Senate Democrats anxious to reign in what they consider abuse of the filibuster by Senate Republicans will formally propose changes Wednesday to how and when senators can use the stalling tactic.
However, Senate leaders will postpone votes on the proposals until late January at the earliest as they negotiate possible compromises to the politically contentious issue, according to Senate leadership aides from both parties.
Frustrated by Republicans’ escalating use of the filibuster to stall routine legislation and nominations, a group of Senate Democrats is trying to build support for a wide range of proposed changes that would curb the use of filibusters but not ban them entirely.
When the Senate convenes Wednesday, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico will introduce one or more proposed changes. Typically, a Senate rule change requires a super majority of 67 yes votes, something that will be difficult for Democrats, with their narrow 53-seat majority, to achieve. However, on the first legislative day of a new Congress, a simple majority of senators, just 51 votes, can approve new rules.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
No buy american wait whats made n the usa mean oh right GOP TEAPARTY @ MY PLACE I HAVE THE POISON TEA I MEAN LALALALAhmmmOK
Samsta, you are a (_!_)
so, these cowards want to change the rules when it is easy to do so... not wait until they can write rules that are LOOKED AT, READ, or UNDERSTOOD. Seems typical... of cowards.
Your comment is typical..of an imbecile.
You're right....it's soooooooooooo cowardly to want to change the rules to prevent long-winded blowhards from obstructing something because it doesn't fit in to their greedy agendas of lining their own pockets. The jerks!
@Matthew:
Do you even know what filibuster means?
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
I have never seen a filibuster by a Dem, although I am sure it has been done. Every time I hear about a Senator threaten-and I do mean threaten-it's a Republican. Just the words "threaten to filibuster" conjures up an "or else" kind of scenario. So, isn't it really the ones who "threaten" to filibuster the ones who are the cowards?
FWIW, the December 10 speech by Bernie Sanders has been called a filibuster by many (in spite of his words of it not being, strictly speaking, a filibuster). Sanders is an independent, but he, like Lieberman, caucuses with the Democrats.
Only way obama wouldnt get reelected if they killed him blacks and mexicans numbers in 2012 will go through the roof 4 more yrs of obama the great is on its way
Kill all republicans including the uncle tom black ones f~ckn race traders
Stickemup. You are an idiot.
Can the Republicans never stop whinning? The vote is within the rules of order for the Senate. Just like the over use of the fillibuster is within the rules. Speaking of cowards. Why would the Republicans not allow up or down votes on things in the Senate? Virtually everything was fillibustered or stalled.
Encontré este mensaje el día de hoy, mientras que en la oficina de gran utilidad envió el enlace a mí mismo y lo más probable es marcar news.blogs.cnn.com cuando lo hacen en casa
La mejor información esencial es esto, que tiene tratar de hacer muy bien acerca de que el cuerpo de las personas sin hogar y de su mano. Estoy tan entusiasmado acerca de eso, después de leer este artículos útiles escrito y sus opiniones sobre news.blogs.cnn.com también que es tan atractivo para hacer algo por aquellos
Su entrada en el blog de news.blogs.cnn.com ofrece el mismo presente como otro autor del artículo, pero yo al igual que su mucho mejor.