All the cries here to end the filibuster will probably turn to cries that some repug legisation should be filibustered. The whole thing is silly. If the dims wanted to end the filibuster, they could have set up the rules that way. The other thing that could have been done by harry on his own was to force the filibuster-threatening senator to step forward and do his/her speechifying. The dims may need the weapon in the next congress. The truth, however, is that if the repugs win the senate but have fewer than 60 votes, the filibuster will disappear when they make the rules for the next few years.

This case will be tossed out by the first judge. No standing.

Boxturtle (If it actually got to the supremes, they’d likely invoke separation of powers anyway)

You’re right. Waste of time.

Big Waste Of Time. The ball is in Harry’s court and has been all along.

Although I applaud them for their effort (because Something has to be done).

Unless they can manage to generate a lot of attention to the issue with the lawsuit, you’re right.

If they CAN generate the attention, it won’t matter if the case gets tossed.

Boxturtle (I can’t be the only one worried about what 51 wingnuts might do if they could)

Political question… next.

The filibuster is Constitutional, in that the Constitution gives the Senate the right to adopt its own rules. Aaron Burr convinced the Senate to remove the motion to “move the previous question” in 1806, and since most Senators are by definition idiots, they agreed with him. OTOH, the Senate can just as easily change the rules and abandon it today by majority vote.

“Currently, there seems to be remarkably little media or political acknowledgement that nothing is actually stopping a majority of senators from quickly ending the filibuster right now.” Well, there is the lack of a majority of Senators willing to do it. It’s almost as though they’re … corrupt, or something. Like the media.

And then there’s reconciliation, which was pumped up in significance during the ACA battle.

Senators have gone to school on that precedent mindful of potential filibusters going forward. A contortion, to be sure, but I’d bet we’ll see reconciliation moot out filibuster again.

It only stops debate if the proposer gives up without attempting to debate. Otherwise you begin debate and keep it going until the obstructionists get tired and quit debating. This is a real filibuster. What we have now is senators who are too lazy and zealous for their comforts to even try to work to get their motions passed. This rests clearly on the Democrats senate leadership who could make progress if they tried, without changing any rules. We could say that they are collaborating in their own defeat, but we would have to assume that they really wanted to succeed in the first place.

I agree with your observation, Jon, that the more attention we bring to the issue of Senate rule reform the better. Mr. Edgar probably understands the courts will be reluctant to act in regard to the suit. Considering that Harry Reid recognizes he and his fellow Dems decided last year to forego rule reform and preserve the filibuster now may be the opportune time to bring pressure to bear on this issue.

Reid admitted yesterday, IIRC, that he was wrong to oppose an effort to amend the rule. I think Merkley and Wyden were the prime movers to change the rule and he admitted to them that he should have backed their proposal.

Jon, your heading is incorrect. Common Cause is not suing to have the filibuster declared unconstitutional, it is suing to have the Senate rule defining filibuster declared unconstitutional.

“Our lawsuit argues that the Constitution sets out super-majority requirements only in special cases, to override a presidential veto or ratify a treaty, for example. It does not permit the Senate to require more than a simple majority just to begin debate; and the Supreme Court already has said that a legislative body’s rules cannot conflict with the Constitution.”

I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but it seems to me they have a strong case as described here. The filibuster used to mean such a commitment by the party filibustering as to render its use a rarity. And you can bet the Democrats knew what not setting their own Senate rule (as they could have when in power) did to any reforms promised during the previous presidential election. They were very happy to have an excuse NOT to do stuff, and golly gee now they are admitting they should have done something so obvious? Give me a break!

Thank you, Common Cause, for drawing attention to this flagrant misuse of the people’s mandate. It is indeed unConstitutional. And those few senators attempting a change midcourse waited far too long to be meaningfully listened to; the rot was already well underway.

NO TIME FOR LIBERALS TO WHINE NOW:

This is beyond ridiculous. Separation of powers will ensure that this lawsuit goes nowhere. As for generating enough “heat” to cause the Senate to change the rules on its own, that is nothing but a pipedream. Where were these so-called “liberals and leftists” when the Democrats had a SIXTY SEAT MAJORITY (60) in the Senate starting in 2009? The deomcrats had 60 seats in the Senate, 257 seats in the House, and they controlled the White House beginning in 2009. With such an historic opportunity and with complete control of the Legislative and Executive branches, why was the “LIBERAL WISH LIST” not fulfilled then? Can anyone answer this question?

I could also picture the judiciary ruling against this suit on the grounds that each chamber is allowed to make its own rules, but as part of that decision the Court reaffirms that a simple majority of senators already has the legal authority to change their rules and eliminate the filibuster at any time.

The Supreme Court will rule whichever way helps the Republicans.

You are 100% right.

The ONLY reason the government leans Democratic is that 4 times in the last 100 years the Dems have garnered 60 votes in the Senate and the GOP never has.

During those 54 times, Dems got as much progressive legislation passed as the could; SS, Medicare, Health Care Reform, etc.

Then, they help the ground by using the filibuster when they lost the 60 vote majority. The GOP was never able to turn these laws back because they could never get 60 votes. You change that, and you open the door to some radical GOP stuff happening.

The record is clear, the GOP is hurt far more than the Dems with the filibuster. Number of filibusters means nothing. Getting major laws through and then holding them means everything.

I also worry about that. I think a resonable solution is to change the rules to only allow say 3 fillibusters per sesssion. This would force the minority to actually save and use them on what they deem really important.

The electoral college, along with the senate, prevents the federal government of the US from being considered either representative democracy or even a modern democracy. They are relics of the politics of slavery protection. The electoral college is a resetting time bomb that will go off regularly producing increasingly serious, indeed disastrous, results. Hayes-Tilden was the warning. W [as in 'Worst'] was the most recent. It is a device that produced the worst president ever, and probably the worst for a long time. Keeping it is large evidence of how broke the US federal government is. The Senate, with its filibuster, provides all the evidence one needs to conclude that, presently, the US political system is incapable of the reforms necessary to keep it from continuing to collapse. It fails to hold its elite accountable in any meaningful way.

This lawsuit is ridiculous. The filibuster is a Senate rule. As such, it can be set aside at any time by the same simple majority of the Senate that put it in place as a rule in the first place. For that reason, it does not, at all, actually prevent majority rule in the Senate.

There might be a legitimate Constitutional issue here if the filibuster were based on some law passed by the Senate and House and signed by the president. You could argue that a mere statute cannot set aside a Constitutional provision, that such a filibuster law would constrain the Senate and keep a simple majority of its members from their right and duty to pass on all measures for which the Constitution does not require a super-majority. You might even be able to make a case that if the Senate was unable to change rules once the session had begun, if they had to operate by the rules they had passed when organizing the Senate at the beginning of each Congress, that the simple majority at orgaqnization should not be allowed to usurp the rights and duties of any future simple majority down the line during that Congress.

But rules of the Senate can be set aside at any time by a simple majority of just the Senate. Those rules were put in place to establish good order in the Senate’s deliberations, and any time any of thse rules becomes destructive of that purpose, any Senator has both the right and duty to object to a particular use of that rule he or she feels is abusive. If the chair agrees, that forces a simple majority vote on the rule in question, supporting the chair or voting to instead keep the rule. If the rule loses, it is gone, period.

The filibuster has all the force of a 5-year old’s resolution to not step on any cracks, for fear of breaking his mother’s back. That five year old doesn’t need anyone to give him permission to start stepping on cracks. He will resume normal ambulation as soon as he is ready to stop constraining his actions by pointless rules he made up for himself to constrain his own behavior inside of a little fantasy world of his own making. This sort of thing can get out of hand even with a five year old, and lead to obsessive-compulsive behavior. But with the Senate, it lacks even the quality of cuteness it might enjoy coming from a five-year old. It’s just sad and pathetic when adults act this way.

It’s a political question. Federal courts have no jurisdiction. Pretty easy motion.

Bad result, but easy.