 0-)

    on C-Span for any reason. They would spend it sliming the Dems.

    I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours. Barack Obama

    by samddobermann on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:59:21 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site