Senate majority leader Harry Reid has announced he'll use the "nuclear option" to push through filibuster reform if Republicans don't agree to a deal within the next 24-36 hours.
The so-called nuclear option - or "constitutional option" - allows the Senate to reform its own rules with a simple majority of 51, rather than with a supermajority of 60. Reid says he has 51 Democratic votes, so he could reform - or end - the filibuster without any Republican support at all.
The nuclear option has never been used before, and it's not set out in the Senate's rules. The only warrant for using it comes from a 1957 opinion written by then-Vice President Richard Nixon.
Reid also said Tuesday that he's in talks with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, in hopes of working out a bipartisan filibuster deal.
@harold_lloyd Well since they no longer pretend to have ethics and propriety they should get rid of it. The opinion was written by nixon. It would be a bi-partisan reform, just like the health law written by romney. Now how could they object to that?
@Republican5001 As soon as Harry Reid becomes the Speaker of the House, the man in charge of the branch of government that actually writes the budget in this country, maybe I will. Until then I'll call Boehner. As soon as Reid sets a record for filibustering maybe I'll call and complain to him about it as well. There is one party taht uses the tactic more than the other. In fact, far far more. It's not even close. Go ahead and blame Reid for it. It's not him doing it. You've got partisan blinders on and won't admit it.
It's about time to for Filibuster reform. It has become a joke. The GOP filibuster pretty much every thing. Last year minority leader Mitch McConnell even filibustered his own bill. Hopefully the republicans will be part of the process. If not reform it anyway.
I voted yes but I know this is not the way to go. But something has to be done to start this non-working Congress to work. The constant filibuster not because you are against the idea, but you are against anything that may be backed by the President.
Both parties make use of the Filibuster technique to stymie debate. They should both find incentive to either keep it or eliminate it. The Republican side is currently in the position to use it, so they will currently be more inclined to keep it. But times will change and the shoe will be on the other foot.
The problem isn't the filibuster, it is allowing the filing of a note threatening to filibuster to bring senate business to a halt. If someone wants to filibuster, they should actually be required to do so, not let them stop anything with the mere threat. Make em earn their pay, if a senator feels strongly enough to stand on the senate floor for their entire six year term to stop a piece of legislation, let em, but don't let em use the threat to stop senate business.
Let him go ahead and use it! Harry Reid has been the most partisan seperatist in recent history. His senate has'nt passed a budget yet,(for 4 years now) and over 450 bill's passed by the house over the past four years are sitting in his office, because of his hatred of republicans in the house. I say let these liberals do what they want, and in 4 years we can all start over, just a LOT deeper in debt. Hey!,....they won, so just let them proceed with their mandate. We'll find out how well it works. If it's anything like the last 4 years,......we already know the answer.
I don't think it it should be removed. If it is, then I believe an attached condition should be the requirement for Congress to vote yea or nay on every bill that comes to the floor. It seems like people are only against it whenever the party exercising the filibuster is not their own.
'Though (Republicans) mucked up opportunities to take over the Senate in 2010 and 2012, they have another opportunity in 2014, when Democrats will have 20 seats up for reelection and Republicans will be defending only 13. If the filibuster ends now, there's a real chance that the first party to benefit from a reformed Washington would be the Republicans. That should be a change they can believe in.'
I am completely opposed to this move. That being said, if Reid pulls this now, after 2014 we can get all kinds of Conservative legislation through the House and the Senate, forcing Obama to veto a lot of very popular legislation. Don't expect the Republicans to hold back if Reid pulls this off now.
As the article pointed out, that's not even a legal option. It was just mentioned before. Any law passed under those conditions would be overturned by the Supreme Court. Reid's head has gotten to big for his body and seems to have forgotten who he represents.
@BelinKS It also could jump up and bite him in the ass. When I was a kid a democrat in the senate read the phone book as a filibuster. What happens when the day comes his own party wants to use it and can't. This needs to be dealt with in a bipartisan way.
@BelinKS I agree it would be better if it was done in a bipartisan way. You are right that it could come back to bite the democrats. Unfortunately the use of the filibuster has become too commonplace. It used to be used for rare occasions. Now it is used to blaock nearly everything. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
I'm all in favor of making whoever wants to filibuster do it by standing on the senate floor and talking as long as they want. That's how they did it in the old days. That isn't asking for much. If you believe in your cause stand up on the Senate floor and defend it. Otherwise get out of the way.
@Russell797 If both the power parties can't agree on legislation, then it doesn't need to be passed any way. All the new legislation is payment for securing the politicians careers or to gain further control of the people though social engineering. If their not repealing laws, cutting spending or equalizing taxes, then I'd rather they did nothing.
Last I knew the filibuster stays you just have to actually filibuster. You have to stand and talk and when you're done the vote happens. This BS of "I don't like it so we can't vote" crap is making the senate worse then it would be anyways.