http://www.salon.com/...
Senate (is) sitting on 420 bills passed by (the) House. The new numbers are in, and the upper chamber has reached heroic levels of inaction. And some of it is food safety, and energy, and other things that might be nice for the country. Senate procedural reform should probably be the number one progressive priority.
The current Senate is still in power until Jan 4th. Two months is a long time. In that time, the Senate NEEDS to start signing into law some of the major bills the House already passed.
Don't Ask Don't Tell can be repealed, right here and right now, and the democrats can appease the gay and lesbian community that they so badly let down, if the democrats are willing to show some backbone.
Other key bills the Senate can act on are The Dream Act, The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, the medicare fix, the Tax Cuts for those making under 250,000, and a number of other similar legislative procedures.
Once Jan 4th passes, it will be too late and the 420 bills the House passed will be wasted effort.
While the democrats still have 59 seats in the Senate (until Jan 4th), they absolutely should pass some of the biggest accomplishments passed by the House that the Senate has yet to act on.
Now that the blue dogs are no longer in campaign mode, maybe they will be more willing to act on principle. It's not over yet. Even after Jan 4th, the Senate still has 53 democrats. They can get Senate procedural reform.
As long as the Senate passes the same bill as the house, it will not needed to be voted again on the House. It could go before Obama to be signed into law.
Basically, if democrats act fast, they can still get a lot more accomplished.
Here is a great post by Major Tom on using the nuclear option to kill the filibuster during the critical lame duck session.
Here is the Nuclear Option procedure in a Nutshell:
"The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent." (My emphasis is added)
Moreover, parliamentary rulings can be requested at any time and during any session.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution itself sets forth when a super-majority is needed; and the filibuster or the cloture rule is not even mentioned in this regard. In fact, they are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Indeed, they are pure legislative fictions that have long outlived any of their supposed utility.