Harry Reid: Filibuster Changes Will Take Place In January

[Kegler300]

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Keeping with his post-election pledge to reform the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday proffered that changes to the rules of the upper chamber will be made, leaving it up to Republicans if they would like to participate.

"There are discussions going on now [over filibuster reform], but I want to tell everybody here. I'm happy I've had a number of Republicans come to me, a few Democrats,” Reid told reporters Tuesday at his weekly press availability. “We're going to change the rules. We cannot continue in this way. I hope we can get something that the Republicans will work with us on.”

“But it won't be a handshake,” he added. “We tried that last time. It didn't work.”

Harry Reid was against the filibuster rule change before coming out for it. In 2005, when Republicans threatened to change the rules to weaken Senate Democrats, Reid was a vocal opponent.

“For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American,” said Reid in 2005, in response to Republicans wanting to change the rules. “The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can’t do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can’t do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...r-reform-attem

Harry Reid.jpg

[The Duke]

And then in the future he will say that the filibuster is an absolute necessity as soon as the R's get power in the senate again.

[Mountain Soldier]

From the Huffington Post:



Harry Reid was against the filibuster rule change before coming out for it. In 2005, when Republicans threatened to change the rules to weaken Senate Democrats, Reid was a vocal opponent.

“For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American,” said Reid in 2005, in response to Republicans wanting to change the rules. “The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can’t do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can’t do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...r-reform-attem

Harry Reid.jpg

Reid is a total ****ing hypocrite on this issue. I don't see how anyone on the left can deny that. He was against it when the Republicans wanted to get ANY JUDGE confirmed, but now he wants to change it because he's in power.

He's a total piece of ****.

[Safiel]

In the end, both parties have been 100% total hypocrites about this issue. Republicans were threatening it when they were in power. The situation is reversed and Democrats are moving on the issue and Republicans are complaining.

100% hypocrisy by both parties and I won't deny it for either side.

However, hypocrisy aside.

This is a reform that desperately needs to occur. Both parties have abused the filibuster and brought every aspect of the Senate to a crawl.

In the distant past, both parties were adults and the filibuster was usually reserved for heinous things like civil rights bills and anti-lynching bills. (sarcasm) Now Senators delay literally any and everything.

Don't care WHAT the motivation for this reform is, or if the people involved are hypocrites, they are. The reform NEEDS to happen regardless.

[mozysafe]

good, reform this ridiculous practice now when everyone hates everyone.

[Mountain Soldier]

good, reform this ridiculous practice now when everyone hates everyone.

Amazing how many liberals are in favor of this now as opposed to a few years ago...

[mozysafe]

Amazing how many liberals are in favor of this now as opposed to a few years ago...

yes. That is what happens. It's a ridiculous practice and it should have been reformed years ago.

[Mountain Soldier]

yes. That is what happens. It's a ridiculous practice and it should have been reformed years ago.

Thats not what we were hearing years ago from the liberals though... Only now when they're on the receiving end of it...

Total ****ing hypocrites.

What happened to the "rights of the minority" argument we were hearing back in the Bush years? Oh yeah, that's gone.

[25mm]

Disagree. If you can't get 60% of Senators to think something is a good thing to do, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

[mozysafe]

Thats not what we were hearing years ago from the liberals though... Only now when they're on the receiving end of it...

Total ****ing hypocrites.

What happened to the "rights of the minority" argument we were hearing back in the Bush years? Oh yeah, that's gone.

yes, hypocrites. And the GOPers who fight it are just as big of hypocrites since they were pushing for it in the Bush years. It doesn't matter. Reform is needed.

[Former Paratrooper]

What reform? Go back to the way it was supposed to be...an actual filibuster as portrayed by James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Based in part on an actual filibuster by Strom Thurmond if I remember correctly.

If a member wants to filibuster, when he takes the floor he must speak continuously, actually hold the floor. They showed one on the TV series "The West Wing" several years ago. It turned out the filibuster there was a good thing and other Senators came to help by asking questions, thereby allowing the filibusting Senator to take a drink and sit while the question was being asked.

Of course fictional TV, but it made the point.

[Mountain Soldier]

yes, hypocrites. And the GOPers who fight it are just as big of hypocrites since they were pushing for it in the Bush years. It doesn't matter. Reform is needed.

Like I said, only when they are on the receiving end of it do they want change.

[mozysafe]

Like I said, only when they are on the receiving end of it do they want change.

yes, it is pretty much an established fact that everyone involved in the filibuster debate is a hypocrite.

[MR. MISTER]

What reform? Go back to the way it was supposed to be...an actual filibuster as portrayed by James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Based in part on an actual filibuster by Strom Thurmond if I remember correctly.

Mr Smith Goes to Washington was made in 1939.

Strom Thurmond's filibuster was against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
[/QUOTE]

[indemiddle]

There is a good argument to be made that the minority with its obscene abuse pushed the majority over the edge.