This actually goes against my own preference, as I favor limited government and gridlock. If cloture were removed, the floodgates to Change would be open.

At this point, I just want honest Government. People debating openly what they believe in.

The practice of opposing legislation just to be in the opposition goes way back. We would have had Government guaranteed health care, proposed by Nixon, similar to but more extensive than the current Democrat backed plan in Congress, in 1974 had Ted Kennedy not torpedoed it.

All these counterproductive things have been gradually escalating, and it doesn’t seem very useful to worry now about who hit whom first.

And my original point is that current Senators should have the opportunity to debate and approve rules.

Agreed, it’s a pantomime if they don’t actually debate. Cloture was to allow debate to continue while there was still considerable opposition. If they don’t actually use it to debate, even if they read phone books or other nonsense, then it’s being abused and maybe the rule should be amended.

I’ve long suggested that the filibuster should be made into a true filibuster again. Debate should never be short-circuited, but now we have some stupid idea of a “gentlemen’s filibuster” where the mere threat to filibuster is good enough to obstruct a bill. If the minority wants to filibuster, fine, but they are truly going to have to tie up the floor with talk and babble. The minute they stop, the vote proceeds.

From day one, the Republicans were locked out of all debate and their recommendations, like tort reform in Health Care, got no play in Congress.

Obama promised lots of openness and has failed to deliver. Remember Sunlight Before Signing? Remember Health Care debate on CSPAN?

Recall that one of the criticisms of HillaryCare was that it was being crafted in backrooms with powerful lobbies present. At least then, we knew who the players were. With ObamaCare, we don’t even know who was in the back rooms, except we know they didn’t include Republican Congressmen.

Even though only a third of the Senators are newly elected, every two years is considered a “session” of congress for both houses.

As I understand it, there is a procedure by which cloture could be eliminated that would avoid cloture itself. The so-called “nuclear option”, so it’s not as if the Senators are powerless to change it.

Apparently, both sides like the rule. Right now, with the Democrats looking at huge electoral losses in November, they are unlikely to vote away their veto rights.

Most people would not consider that kind of tacit approval to be approval at all. It would be like telling the victim of a totalitarian regime that since they had not plotted to assassinate the Dear Leader, they must approve of their oppression.

As I understand it, the House votes to approve their rules at the beginning of each Congress. The Senate could do the same, but it would most likely take the whole 2 year term to get it to a vote. No doubt that would please Greg.

I don’t think cloture is a constitutional issue. They could keep it or drop it with no constitutional crisis.

And I may have objected to such a thing in the part, but it seems to me there’s a difference between “if it was really unconstitutional they’d have changed it” and “if it was really unconstitutional we’d have heard somebody complain before now.”

For example, the Department of Education is pretty clearly unconstitutional. They haven’t changed it, but there’s been plenty of talk about it.

But the thing is, each congress should get to approve its own rules. (and I seem to recall your objecting to my “if it was really unconstitutional they’d have changed it before” argument once before

The constitution definitely intended the Senate to be the break — to slow down the populist rantings of the House. But the 60 vote thing is just a Senate rule that could be changed.

I don’t want it to be. I wouldn’t mind if they upped it to 75. Anything that prevents those bozos (in either party) from passing laws is probably a good thing. If it’s really important, they’ll be able to get 75 votes.

Back then, it was Republicans who demanded change. “Far too many of the president’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain,” complained — um — Richard Shelby.