WI Harry Reid and the Democrats decided to fix the filibuster earlier?

Inspired by recent news today, I decided to create a new timeline idea. The divergence is what if Harry Reid suddenly realized that the filibuster needed to be fixed at the beginning of the 111th Congress in 2009, instead of ignoring the problem until now. It shouldn't be too hard for him to have a sudden moment of foresight out of the blue, or have a colleague such as Tom Harkin discuss the matter with him. In the first day of the session, the number of votes required to end a filibuster is lowered to 55 and a requirement stating that a filibustering Senator must speak on the floor during the duration of the filibuster is passed. How would this affect legislation introduced IOTL? What would the effect be on both parties, as well as the general populace? Would it lead to the introduction of proposals that didn't get that far IOTL? Would the political climate be better or worse?

Ready, Set, DISCUSS!
 
IIRC it doesn't require legislation per se, just the Senate agreeing to change the procedures it operates under. It slips my mind if this is easier to achieve than normal legislation or not.
 
IIRC it doesn't require legislation per se, just the Senate agreeing to change the procedures it operates under. It slips my mind if this is easier to achieve than normal legislation or not.

As I understood it, the Senate can change its standing rules with a simple majority at the beginning of a legislative session, but then it requires a supermajority for the rest of the term.
 
As I understood it, the Senate can change its standing rules with a simple majority at the beginning of a legislative session, but then it requires a supermajority for the rest of the term.

Yep, and neither the Democrats or the Republicans will change as it is not in their interest. Even when they have a supermajority I doubt it will change as they would lose it if they are ever in the minority.
 
If it did happen, perhaps the DISCLOSE Act can be passed in the Senate, maybe reverse the Bush Tax Cuts, and maybe a stronger DREAM Act.
 
I remember when a Republican majority in Congress talked about getting rid of the filibuster back in... was it 2003? At the time, my thought was that they'd really love the lack of it when a Democratic majority resided in the Senate. Now, I say the same thing, except that the Democrats will really love not having it when a Republican majority is back in the Senate.
 
I remember when a Republican majority in Congress talked about getting rid of the filibuster back in... was it 2003? At the time, my thought was that they'd really love the lack of it when a Democratic majority resided in the Senate. Now, I say the same thing, except that the Democrats will really love not having it when a Republican majority is back in the Senate.

You know, an interesting difference, I as recall, is that a lot of the REpublican ire was aimed, correctly IMO, at the moderates who jumped ship and, voting with the democratic minority, blocked several pieces of conservative legislation.

But this time around, even during the period of time when the democratic had a supermajority, they seem to be blaming the Republicans, not their conservative members who switched sides.

Which feeds into the obstruction accusation for political purposes coming into the next election cycle.

Pretty clever.

If they did it on purpose...
 
They just need to change the rules to require an actual speaker on the floor for the filibuster. Let them actually work for it, instead of just filing a piece of paper.

Torqumada
 
Top