http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/17/congress_expertCongress Expert: Wingers Wrong, Reid's Force-A-Filibuster Plan Not In Trouble
By Greg Sargent | bio
Okay, I've just checked in with Sarah Binder, an expert in governance studies at Brookings Institution. And she tells me that contrary to what we're reading on the winger blogs today, Harry Reid's plan to force an Iraq filibuster is not procedurally Dead On Arrival at all.
Kevin Drum and Joan McCarter, along with a number of TPM Readers, are pointing to this post over at the Corner raising doubts about Harry Reid's plan to force a filibuster on Iraq tonight. The argument, which has been making the rounds of the winger blogs, goes like this:
This is a really, really stupid stunt, and I'll tell you why: It can all be over in 15 minutes, unless the anti-war Republicans decide to cooperate — and why should they?
Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn't cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don't include Joe Lieberman (who I hear isn't really up for this sleepover, whether you want to count him as a Dem or not).
You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call — which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can't come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech.
Expert Binder tells me that this argument is a complete wash on many levels.
Here's why: Senate rules have a provision for dealing with things like this. As Joan notes, even if the Republicans were not to show up, Dems would be able to perhaps force them to, Binder notes. Under Senate rules, Reid would be able to ask the Sergeant-at-arms to go get the missing GOP Senators and bring them back to the Senate. She points to this particular Senate reg:
Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators...
And yes, this has apparently happened before, in 1988, when Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., ordered round-the-clock Senate sessions that were boycotted by Republicans. Charlie Cook recounts that Byrd ordered the Senate's sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent senators and bring them to the floor. Capitol cops arrested Sen. Robert Packwood, R-Ore., and even removed him from a locked Senate office and carried him onto the Senate floor, Cook writes.
Reid hasn't said whether he'll do this. But if he did, imagine the storyline...the Sergeant-at-Arms going out to chase down awol Republican Senators refusing to show up for a debate on the Iraq War. Seems like a narrative that Reid, who likes a bit of drama, might not mind all that much.
Because such a move by Republicans wouldn't actually halt the proceedings, GOPers can't risk not showing up, for another obvious reason: They desperately need to get their message out on Iraq, too. Iraq in general, and this showdown in particular, have already created for the GOP what political pros like to call a "difficult message environment," to put it charitably.
If tonight's media coverage were dominated by only Dems slamming Republicans for refusing to allow a vote on Iraq, all in a chamber virtually empty of Republicans, that wouldn't exactly help matters for the GOP.
"They wouldn't want the Democrats alone capturing the message of the filibuster," Binder claims.
Binder's conclusion: "This isn't a problem for Democrats tonight."
Upshot: Get out your No-Doze. This game is on.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
