Pelosi: End The Filibuster

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has some advice for her Senate counterparts: Try majority rule for a change. Pelosi, in an interview with the Huffington Post, called for an end to the filibuster, which she labeled "the 60-vote stranglehold on the future."

Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that "the Senate has to go to 51 votes, and not 60 votes."

The filibuster, which was not an original element of the Senate, has evolved over the body's history and has only recently become the upper chamber's standard operating procedure. The Senate was designed as a majority-rule institution that allowed for extended debate. Under the Constitution, the vice president is empowered to break 50-50 ties. Such a clause would be wildly out of place if the framers intended for a 60-percent majority to be required.

Senate Democrats are eying January as the time to reform the filibuster, when the Senate convenes a fresh Congress and votes to establish rules. New rules can be approved by a majority vote if the presiding officer, Vice President Joe Biden, allows the vote to go forward. Liberals in the Senate worked hard to reform the filibuster between the 1950s and 1970s, eventually succeeding in reducing the threshold from two-thirds to 60. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Rules Committee, is holding hearings looking into the future of Senate rules and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has endorsed some sort of reform.

Pelosi pressed the Senate to act, arguing that the threshold is preventing real reform and also obscures the differing visions of the two parties. Given a chance, said Pelosi, Democrats would transform the economy.

"There's something wrong with the idea that jobs are a justification for degradation of the society," said Pelosi. "Job creation is about something different than exploiting people, degrading the environment, all the rest of it, oil and coal, chop down trees so we have jobs and destroy the environment."

Getting from where the nation is to a sustainable place would require doing away with the filibuster, she said.

"It's very doable. It's just a decision. And one of the decisions that has to be made is that the Senate has to go to 51 votes and not 60 votes. Otherwise, we are totally at their mercy," she said. "Unfortunately, [the difference between the parties] is muddled by the fact that we have these majorities, we have the White House, and they demand 60 votes."

Pelosi said the prospect of Senate GOP obstruction hangs over progressive legislation like a pall, because conservative Democrats don't want to take a tough vote for a bill that won't become law. "I can get a great deal accomplished from my members -- we never lose -- but they get discouraged to do big spending bills, unpaid for, unless there's some thought that the Senate is going to do something... They don't really want to be target practice for all the people saying 'You're a big spender, big spender, big spender,' and nothing came from it," she said. "It has become like the ghost."

Comments

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

01:42 PM on 07/05/2010

BREAKING NEWS for Ryan Grim and HuffPost commenters:

There hasn't been AN ACTUAL FILIBUSTER in the United States Senate for something like twenty years.

FURTHER BREAKING NEWS for Ryan Grim and HuffPost commenters:

Actual filibusters - not to be confused with majority-filed CLOTURE MOTIONS (as Grim has confused them in this article) - may be FORCED by a Senate majority whenever it sees fit. NO RULE CHANGES of any kind needed. *Yes, the Senate Majority Leader's staff DID lead Grim down the garden path last year about that, as I trust he's discovered by now.*

That means that "51 votes" IS STILL THE STANDARD Senate rule for passage of both legislation and nominations, contrary to Nancy Pelosi's spin. UNLESS AND UNTIL an ACTUAL talk-on-your-feet filibuster breaks out by the minority in the Senate, in which case the majority would simply have to wait it out to pass their bill or nomination by 51 votes.

Instead, however, the DEMOCRATIC (majority) party regularly demands 60 votes, VOLUNTARILY, on cloture motions THEY'VE filed.

Although anyone who takes the word of Nancy Off-The-Table Pelosi about what's "Constitutional" or wise in this regard probably deserves to suffer the predictable consequences.

As for those who want the truth, rather than the party-serving spin of politicians grasping for ever more power, look around, it's out there:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/save-the-senate-bring-bac_b_414964.html

Americans should never be unwitting servants of power.

THINK, independently.

[Poboy]

02:18 PM on 07/04/2010

Here is the bottom line as it relates to how Republicans are using the filibuster in the Senate with the Democrats acquiescence:

They are using it to stop the will of the duly elected majority.

Here is how our democracy is suppose to work.

The Democrats present their proposal.

The Republicans present their alternative.

The one with the most votes wins.

By not presenting an alternative, to correct the problem, and stopping the will of the majority, the Republicans here revealed that they are anti-democratic.

The cats out of the bag.

Now deal with it.

[Eric Moss]

08:06 AM on 07/04/2010

Disagreement for the sake of disagreeing is nonproductive I have long been in favor of either party flexing muscle and making things happen. A stalemate arm wrestling match hurts those who are watching as much as those who are locked in grips. For the time being, the Dems have the control. Flex some muscle and DO SOMETHING that is not a party interest but benefits the people who have the real power: the voters. Major revolutions come from oppression and MISREPRESENTATION. It is high time for politics to step aside and for elected officials to do what is right for the public whatever the cost. This means jobs, this means immigration, this means equal human rights for ALL citizens. Rep. or Dem. it is time to think about "the people" and not the most recent polls or statistics.

[VadoRetro]

07:28 AM on 07/04/2010

my karmic fatwah against the nopublican senate plus nelson continues.

[oldguru]

04:26 PM on 07/03/2010

The filibuster served a purpose, but when its misuse has been so egregious it is time to alter the rules. Unfortunately, no change in the rules or new law will ever make the Republicans behave like honest people.

[friedfish2718]

10:15 PM on 07/03/2010

"The filibuster served a purpose,"
and you do not say what that purpose is.
Thomas Jefferson stated: "Delay is preferable to error."
and Congress in past 60 years or so made many errors. More filibusters should have been used in the past.

"but when its misuse has been so egregious"
in what way is its current use so egregious?
Thomas Jefferson stated: "I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Congress is full of know-nothing busybodies and the longer they debate the longer the common people holds to its freedom and property.

"it is time to alter the rules."
in what way? If anything, filibuster should be made more frequent and more vigorous.

"will ever make the Republicans behave like honest people."
Republicans are no more dishonest than Democrats. Goldman Sachs made more political contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. John Kerry and many Democrats are major holders in BP stock. Congress, when controlled by Democrats, produces more spending and incur greater national debt than when controlled by Republicans.

Thomas Jefferson :
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

[oldguru]

03:54 PM on 07/04/2010

Since this is not an 8th grade civics test, I will not bother to answer your questions as you asked them. Suffice it to say that if you are really unaware of the misuse of the filibuster by the Republican minority, then you are not politically astute enough to understand my post in the first place. Thomas Jefferson said many things. Your quotes depend very much on the contest in which they were said.

[carnelld]

03:58 PM on 07/03/2010

Pelosi is right. The Senate is mired in procedure that is benefitting the obstructionist Republicans. Harry Reid appears weak and disfunctional. They should remove the 60 vote requirement and get somethings done.

[trucker guy]

03:39 PM on 07/03/2010

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

the left can't BLAME BUSH FOR THE NEW TAXES.coming Jan 2011

[bannorhill]

05:45 PM on 07/05/2010

That will really kill any chance of ending the recession soon.

[DUSAA-1775]

02:19 PM on 07/03/2010

Perhaps before pelosi lectures the senate on not doing their job, she could shut her pie hole and pass the budget...that is her constitutional function.

[iisguy]

12:39 PM on 07/03/2010

YES. For gods sake. Lets govern this country as a demacrocy. Majority rules. When they minority filibusters everything just cause they can and then uses no progress as a political talking point, that abuse. If repos are going to change the playbook, its time to change the rules.

[webandgraphics]

10:40 AM on 07/03/2010

Where was all this anti filibuster campaigning 4 years ago? How about cutting some spending?

[CaptainObvvious]

03:11 PM on 07/03/2010

Cutting or freezing spending is going to destroy the economy.

We're drowning and you're arguing over the cost of the life preserver... Maybe we can't afford the life preserver but we can figure that out when the water isn't over our heads.

[American Person]

11:17 AM on 07/04/2010

Where was all the cutting the spending four years ago?

[bmike]

09:22 AM on 07/03/2010

repub only want to stop progress.they are the ones that made it like it is and it wasn't a accident so why would they want to change it.they don't even want us to talk about who cause the problem.

[DrBlunt]

09:05 AM on 07/03/2010

NowwWWW I HEAR YA BARKIN' BIG DOG ! ! !

;->P'

[John Ison]

07:56 AM on 07/03/2010

The tie breaker clause for the VP tells it all - the fillibuster is plainly unconstitutional - The Senate has always been an elitest institution and these ego driven - mostly wealthy - power hungry members feel that their individual importance is so superior that they don't have to yield to democratic principals. I think placing a time limit of 36 to 48 hours of additional debate allowed through fillibuster only to occur once on any piece of legislation and then the only option for ending debate or voting up or down based on a simple majority would be a logical step. This would allow only one opportunity to slow the process for review and then work could proceed. The original purpose of the fillibuster was only to slow the process in order to insure all sides were heard - not to kill the process and it is used now.

[txgrandpa6]

08:10 PM on 07/09/2010

Finally a well thought-out argument concerning the filibuster. Fanned and faved. The alternative you propose is fantastic and well thought-out. Thank-you for putting some logic into this partisan argument.

[Truth Wins]

07:45 AM on 07/03/2010

Ah, finally! If Nancy Pelosi advocates it, it will be reality in January 2011. Good to know!!!

[Malron Jett]

01:00 AM on 07/03/2010

Yes, very much this. Thank you Madame Speaker.