http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/..._Die_8354.html


The Constitution allows each house of Congress set their Rules, and the Senate requires 60 votes to bring anything to a vote. “But just like laws Congress passes can be found unconstitutional,” said Marziani, “so can particular Senate Rules. Today’s filibuster does not promote debate – it merely blocks debate. That was not intended by the framers.”

In fact, Common Cause plans to file a lawsuit challenging the 60-vote requirement – on behalf of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) as a plaintiff. But no guarantee that succeeds.

When asked about filibuster reform, Reid said “I’ll drink to that” and held up a water bottle – but only said he’s “looking into” specific changes. Meanwhile, other Democrats in the Senate are pursuing concrete alternatives. Missouri’s Claire McCaskill wants to end “secret holds” – where Senators can anonymously say they intend to filibuster a bill. Michael Bennett of Colorado’s a proposal that would require Senators who filibuster to actually stay on the Senate floor and do so – or a lack of quorum kills the filibuster.

But changes to the Senate Rules can only pass by a two-thirds supermajority – unless they are introduced at the start of a new Congress. New Mexico Senator Tom Udall addressed the panel, and said he would propose a filibuster reform measure in January.

Of course, my obvious question was – why didn’t the Senate take up filibuster reform in January 2009? The Republicans had already planned to be total obstructionists, and in fact Democrats had complained about it in 2008 – when they were already shattering filibuster records.