# Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513 "2012-11-09T19:46:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/281 "2013-11-23T19:10:04Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That link goes nowhere. And I’m quite sure that you have not discussed the House, which is the heart of my question. Actually, it does go somewhere: it’s your post #264, in a Reply box. That’s it. Not sure how that answers your question, needless to say. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/282 "2013-11-23T19:24:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That link goes nowhere. And I’m quite sure that you have not discussed the House, which is the heart of my question. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16868582&postcount=153](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16868582&postcount=153) And House is a different matter than the “nuclear option” being discussed in this thread. You want to discuss that, start a thread. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/283 "2013-11-23T20:46:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It was a huge bill. and they determined that even with some/many of the amendments they made in it, the overall bill was still something they couldn’t feel they supported. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. And keep in mind, one of the reason they didn’t vote for it in the very end is that it was rushed through. They should have taken a pause after all the amendments they were going to allow were in it, then given people 2 weeks to read the full 2,300-page bill. Oh give me a fucking break, the “rushed through” bullshit is the most transparently false sort of fox news talking point created out of thin air. The endless debates and parliamentary battles were in the news for months and months. The Republicans were asked for their input a thousand times, trying to come to some sort of bipartisan solution that would be acceptable to both sides. The Republicans tried to hamstring it and then voted against it anyway. It’s just a convenient, representative example. The Republicans have made it a goal to obstruct and otherwise impair government in any way they can. I have no idea how you apologists can seriously pretend that the extremely obvious isn’t true. You don’t deserve to have a place in the discussion if you can’t even acknowledge what would be obvious to anyone. You’re Baghdad Bob saying “American troops? What American troops? They’re not even on this continent!” as tanks roll up behind him. > [@](#): > > And where we are now with the abomination that is Obamacare shows that that that would have been a good thing to do. Oh, I know, what a collosal fuckup. A website launch was botched, so some people may not end up being able to get access to health care that they should’ve. Instead, we should’ve scrapped the whole idea and made sure that none of those people could get access to health care. That would be the best outcome, clearly. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/284 "2013-11-23T21:06:21Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16868582&postcount=153](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16868582&postcount=153) > > And House is a different matter than the “nuclear option” being discussed in this thread. You want to discuss that, start a thread. No, it’s not. Period. This action wasn’t precipitated solely by the actions of the Republicans in the Senate, it was a reaction to what the Republicans have done with _Congress_. They are not separable. You’ve been told repeatedly that you are cherry picking numbers and actions in your posts and this is an additional reason why your argument comes across as false and hypocritical. The omission of what the House has done is conspicable by its absence, and the failure to address it keeps growing until it overshadows everything else you say. Your argument boils down to heads we win, tails you lose. You hate the idea that the coin might have two equal sides. We understand why you want it that way, but you have to understand why we’re laughing at your insisting upon it as a serious political or philosophical proposition. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/285 "2013-11-23T21:35:09Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Oh give me a fucking break, the “rushed through” bullshit is the most transparently false sort of fox news talking point created out of thin air. You have a MASSIVE bill, one that affects one sixth of the economy, Don’t you think it’s worth reading the final version with all the changes, mark-ups and amendments in place? And let me turn the question to you: what would have been the downside of doing that? Senators would merely have been placing a more informed vote, right? And isn’t that a _good_ thing? > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Oh, I know, what a collosal fuckup. A website launch was botched, so some people may not end up being able to get access to health care that they should’ve. Instead, we should’ve scrapped the whole idea and made sure that none of those people could get access to health care. That would be the best outcome, clearly. No. We should have come up with another plan. I agree something had to be done. But you do the easy stuff first: tort reform, allowing insurance to be purchased over state lines, expanding health savings accounts, putting an end to, . Doing all those things would have improved the situation and made health insurance more affordable. That would have reduced the number of uninsured. And if we could get the number of uninsured down small enough, the problem we originally faced might have been a much easier problem to solve. One that wouldn’t require such a massive change to an entire industry that people depend on. And you know, what, if all those things were tweaked and they didn’t make a big enough dent, THEN you’d have stronger ground to stand on arguing for a change as drastic as what we have now. Or maybe even a greater change. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/286 "2013-11-23T21:53:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You have a MASSIVE bill, one that affects one sixth of the economy, Don’t you think it’s worth reading the final version with all the changes, mark-ups and amendments in place? You’ve been working on your great American novel. Right before your deadline, you change the name of a background character to Steve. You change the town the protagonist stops at in chapter 15 to Millwood. You alter the spelling of the protagonist’s high school. Question: Do you have to re-read the whole novel? > [@](#): > > And let me turn the question to you: what would have been the downside of doing that? Senators would merely have been placing a more informed vote, right? And isn’t that a _good_ thing? It was a political necessity, because the GOP refused to give a single vote, because they’re more interested in hurting Obama than helping Americans. > [@](#): > > No. We should have come up with another plan. I agree something had to be done. But you do the easy stuff first: tort reform Saves less than 2 % of health care spending. And when the doctors amputate the wrong leg, you have limits to what you can sue for. > [@](#): > > allowing insurance to be purchased over state lines This means that the state with the lowest regulations would get all the insurance companies. States lines only works if you have strong national regulations. Like Obamacare does. > [@](#): > > expanding health savings accounts Health savings accounts don’t help the poor. Or the middle class for that matter. > [@](#): > > , putting an end to, . Doing all those things would have improved the situation and made health insurance more affordable. That would have reduced the number of uninsured. And if we could get the number of uninsured down small enough, the problem we originally faced might have been a much easier problem to solve. One that wouldn’t require such a massive change to an entire industry that people depend on. You are factually wrong. > [@](#): > > And you know, what, if all those things were tweaked and they didn’t make a big enough dent, THEN you’d have stronger ground to stand on arguing for a change as drastic as what we have now. Or maybe even a greater change. Yeah, sure. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/287 "2013-11-23T21:59:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You have a MASSIVE bill, one that affects one sixth of the economy, Don’t you think it’s worth reading the final version with all the changes, mark-ups and amendments in place? > > And let me turn the question to you: what would have been the downside of doing that? Senators would merely have been placing a more informed vote, right? And isn’t that a _good_ thing? The downside would be that it would never get passed because it was obstructed by parliamentary tricks and a there was a timetable to use those same tricks to pass it. You’re right, if there was a well-meaning opposition who wanted what was best for the country and sincerely wanted to come to a reasonable solution that everyone could agree upon, then yes, more debate could’ve been useful. The democrats invited the republicans to play along at every stage of the bill, to contribute or make proposals. The republicans gave up their position as being the well-meaning, loyal opposition and instead decided that they would simply oppose anything the democrats tried to do, even if they thought it would be for the best. What actually happens clearly shows that the republicans were unwilling to budge at all, which is consistent with their post-2008 strategy, which is to obstruct, hold the country hostage for the people who’ve bought them (the debt ceiling “crisis” is amongst the most disgusting political acts in American history), and just generally try to make government fail so they can swoop in and say “see, government doesn’t work! Bring back the Gilded age!” The Republican counter-proposal during the long lead up to health care reform was a 1 page outline of generic talking points with no specific plans whatsoever. Do you remember that big reveal? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/288 "2013-11-23T22:41:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No, it’s not. Period. This action wasn’t precipitated solely by the actions of the Republicans in the Senate, it was a reaction to what the Republicans have done with _Congress_. They are not separable. Because you claim so. I say they are. In fact, it’s kinda funny to watch Democrats twist themselves into pretzels trying at the same time to claim that ramming things down Republican throats in the Senate by 51% is a “return to democracy” while Republicans doing the 51% in the House is “intransigence” and “obstruction”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/289 "2013-11-23T23:11:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because you claim so. I say they are. In fact, it’s kinda funny to watch Democrats twist themselves into pretzels trying at the same time to claim that ramming things down Republican throats in the Senate by 51% is a “return to democracy” while Republicans doing the 51% in the House is “intransigence” and “obstruction”. Out here in reality, we’re the ones accusing you of this position. You’re the one who is saying there’s something wrong with the Democrats using a simple majority while refusing to mention the Republicans’ use of it. You can’t, of course: it utterly destroys every argument you’ve made. Here it is, as simple as possible in another food metaphor. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Try to wiggle out of that. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/290 "2013-11-23T23:24:48Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > while Republicans doing the 51% in the House is “intransigence” and “obstruction”. Because, as shown by the shut-down, it isn’t 51% of the house. The votes to pass the budget bill were there. The press actually showed that to be the case a week before the shutdown. But because the majority of the majority party (read, a minority of all voting members) wouldn’t vote for it, they refused to let it see the light of day. Yes, a MINORITY of the members of the House of Representatives held up the Business of Government and refused to allow the MAJORITY to pass a bill. And you’re just angry because they can no longer play the same game in the Senate. Govern or go home. As simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/291 "2013-11-23T23:31:35Z")
Obama was elected, that carries with it that the public entrusts him with certain privileges. Among them is selecting his executive branch leaders, who are delegated the authority vested in him by that same election. That power has the appropriate check, the Senate capacity to “advise and consent”. That is the power to inspect the choice for, say, the head of the Consumer Protection Agency and approve. The Senate is traditionally expected to approve the President’s choice as a civic courtesy, an expression of respect for the choice the people have made. The filibuster has an appropriate role as well, it is an expression of extreme dismay, it is, by design, political theater. It is a protest, and is best applied as such, an effort by a minority of Senators to have their views heard and noted. Not, repeat, not a means by which the minority of the Senate may frustrate and veto the majority will. And this so called “nuclear option” applies only to that small segment of power, the approval of nominees that the President is entitled to make. It does not affect the Senate’s power of the approval of treaties, it does not have a bearing on legislation. It doesn’t even effect a nomination to the Supreme Court! I have no objection to demonstrations of dismay and even political theater, most of politics is theater, to one degree or another. But the script is already written, and it was written by the consent of the governed. If Obama decides to stage _Hamlet_, and the Congress has already approved, it is not the privilege of a minority in the Senate to refuse to cast an actor in the title role. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/292 "2013-11-23T23:46:03Z")
A word from [Alexander Hamilton](http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm): > [@](#): > > ``` > To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.… The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. > > In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. > > Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy. > > ``` What he said. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/293 "2013-11-23T23:47:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re the one who is saying there’s something wrong with the Democrats using a simple majority while refusing to mention the Republicans’ use of it. You can’t, of course: it utterly destroys every argument you’ve made. You are misrepresenting what I said. I said that using simple majority when confirming judicial appointments that are there for life and cannot be removed later is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/294 "2013-11-23T23:50:17Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Because, as shown by the shut-down, it isn’t 51% of the house. The votes to pass the budget bill were there. The press actually showed that to be the case a week before the shutdown. The press “shows” a lot of stuff. The important numbers are when there is an actual vote. > [@](#): > > And you’re just angry because they can no longer play the same game in the Senate. Democrats, by killing the filibuster for the judicial appointments, just guaranteed complete trench warfare and utter deadlock for the foreseeable future. > [@](#): > > Govern or go home. As simple as that. Sure. Go ahead, Democrats. Govern or go home. And stop whining. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/295 "2013-11-23T23:54:09Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Govern or go home. As simple as that. The formulation I prefer is “lead, follow, or get out of the way,” but it’s the same idea. The people have denied to them the right to lead (thank goodness), but they believe they have some sort of divine right to call the shots anyway. So instead of following or getting out of the way, they gum up the works in the hope (too often rewarded back in recent years) that the frustrated majority, in Hamilton’s words, “in order that something may be done, [will] conform to the views of the minority.” ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/296 "2013-11-24T00:01:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Go ahead, Democrats. Govern or go home. And stop whining. They will be, now that they put the brats in time-out. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/297 "2013-11-24T00:04:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Democrats, by killing the filibuster for the judicial appointments, just guaranteed complete trench warfare and utter deadlock for the foreseeable future. So you’re saying the behavior of the Republicans in Congress will remain unchanged. Got it. > [@](#): > > Sure. Go ahead, Democrats. Govern or go home. And stop whining. Dems are in fact doing their best to govern, subject to the limits of a screwy system. Getting rid of one of those limits, as they have just done, will aid their ability to govern. Here’s one simple thing Obama can do now that he couldn’t have dared to do a week ago: he can request the resignations of officials whose performance he isn’t happy with. Last week, he couldn’t fire anyone because he had no way of knowing when or if he could bring a replacement on board. Now he can do that. You have to be able to do that sort of thing to govern. So saying “govern or go home” when your party is depriving the Executive Branch of a necessary tool of governing is disingenuous at best. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/298 "2013-11-24T00:09:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Democrats, by killing the filibuster for the judicial appointments, just guaranteed complete trench warfare and utter deadlock for the foreseeable future. So, the status quo is preserved? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/299 "2013-11-24T00:38:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So, the status quo is preserved? If a filibuster falls in a forest and the GOP doesn’t change, does anybody really give a damn? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513/300 "2013-11-24T01:14:26Z")
As odd as it might seem, let me enlist Harry Reid himself to argue for not exercising the nuclear option:tics/Sen-Harry-Reid-s-Filibuster-Floor-Speech"[Harry Reid himself to argue for not exercising the nuclear option:](http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/05/18/097/40350/otherpolitics/Sen-Harry-Reid-s-Filibuster-Floor-Speech) > [@](#): > > The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. > > Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times. Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees. > > The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules. > > In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.” > > In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate - and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively. > > Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances. > > - 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule. > - 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business. > > \ > > And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. > > It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules. And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances. > > Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties. > > \ > > Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes. Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed - - Civil Rights advocates met the burden. > > And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option. For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner. > > At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important. He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay - as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster. > > But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition. > > \ > > Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate. If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization. > > Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary. > > \ > > For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.” It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control. > > Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. > > They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. > > I doubt that’s true. And a few more quotes from those who used to hold a principled position in opposition to the nuclear option: > [@](#): > > Sen. Barack Obama [now President]: …”hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a, you know, change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever… Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.” > > Sen. Barack Obama: “You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward.” > Sen. Harry Reid: “Mr. President [of the Senate] the right [sic] to extend the debate is never more important than when one party controls the Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.” > > Sen. Harry Reid: “But no, we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No. Because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.” > Sen. Chuck Schumer: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this Republic [finally, a Democrat who understands basic political philosophy - ed.], are about to be evaporated, by the nuclear option. The checks and balances say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum…” > > Sen. Chuck Schumer: “They want their way every single time, and they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution, so that they will get their way.” > Sen. Joseph Biden: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab.” > > Sen. Joe Biden: “I say to my friends on the Republican side, ‘you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever.’ And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” > Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next, will be executive appointments. And then, legislation.” > > Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option, the Senate becomes, ipso facto, the House of Representatives, where the majority rules Supreme [note - ed.], and the party in power can dominate, and control the agenda with absolute power.” > Sen. Hillary Clinton: “You’ve got majority rule. You’ve got the Senate over here, where people can slow things down, where they can debate, something called the filibuster… you know, it seems like it’sa little less than efficient. Well, that’s right, it is. And deliberately designed to be so.” > > Sen. Hillary Clinton: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside-out to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance that we have obtained, that has kept this Constitutional system going, for immediate gratification, of the present President.” [Note: I thought Obama had copyrighted that one. - ed.] > Sen. Chris Dodd: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have as a lead co-sponsor a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the Framers thinking about – 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority. ” > Sen. Max Baucus: “This is the one way democracy ends – not with a bomb, but with a gavel.” [Too much reading? here’s a video of Obama and Biden talking out of both sides of their mouths.](http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2539635) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-will-be-pursued-in-the-next-congress/640513.md?page=16)