Resistance on Method for Curbing Filibusters

 

 

NY TIMES  JENNIFER STEINHAUER  Published: November 28, 2012

 

 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada knew he would anger Republicans when he threatened to change the rules of the Senate to make it harder for the minority to gum up legislation. But he is also running into resistance from fellow Democrats about the way those rules would be changed — essentially by ramming the changes through with 51 votes, rather than with the agreement of two-thirds of the Senate,...

 

I am very leery about changes to rules, except by the use of the rules,” said Senator Carl Levin, a veteran Democrat from Michigan, “and the rules require two-thirds of votes to change the rules. I prefer not to use a mechanism which I believe is dubious.”

 

For several years, Republicans have repeatedly pulled out a once rarely used weapon from the procedural arsenal — the filibuster — to eat up time on the Senate floor and stall or kill legislation offered by Democrats.

 

Mr. Reid is not seeking to end the filibuster entirely. Rather, he wants to prevent it from being used to prevent debates on bills, to block conference negotiations between the House and the Senate on legislation, and to force senators who long to filibuster to do it the old-fashioned way: by standing on the floor talking on and on, rather than by voting with colleagues to prevent debate and then skedaddling out of town.

 

Because Republicans are united in their dislike of the proposed changes, Mr. Reid would never get 67 votes — two-thirds of the Senate — to break a filibuster on the filibuster change. So he could instead avail himself of a controversial option that some proponents believe is available only on the first day of a new Congress and change those rules via majority rule, or 51 votes. Opponents insist that such a move would violate Senate rules.

 

A majority of Democrats, frustrated by what they say is the consistent and brazen abuse of the filibuster by Republicans, appear to support changes to the rules, and some believe they do not go far enough. But others, deeply aware that a majority party today can be the sad and lonely minority tomorrow, are not keen on playing the “nuclear option” card, with majority rule.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Harkin said he was not confident that the Democrats had the votes they needed to jam the changes through. “There are some Democrats who don’t want to change the way we do things around here,” he said. Other Democrats said that while they did not believe the votes were secure, they felt certain that their colleagues would come along if Republicans and Democrats could not come to an accommodation by the end of the year.

 

“I am an enthusiastic supporter of this,” said Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, reflecting the views of many Democrats. “There should always be the protection of minority rights, but at some point you have to show up or shut up.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Democrats argue that the filibuster has been increasingly used to block routine nominations, hold up Senate business and generally infuriate the majority, and that the rules must be tightened.

“The Judiciary Committee unanimously approves judges, yet those nominations come to the floor and we have people using a filibuster,” said Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii,...