Democrats plan to ban Filibuster in next Congress

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...8012-1,00.html

Democrats can ban filibusters during the rule making session of next Senate, which requires only 51 votes, so filibusters will indeed be banned in the next Congress if that's what Democrats decided to do.

Now, Democrats must retain the control of House to get this to work, because GOP controlled House will then do the work of filibuster instead, blocking every Democratic initiatives.

About damn time. Let's hope this is the first thing on their agenda for the next congress. It's long overdue.

Oh noes, the party of NO! is changing

The party of NO just became a party of OHSHI-

Such talk has circulated before, and it picked up steam after the Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006. But it has recently become far more tangible, with four different Democratic bills filed to revamp the Senate's procedures. On July 28 Democrats raised the issue at a Senate Rules Committee hearing on the subject: "We are not getting the people's business done, and ordinary Americans are losing faith in the legislative process," said Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, author of one of the bills.
"What if the tables were turned? What if they become the majority and we have to stop them?" Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois mused at Wednesday's Rules Committee hearing. "That basic fear, concern, guides us on this in terms of how far we should go." Still, Durbin is a supporter of change. "I would argue at this point that we've got to do something," he said. That some senior Democrats are willing to put themselves at the mercy of a future Republican majority tells you just how frustrated they've become with filibuster politics.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz0vSzMe7Ed

Nevertheless, two ideas are gaining traction within the caucus that could help relieve some of the procedural bottlenecks — one of which may see action soon. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has proposed doing away with secret "holds," a tactic by which a Senator can anonymously block a bill or nomination for any reason they see fit. (The holds can be broken by a simple majority vote, but overcoming such objections — and even outing the Senator doing the holding — is considered a breach of decorum and is rarely done.) McCaskill has convinced 67 of her colleagues to support the change, enough for the two-thirds majority needed to pass it, and Reid has added her measure to the Senate calendar. Democrats are also discussing the possibility of restricting the ability of Republicans to filibuster a bill or amendment to twice — once to start debate and once to end it.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz0vSyxyIOD

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz0vSyILPt3

BS. They will wimp out; mark my words.