Bayh's unexpected support for filibuster reform

[one...two...tree 2,762]

With renewed interest in reforming the way the Senate does business, it's encouraging to see support from an unexpected corner: the one Democratic senator who seems to have the spotlight all to himself this week.

The Senate should reform the filibuster as a way to end partisan gridlock, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said today.

Bayh, who cited partisanship and incivility as reasons for his retirement, said the filibuster has been used by the Republican minority too frequently.

"Now it's being routinely used to frustrate even low level presidential appointees," Bayh told MSNBC.... The Indiana Democrats said it may be time to lower that to 55.

"It's just brought the process to a halt and the public is suffering," Bayh said.

Good for Bayh. Indeed, asked specifically whether the rules can be changed before his retirement, the Indiana senator added, "I think it can happen," adding, "The public has a right to see its business done and not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country. I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed."

A pleasant surprise, to be sure, especially after Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) disappointing comments earlier.

It's often forgotten, but the Senate has altered this threshold before. Before 1975, it took 67 votes to end debate and allow an up-or-down vote. Faced with the prospect of never passing anything, the number was lowered to 60.

Now we're once again faced with a minority shutting down the legislative process. I'd prefer to see the filibuster disappear altogether, but lowering the threshold to 55 votes, as Bayh suggests, seems like a reasonable compromise.

What's more, given Bayh's reputation and media adoration, his support for reforming the dysfunctional status quo has the capacity to make a difference. If Bayh is known for being a leading "moderate" who's tired of "both parties" and "partisanship" -- and he is -- then his support for changing the filibuster rules characterizes reform as a necessary, mainstream idea that will help improve how the Senate does business.

link

[scandal 951]

More power to him.

But... won't it take a Supermajority vote (60+) to change the filibuster rules regarding supermajorities?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More power to him.

But... won't it take a Supermajority vote (60+) to change the filibuster rules regarding supermajorities?

Yep... 67 votes actually. However, Senator Harkin is bringing this forward to engage public debate. Polls have shown American voters are increasingly frustrated with the ineffectiveness of Congress to enact legislation.

[scandal 951]

Yep... 67 votes actually. However, Senator Harkin is bringing this forward to engage public debate. Polls have shown American voters are increasingly frustrated with the ineffectiveness of Congress to enact legislation.

You don't say! Can you imagine a poll showing anyone is actually happy with the Beltway Boogie?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You don't say! Can you imagine a poll showing anyone is actually happy with the Beltway Boogie?

LOL...well, there is a certain sect of the American public who embrace the notion that government is pretty much incapable of doing anything good...and are more than happy to be proven right.

[Pooky 3,930]

Here's a question.

The original threshold was 67 votes, but this was too high to reach.

So the threshold was lowered to 60 votes, and, even with that number of representatives in the Senate, the Democrats couldn't pass legislation.

Do you think that lowering the threshold to 55 votes is going to make a difference? How much did Harry Reid have to give away in the "healthcare" reform bill to get close to garnering all 60 votes within his own caucus?

The root of the problem is not the number of votes necessary to overcome opposition to legislation, it is the partisan, confrontational attitude exhibited by both sides, basically daring the other to vote in opposition. When this diviseness can be overcome, the filibuster will fade to a non-issue. If that takes the removal of every sitting member of Congress, then so be it.

But changing the rules to make the game easier to win is a typically American way of dealing with a problem. And it rarely has the result intended.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Pooky

[scandal 951]

Here's a question.

The original threshold was 67 votes, but this was too high to reach.

So the threshold was lowered to 60 votes, and, even with that number of representatives in the Senate, the Democrats couldn't pass legislation.

Do you think that lowering the threshold to 55 votes is going to make a difference? How much did Harry Reid have to give away in the "healthcare" reform bill to get close to garnering all 60 votes within his own caucus?

The root of the problem is not the number of votes necessary to overcome opposition to legislation, it is the partisan, confrontational attitude exhibited by both sides, basically daring the other to vote in opposition. When this diviseness can be overcome, the filibuster will fade to a non-issue. If that takes the removal of every sitting member of Congress, then so be it.

But changing the rules to make the game easier to win is a typically American way of dealing with a problem. And it rarely has the result intended.

I generally agree with most of what you wrote. I agree pretty much entirely with the part I put in bold.

However, for the record, I do want to point out:

http://www.senate.gov/

There are three ways of voting in the Senate:

• A roll call vote occurs when each senator votes "Yea" or "Nay" as his or her name is called by the clerk, who records the votes on a tally sheet. A roll call vote must be taken if requested by one-fifth of a quorum of senators. Typically, a simple majority is required for a measure to pass. In the case of a tie, the vice president (president of the Senate) casts the tie breaking vote. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn is typically required to invoke cloture. To invoke cloture on a change in Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required.

In a few instances, the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, including: expelling a senator; overriding a presidential veto; adopting a proposed constitutional amendment; convicting an impeached official; and consenting to ratification of a treaty.

Constitutionally, the Senate does not require a two-thirds majority to pass straightforward legislation, a simply majority of 51 will do just fine.

The problem is the Senate Rules, which are not part of the Constitution, and the conventions that have grown up around filibuster and cloture in those rules. Most of the blame for that sordid history can be laid at the feet of segregationist southern Democrats from the Civil War to the Civil Rights era, who resisted every attempt at civil rights passage.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yep... 67 votes actually. However, Senator Harkin is bringing this forward to engage public debate. Polls have shown American voters are increasingly frustrated with the ineffectiveness of Congress to enact legislation.

You don't say! Can you imagine a poll showing anyone is actually happy with the Beltway Boogie?

I am. We the people are better off when the bastards are in gridlock arguing with each other and not f*cking things up even more.

[scandal 951]

You don't say! Can you imagine a poll showing anyone is actually happy with the Beltway Boogie?

I am. We the people are better off when the bastards are in gridlock arguing with each other and not f*cking things up even more.

Ok, fair enough. Let me rephrase that. Can you imagine a poll showing ANYONE BUT A GECKO who is actually happy with the Beltway Boogie?