IMAGINE THE SENATE if a filibuster meant a senator actually had to filibuster.
For years, critics of the filibuster have failed to convince senators to change the procedural delaying tactic. Now they’re taking their case to the courts.
The nonpartisan nonprofit Common Cause sued the U.S. Senate on Monday, challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster rules that require routine 60-vote thresholds for bills and nominations that often have majority support. Several House Democrats and three undocumented students who would be aided by the so-called DREAM Act also joined the suit.
Representatives John Lewis, Hank Johnson, both Georgians, and Michael Michaud (Maine), Keith Ellison (Minnesota) are named as plaintiffs. Two students are as well, claiming they have been denied a path to citizenship, because of a filibuster rule that left the DREAM Act short, with a simple majority of 55 votes in the Senate not being enough for passage, after it passed in the House, because 60 votes is standard Senate procedure.
John Lewis is playing hero again, with Keith Ellison always in the mix when the going gets rough.
I’ve got three words: Go Common Cause.
Yes!
It is sad that the filibuster has been so corrupted by the republicans. In years past it has come in handy for democrats trying to prevent the confirmation of extreme right wing candidates to the court. I fear democrats, progressives and liberals will rue the day that it was eliminated. If possible it would certainly have been better to reform it in such a way as to prevent it from freezing the government. I do agree that things would be a lot different if the lazy slobs were forced to filibuster in person, like the good old days.
It’s about fracking time!!! If someone wants to filibuster fine…STAND IN THE WELL OF THE SENATE AND FILIBUSTER! And as soon as they collapse have the fracking vote.
Good luck to the plaintiffs. I suspect they’ll need it.
Senate rules can be changed at the start of every session. Once again, the Democrats failed to amend the rules when they had the chance. While the GOP has exploited the filibuster rules, the Democrats have had the opportunity three times now since they first regained the Senate back in 2006 to change this. They have declined, preferring to hold onto their own individual power, I imagine.
The founding fathers were wise in creating two legislative bodies and any legislation would have to pass both houses. The purpose of creating the Senate in the Consitution was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That’s why every state has two senators. Wyoming and Delaware with small populations, less than 500,000 population have only one House representative but have the same two senators that states like Calfornia with its 57 million inhabitants.
Harry Reid would never have repealed the filibuster rule in the senate last year. The GOP won the house and all it would take to pass GOP House legislation into law would be for the Senate to grab a handful of moderate or conservative Democratic senators to pass house passed legislation.
With a senate filibiuster rule, a President Romny and a GOP controlled house and Senate would leave the senate as the only roadblock to the tyranny of the majority. Be careful what you wish for. All the Democratic passed LGBT and womens rights legislation and executive orders issued by the President would be rolled back. It would mean a 5th activist conservative Supreme Court justice would be appointed and the first law on the supreme courts agenda would be the repeal of Roe v Wade.
A senate filibuster rule would make Harry Reid the sole person with the power to stop the passing of the Ryan Budget which would repeal Medicare and Medicaid and turn social security and Medicare over to the insurance industry.
Obama and democrats should make this a issue in the up coming election. This is a winner for democrats and the white house, if they only have the balls to push it.