Durbin Launches Online Petition To Reform The Filibuster

The second ranking Democrat in the United States Senate is trying to fire up efforts to reform the filibuster rules that so often grind activity in his chamber to a halt.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has launched an online petition titled "Fed Up With The Filibuster" in which he urges readers to show their support for a legislative remedy to the 60-vote requirement.

"The American people are sick of process blocking progress," Durbin writes on the page. "They're fed up with an arbitrary tradition that allows a minority of Senators to prevent popular, much-needed legislation from even coming to a vote."

"Frankly, so am I."

Durbin goes on to back a proposal being put forth by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), which would allow the minority party to filibuster legislation but gradually reduce the threshold for cloture until it was a simple majority vote. Other suggestions put forth by Senate Democrats involve permanently lowering the threshold to 55 votes -- or simply re-writing the chamber's rules at the beginning of the next Congress.

Durbin's move comes in contrast to Majority Leader Harry Reid's dismissal of precisely such a an effort. Meanwhile, the Obama White House, with which the Illinois Democrat is closely allied, has refused for weeks to answer simple questions about whether or not they are talking with senators about these efforts.

Comments

[socialjustice4achange]

03:14 PM on 03/01/2010

The problem with the filibuster is that the 1975 senate rules took the offensiveness out of it. The senators of old had to have the guts to stand in front of the senate and continually talk. This isn't offensive to anybody. A faceless political party declares that there is a filibuster, and that is enough to have made the filibuster effective. The filibustering senator needs to be made to stand behind the call for filibuster by standing in front of the senate and talking. That filibuster should be going on while C-Span cameras roll. The filibuster should be going on while the senator's constituents get to watch and judge for themselves how well their interests are being served.
Harry Reid, as majority leader, has the authority to make the filibuster require speeches. He needs to use this authority. Once he does, Bunning can be portrayed as one of the elite of Kentucky who gets his health care for free. Until the democratic leadership makes the filibuster speeches happen, we will continue to confuse objection with obstruction. Let those who don't like the pending legislation voice their objections and make them visible for doing so.

[FilthyHarry]

12:27 AM on 03/01/2010

I support Dems making repubs ACTUALLY filibuster instead of caving every time a repub says "Fillibu-" Beyond that do we REALLY want to get rid of the fillibuster and then deal with the consequences the next time the repubs have a majority?

[kedikat]

08:03 PM on 02/28/2010

At least force them to actually perform the filibuster.
All they do now is threaten it. Make them actually do it, for all to see.
Make them work at it. That is the minimum, till the stupid thing is reformed.

[Osusuki]

10:10 AM on 02/28/2010

The filibuster should have gone the way of the dodo the second it became the last defense of the corrupt, incompetent GOP minority whose favorite weapon in the war of obstruction it has become. This senate rule is an agreement for gentlemen. Names, titles, and protestations to the contrary, there are few if any gentlemen left in this senate. Therefore, the usefulness of the rule has ended. It has become an albatross hung around the neck of the American people.

Depending on whether their actions of the past decade are treasonable or merely insane, we should be hauling GOP legislators out in handcuffs or straight jackets, and handing them over to the appropriate authorities for incarceration or commitment as required. Unfortunately, there are protections in place to prevent this. I'm not even sure it's possible, but forcing the repeal of this useless senate rule by any means available would be a far better way to go.

[keepemhonest]

08:44 AM on 02/28/2010

Can't they make a rule that no minority can have 112 filibusters in 1 legislative year?

[kathy001]

07:24 PM on 02/28/2010

I think that approach is a much better idea. But I'd put it at 25 rather than 112.

[D-V-H]

10:54 PM on 02/27/2010

I am not inclined to abolish the filibuster altogether.

A better way might be to limit the number of filibusters any Senator may invoke. Perhaps 1 or 2 bills and 5-10 amendments per year. This would give proportional ability to the minority to block legislation they TRULY thought egregious. The more members the minority had the more they would be able to block and vice versa.
As it stands now the minority has unlimited power to derail anything and everything. That is antithetical to the process of governance. It must stop! The abuse of Senate rules has lead to an untenable situation. Whereby the history of the filibuster has been to see MAYBE 5-10% of bills filibustered, we are now seeing EIGHTY PERCENT of all legislation being blocked in the Senate.

[keepemhonest]

08:42 AM on 02/28/2010

I just wish they would make those who use the Filibuster to actually stand up and talk, talk, talk, .... right now they have a lazy man's Filibuster - which in reality - is NOT even a Filibuster.

[kathy001]

07:26 PM on 02/28/2010

I agree.

[Michael Valentine]

07:49 PM on 02/28/2010

Yep, but it must seem not very gentleman like to make these fossils do a damned thing.

[talkitreal]

09:07 PM on 02/27/2010

All must ask -- what happens when the Republicans become the majority again -- and there is bo filibuster to stop them from overturing ever law they do not like?

What then !

[keepemhonest]

08:43 AM on 02/28/2010

Which is why I prefer that they make those who use the Filibuster to actually stand up and talk, talk, talk, .... right now they have a lazy man's Filibuster - which in reality - is NOT even a Filibuster.

[kathy001]

07:26 PM on 02/28/2010

Exactly! I believe that there should be some restrictions placed, but I don't want to see it abolished.

[tacevad]

08:32 PM on 02/27/2010

the filibuster has a place in our government but taking advantage of it does not! A simple rule change to make those using it show just cause for their action would do the trick, especially by making video of their reasons available to the opposition candidate for their job.

[xlntcat]

06:57 AM on 02/28/2010

Actually, the tax payer is being held hostage because of a Treat to filibuster. No one actually filibusters. Maybe Dem Senators need to earn their salaries and force the GOP to filibuster live on TV.

[middleoftheroad]

01:55 PM on 02/27/2010

This is so silly. Like any republican is going to vote for this with such a radical progressive house!

[chriss0114]

03:16 PM on 02/27/2010

despite the senate "rules," it only takes a simple majority to change or get rid of them

there is a rule that it takes (I think) 80 votes but the so-called "nuclear option" is a simple majority to change them and that is truly what it takes

this would put the senate BACK to where it was as intended with the writers of the Constitution which says a simple majority with the VP casting a tie-breaking vote it one occurs to pass legislation

with the abuse (which is also forbidden by the rules although not clearly defined) that has occurred it is time to dump those rules

[Irmanator]

03:45 PM on 02/27/2010

Right except that it takes 2/3 (=67) votes to change the senate rules mid-session. At the beginning of a session (e.g. 2011) the rules can be changed with a simple majority.
The "nuclear option" is the application of an argument that the consitution only requires a simple majority in the senate and therefore, the filibuster is unconstitional. This is what the Republicans threatened to do when the Democrats were fillibustering Bush's appointment choices for judge vacancies.

[xlntcat]

06:58 AM on 02/28/2010

No necessary for GOP to vote on this. Attach it to a spending bill and use reconciliation in the same irresponsible way that the criminal GOP Senators have used the filibuster.

[rivercitidaniel]

11:17 AM on 02/27/2010

Always a day late and a dollar short...Where the hell has he been for six months? Singing Kumbaya in the halls of congress?

[sski74]

04:06 PM on 02/28/2010

Are you kidding? Dick Durbin has been VERY active on moving health care and other new bills forward. He has been a very vocal member of the Senate. You have to pick and choose your battles at the RIGHT time...not just go gang busters like a bull in a China shop. We're at a point where there is a quiet time where this is absolutely appropriate. I'd rather see it now than never!

[KentuckyBabe2010]

06:11 AM on 02/27/2010

….the latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans oppose short-circuiting the legislative process through reconciliation tactics.

The screaming self-serving hypocrisy of these sub-human libs is beyond description.

However, I would favor this: Filibusters should be returned to where the minority has to actually physically perform the act. No more “mail-in” filibusters; they must be the real thing.

[Bardmess]

03:10 PM on 02/27/2010

1. The reconciliation process is part of the legislative process.

2. Huh? I thought we were 'bleeding hearts" Now we're "self-serving." Actually, we're both. I'm self-serving enough to want single payer health care, and a bleeding heart that wants it to be universal, including, even for you. Of course you could be free to choose Blue Cross for $1500 (and rising) a month, if you've got that kind of money.( oh, but then I'd want you to be paying your fair share of taxes.)

[alfo]

06:52 PM on 02/27/2010

JUST ANOTHER POLL QUOTER AS THE NUMBERS SUIT THEIR AGENDA,DURBIN SIGN THE BENNETT LETTER & I'LL SIGN YOUR PETITION. YOU DON'T NEED THIS PETITION,USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION A SIMPLE UP OR DOWN VOTE & BTW IT'S DIFFERENT FROM RECONCILIATION,THE LIE REPBS WERE PUSHING.BEWARE OF LIARS IN RED & BLUE.

[RightwingDemocrat]

09:25 PM on 02/26/2010

Is it true that one Senator is all it takes to threaten a filibuster? What if the rule was: 60% of those representing the minority party needed to physically participate in a filibuster for it to be invoked? Would that change anything?

[RightwingDemocrat]

09:20 PM on 02/26/2010

Am unfamiliar with the details of how a filibuster works, but it would seem the filibuster itself is fine as it stands. What I'm disappointed in is how infrequent Senators who threaten to use it are pushed to follow through.

Anyone know why this is so?

[Ifticar2]

09:24 PM on 02/26/2010

It is about getting things done. If they had a real filibuster then all Senate work comes to a stop. The generally does not serve either party.

[istvan13]

09:21 AM on 02/27/2010

The rules for filibuster were changed, now all it takes is a threat to filibuster. There is no actual stand up filibuster required. This is a Senate rule, and is not part of the constitution. The filibuster has been used by the republican'ts to stop governing. The problem is that it was used for almost all bills last year.

The filibuster allows the minority to stop the majority and that is not what this government was founded on.

[Bardmess]

03:12 PM on 02/27/2010

Unfortunately the Senate was founded on just that principle. Our Founding Fathers were not the saints we've made them out to be, but they were very rich and very smart.

[DannyGee]

08:21 PM on 02/26/2010

pure political posturing. durbin and all the democrats know they will one day be in the minority and won't touch the filibuster.

[Debbie Pries]

07:21 PM on 02/26/2010

I'm for getting rid of the fillabuster rule for both parties and go with a 51 majority vote. No one party should have the power to hold up over 291 bills that have been already passed in the house. They are hurting the security of this country. The only reason they are doing this is political. It has nothing to do with policy. They hope the democrats and the President get nothing done this term and then they will run on that in 2012. They need to except the fact that the dems won the in 2008 and their party is now the minority.

[Bardmess]

03:14 PM on 02/27/2010

The GOP represents the wealthy extractors of natural and human resources. They are out to pillage the world, as so far they've been very successful. Minority control over majority rule is one of their most powerful weapons.