Help me understand the Filibuster

[Nederland]

If Dems filibuster Alito, the Republicans change the rules, Alito gets in anyway, and we lose the ability filibuster forever.

Why is this a good idea?

[Vincardog]

1. If the Republicans change the rules and take away our ability filibuster

The Democrats walk out and SHUT IT DOWN. They the Cancer infecting OUR Government is contained. The next step is to remove it. The Democrats start to act like real representatives of the people and we take control of our government back from the FASCIST THUGS and Mega Businesses

What is wrong with that?

[Nederland]

2. Shut what down?

The Senate? I think you need to understand the rules and term "quorum"...

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm

[Vincardog]

10. Voice vote on EVERYTHING. Full reading FOR THE RECORD OF EVERY PIECE OF

Legislation on the floor. Using the rules to disrupt everything at every opportunity. We Still play by the rules but we play by EVERY TO THE LETTER ALL THE TIME

[Nederland]

17. You are confused

The method of voting (e.g. voice vote) is determined by the majority party.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. Not so much shut it down

As slow it to a crawl. So much that happens in the Senate, happens at all because the parties generally give unanimous consent to ignore the rules.

For example, IIRC the rules say that before business can be begun, the minutes of the previous day must be read and voted on to enter the minutes (parliamentarians, correct me on this if I've recalled incorrectly). This would take hours, so the parties have a quick vote to just enter the minutes without reading, and this sort of thing may only be done with unanimous consent.

So what happens when that consent isn't given? You guessed it, time is used up every day.

There is also the matter of deference, whereby the minority party generally lets the majority party control what gets to the Senate floor. If deference goes, then the minority gets to get their proposed legislation in. Again, imagine what would happen if the Dems proposed legislation allowing for free and unrestricted abortion rights, or universal healthcare, or a nine dollar minimum wage, and the R's had to go on record opposing them.

All this and more is on the table if the nuclear option is invoked and passed.

[NativeTexan]

51. If they change the Senate rules, then...

.....when the power pendulum swings our way....the Republicans have to live with their own rules, with us in charge!

Republican politicians are not only stupid...they are also very short-sighted.

[Shrek]

3. It may not happen that way

Because of the "gang of 14."

If a sufficiently compelling case can be made for "extraordinary circumstances" then the Republican members of that group could be pressured to honor their agreement. If that happens, the filibuster stands.

Edit : typo

[Lerkfish]

5. "republicans" and "honor" do not belong in the same sentence.

[Nederland]

6. The Gang of Fourteen

Have said that you can't filibuster for idealogical reasons, only reasons of non-disclosure or incompetence. Given that Alito got the highest rating from the ABA, and released all his records, there are no options. Keep in mind that the Democratic members of the Gang of 14 are moderates, not exactly people that are sympathetic to the rantings of left wing members on websites like DU.

[Lerkfish]

13. "rantings of left wing members on websites like DU"

interesting turn of phrase there. NOW I understand why we disagree on this issue.



:eyes:

[Nederland]

22. Oh come on

It's no big secret that DU is significantly left of the political mainstream...

[Lerkfish]

52. of course, but that phrase tell me that you're on the opposing

viewpoint...which means we can't agree on this issue.

If you feel this site is too left wing for you, why are you here, exactly?

[zanne]

59. Good question, Lerkfish

Some people eventually give themselves away with comments like that. Now I know where he's coming from, too.

[Lerkfish]

4. If you stand up to tyrants and lose, was it wrong to do so?

sometimes something is the Right Thing to DO. period.

There comes a time when silence is assent.

and there comes a time when saying nothing is as bad as the crime.

If you are correct, that the republicans change the rules and we can't filibuster, how is that any different from never filibustering?
Its a distinction without a difference.

[Nederland]

7. Yes

If you can win later on by fighting smart.

[Lerkfish]

11. we vastly disagree, then.

if you always keep your powder dry, you never shoot.
if not filibustering THIS candidate, who clearly would grant Bush the dictatorship, there won't be a later at all.
perhaps you don't really get it:
fascism is here, and once Bush has the "unitary executive" green light, nothing we do will matter later. There will be no other opportunity.

[ulysses]

23. what did you have in mind?

What *are* we going to fight for later on?

[Nederland]

26. Perhaps

a resolution calling to invade Iran?

more taxes cuts for the rich?

a federal law banning abortion?

opening up ANWAR to drilling?


to name a few...

[ulysses]

27. would we filibuster then?

I mean, if the result will simply be that we'll lose the ability to filibuster...

[Nederland]

36. You wouldn't lose it then

The threat to change the rules only affects judicial appointments. The Gang of 14 has backed this idea up, and so Republicans would not have enough votes to change the rules for anything else.

[ulysses]

39. but then filibustering Alito

wouldn't lose us the ability to filibuster on those other issues, correct? Wasn't that the basis of your opposition to the idea?

[Nederland]

42. No

You'd lose the ability to filibuster a really right wing justice like Bork...

[ulysses]

44. Alito's too moderate to deserve a filibuster???

Wow. Ok.

[ulysses]

46. if this is the case, haven't we already rubberstamped

anyone Bush wants to put on the Court? All he has to do is dredge up 2 Neanderthals instead of one, so we use our one filibuster on the first and the second sails through?

Why are we even bothering?

[Nederland]

47. Yes

He has written several opinions that upheld Roe. That makes him a moderate compared to Bork.

I suppose its all a matter of perspective...

[ulysses]

48. we could've saved a number of posts

had you mentioned that up front. :)

[rman]

8. So basically the ability to filibuster is already lost

If we can't filibuster because we'd lose the ability to filibuster...

[Nederland]

9. No

You can filibuster so long as you can convince enough moderate Republicans that the filibuster is warranted. I think you'd need four or five...

[Rainscents]

12. Oh yea, there's list of 20 thing to filibust Alito!

[Neil Lisst]

14. The vote required to stop filibuster is now 60, but could change.

About 80 years ago or so, the Senate went to a 2/3 rule to break filibuster, but that changed about 40 years ago, because Southern senators were using filibuster or its threat to stop civil rights legislation.

Now the Pubs are threatening the "nuclear" option of using a simple majority, or changing the rules to fit whatever they like, possibly 55 votes.

I do not think it is wise to withhold filibustering because of the threat of the nuclear option. So much of the Senate business requires cooperation, that one party can virtually shut the place down, simply by invoking rules, calling for votes, and generally refusing to go along.

Until our leaders can get it together and show some fight, we're going to get run over in the house and the senate. I say fight, and let the chips fall where they may. Whatever the pubs invoke, they'll have to live with when they're in the minority, which should happen by 2009.

[mom cat]

16. Absolutly right. Never try to appease a bully. Battered women's

shelters are full of people who had to learn that the hard way!
If the Repubs try to break the rules, we can trump them by following the rules to the letter!

[Neil Lisst]

43. True. If you're losing, surrender won't get you any better deal.

Contrary to what those who don't understand the Senate think, it requires cooperation. If you're getting run over, you have to fight.

[mom cat]

49. I agree. And "going nuclear" is a threat by the Republicans to stop

all cooperation. Once they do that the only response is to shut things down by folowing the rules to the letter. If the Republicans think that they can throw away the rules, they should be taught a lesson.

[Nederland]

24. Not sure

Bogging down the Senate backfired on the Republicans in the 1990's.

Americans have little patience for people that are obstructionists. I suppose if there was massive public support for a filibuster you could do it and not have it backfire. However, my understanding of the Alito confirmation is that its not exactly high on people's list of things to be concerned about. The hearings were a complete and utter snooze fest.

[Neil Lisst]

45. They were a snooze because Dems control nothing.

As for the fear of being viewed "obstructionist," the pubs will always say Dems are being obstructionist.

Without a fight, there is no news to report except "the Dems bent down and kissed more Republican ass today ... more at 11."

[Nederland]

50. Not really true

Question time is divided up equally. Every member on the committee gets the same number of minutes to question the nominee. The problem is that the main two Demcrats that questioned Alito came off as blowhards. Biden rambled on for minutes at a time, talking three times as much as Alito. Kennedy focused on questioning Alito on some mutual funds he owned, and got nowhere. The problem was not the division of time, but the fact that the Democrats squandered that time and got nothing.

[CTLawGuy]

54. actually the majority does control everything

the minority has debating time at the pleasure of the majority. In the house, the majority's bill manager will first devote half the time he is allocated to his minority counterpart.

The senate has unlimited debate unless debate is cut off.

[Neil Lisst]

56. You're wrong. I spoke to CONTROL of the hearing, not time used.

Dems can talk all day, but if they have no way of issuing subpoenas, no way of controlling the witnesses, they have no way of forcing Alito to answer truthfully.

It's like they had a trial where the prosecutor was also the judge.

You're too hard on the Dems on the committee. When you're stuck with a lying witness who has been well-coached, you can ask questions until you're blue in the face and you'll get nada.

The debate in the senate offers a much better opportunity to air the issues than trying to squeeze something out of a cagey witness who lies well.

[bowens43]

28. They can stop the filibuster with 51 votes.

You think that shutting down the Senate will hell the Dems? It won't. It will guarantee us minority status for another two years. It amazes mew that so many are willing risk taking back the congress in 2006 for a little feel good theatrics that can't possibly succeed.

I hope our Senators are thinking strategically.

[Neil Lisst]

41. Yes, I know. That's why I said it in my post.

but thanks for sharing

[Strawman]

18. only on judicial nominations

We don't lose the ability to filibuster on everything forever.

And they'd better think twice about doing away with the filibuster on judicial nominees. They could find themselves swept out of power in Congress in 2006 much like the Dems did in 1994.

More often than not the filibuster has been the conservatives' friend, not the progressives'. If they want to pull that kind of stunt to ram a partisan through instead of a moderate, compromise justice, then when we're in power, we might be justified in taking a corrective action to restore balance to the Court such as adding two more justices. And we'd only need a bare Senate majority to do it.

[Nederland]

19. Good Point (nt)

[Strawman]

31. I see it as a lever for reasonable compromise between the parties

Especially on swing seats. The filibuster should promote the selection of a moderate justice to a swing seat. They say "no no. We won the Presidency and we should get to appoint whomever we want regardless of ideology."

But the longstanding rules of the Senate say that the minority party does have a say as long as it has 40 votes in the chamber. This is good in that it encourages appointments that are presumably acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Americans. This is a swing justice. This is not just a vote, but a swing vote. This justice must be acceptable to nearly all Americans. Not just the far right. This should be a compromise nominee.

They have nominated a reliable conservative who should be unacceptable to all 44 members of the minority party and their one Independent colleague for a swing seat. If we can't use the filibuster here to force a compromise nominee for Supreme Court Justice, what's the point of keeping the filibuster at all?

They are the ones saying that they have no interest in compromise with this nomination. Why keep the filibuster for judicial nominations if we can't use it now? So they can use it when they're in the minority to prevent a nominee that might flip the court back the other way? I don't get the reluctance to force their hand here. I don't think they have the balls to do it and we might win a compromise. There's certaily enough in the risk of succcess in saving reproductive rights and keeping presidential power in check for the next 5 years or as long as Stevens and Ginsburg can hold out. IMO, that's why a filibuster is warranted.

[Nederland]

40. Here's the rub

This justice must be acceptable to nearly all Americans.

No such justice exists.

True?

[Strawman]

57. No. I don't think that is true

An O'Connor clone would work here. A consensus pick that would leave the extremes of both parties wanting but the middle somewhat satisfied.

[ulysses]

20. if we fail to filibuster for fear that they'll take away our ability

to filibuster, haven't we already lost the ability to filibuster forever?

[bowens43]

30. That's not why we shouldn't filibuster.

We shouldn't filibuster because it won't stop the appointment and when the repugs change the rules , it will be spun as a huge loss for the Dems. It will also energize their base and quite possibly piss off independents who were leaning our way for 2006. We have nothing to gain by filibustering but we have the 2006 congressional elections to lose. A better strategy would be for every dem to vote no on the floor of the Senate.

[ulysses]

33. ???

A better strategy would be for every dem to vote no on the floor of the Senate.

Erm...since we're in the minority, won't that be spun as a huge loss for the Dems too?

Also, see my post #29.

[Strawman]

37. yeah. we'll look stronger if we go down meekly

without a fight on principle. makes no sense to me either.

[ulysses]

38. I think the idea is that independents want politicans to be nice,

which is utter bullshit - the GOP would be defunct by now if playing nice were a requirement rather than something every idiot-on-the-street says he wants but really doesn't.

[oneoftheboys]

21. Well, for starters, you must have 41 votes.

I only count 37 or 38.

[bowens43]

25. even worse,

when the republicans change the rules is will energize their base, it will spun in the media as a HUGE defeat for Dems and a HUGE win for bush, it will alienate a lot of those in the middle who voted republican in 2004 but are leaning toward voting Democratic in 2006. It's a lose / lose situation for the Dems.

It can do no good but it can do a lot of harm

[ulysses]

29. and just think of the harm a filibuster would do to us

among those who are waiting to see if we actually stand for anything.

Do I need the sarcasm tag?

[bowens43]

32. We'll lose a whole lot less then we'll gain.

Very few Democrats are going to stop voting for Democrats if we don't filibuster but many independents might if we do filibuster.

It's stupid to pull a risky political move when it can't succeed. If we want to show we stand for something then we need to see a unanimous no vote on the floor of the Senate.

[Strawman]

34. that finger in the wind bullshit has been a catastrophic failure, IMO

"What will the independents think?"

They'll think we don't stand for shit except saying whatever we think they want to hear to get elected.

And we won't. Again.

[ulysses]

35. you know this how?

Very few Democrats are going to stop voting for Democrats if we don't filibuster but many independents might if we do filibuster.

[Lerkfish]

53. what frightens you so much about dems with spines?

you prefer spineless quislings? why?

[sendero]

55. Because....

... 1) the Republicans might not have the votes to pull off the Nuclear Option, it really is a big step and if they do it THEY WILL LIVE TO REGRET IT ONE DAY, and the smarter ones know that.

2) There is really no downside for Dems. The public is not happy with the idea of the N.O. and the pukes might not be able to spin that around.

3) If the Dems don't start fighting an administration that is wracked by scandals and visibly weakened, they risk losing the support of their base. Like me. Enough is enough, take a stand or crawl in your corner and watch us work to get challengers elected in your place.

[zanne]

58. If we don't use the filibuster...

Then we really DON'T have the ability to filibuster at all. Let's at least show some spine. Let's give Democrats and other liberals in this country what the Republicans have given their people--PRIDE. That's what makes poor, rural Republicans who suffer under Republican policies keep voting for them. We should try it. I know I'd like to feel some pride for a change. Who's with me?