Has anyone heard of the Phantom Filibuster?

[AndyA]

Today at lunch, we were having a conversation about what a lightweight Harry Reid is, and how the GOP still seems to have so much control of what happens, despite being the minority party. Then someone mentioned the Phantom Filibuster, which I hadn't heard of before.

They said Reid only needs 51 votes to get bills passed in the Senate, and that he won't bring them to the floor if there's a perceived chance of not getting 60 votes. Apparently, the mere threat of a filibuster by the Republicans is enough to stop Harry dead in his tracks!

A comment was made that the actual process of filibustering is time consuming, and difficult to accomplish, and that if Harry would make the GOP do it a few times, they'd likely shut up about it. Plus, failure to bring a bill to a vote just because they might not get 60 votes is a bullshit excuse, because a majority is all that's needed, and setting the standard at 60 to prevent a filibuster when one might never happen is contrary to getting the Democratic agenda passed.

Anyone know why Reid does this? I've never been a big fan of his, but this makes him even worse in my eyes.

[Warpy]

1. Why is this chickenshit still majority leader? Somebody remind me.

He needs to bring these things for a vote and he needs to let the GOP vote against every one of them en masse and he needs to have them filibuster every one of them and I don't mean announce "we're filibustering, try to bring cloture," I mean get up there and blab nonstop 24/7 until either the bill is withdrawn or they run out of gas or the public gets so upset they're having to bring the bomb squad in three times a week for suspicious packages.

Reid needs to know how to play hardball with these fucking bullies. They've been bulling him for years and he's just been smiling and nodding at them.

If he can't lead, he needs to get the hell out of the way. Now.

[maxsolomon]

3. amen, warpy

make those tottering grandees carry through on their threats. but i think i'd pick a smaller fight for a trial run - not, say, universal health care or legalizing weed.

[flamin lib]

2. It's true that a 51-49 vote can pass a bill. It takes 60 votes to bring "cloture"

or closure of debate. Senate rules say that as long as there is debate on a bill it can't be voted on. Every time the speaker yields the floor a vote can be taken. A filibuster is an extended discussion with the purpose of preventing a vote on the passage of a bill. Cloture is a separate issue from the bill itself, it's a vote to end discussion, force the speaker to STFU and vote on the bill. In fact, to really filibuster, a senator would have to take the floor and speak continuously. To stop a vote by simply threatening a filibuster without the real intention of actually standing there and making entries into the record is what is called a "phantom filibuster".

Like many I think Reid should call the bluff and let the loyal opposition gear up with Depends and "lay on McDuff and damned be he who first cries, 'Hold! Enough!'"

Hope this makes sense.

[Occam Bandage]

15. A Senator doesn't actually have to stand there talking under current rules.

Sure, Reid can call a vote every ten minutes if the Republicans don't say anything, but they can sit in stony silence and it would have the same effect. Heck, they could even go home.

[AndyTiedye]

4. We Don't Really Have a Majority in the Senate

Reid's timid behavior is due to the fact that when push comes to shove, we do not really have a majority in the Senate.
There are too many DINOs who vote with the Repiglickins.

The 60 vote thing is an attempt to avoid making this too obvious.
The Repiggies never really lost control of the Senate.

Reid did call their bluff once, and found they weren't bluffing.

[AndyA]

6. I think Reid should continue to call their bluff.

And while the GOPers are in the Senate reading the phone book, the Bible, or whatever, Reid needs to be on TV explaining to America why we're in this mess, who put us there, and who is trying to keep us there.

I wouldn't think they could filibuster for long without creating more problems for themselves.

[annabanana]

9. "continue to call their bluff"???

When did he ever call their bluff?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. He would have to change the current rules in order to do that.

[lame54]

5. Make 'em fillibuster...

their disappearing credibility will turn to dust

[zipplewrath]

7. It's called a cloture vote

There's alot of mythology about filibusters. The modern version is the cloture vote. Basically a vote to bring it to a vote (end debate). It takes 60 votes. No one has to be talking or anything. Any attempt to force the issue can be blocked by a variety of parliamentary procedures including repetitive quorum calls. The only alternative is the "nuclear option" we heard so much about. It's basically a constitutional challenge to the rules. It only takes a majority to change a rule. And it is a parliamentary procedure so it takes priority over most other business. (so it has to be voted upon).

[AndyA]

8. I still think Reid would be better off forcing the Republicans to filibuster.

If that's what they're going to threaten to do, he should make them do it. How long can they keep it up? They grumble when they don't get out of there on Thursday afternoon to head home for the weekend.

Make them filibuster! Over and over and over...until they get sick of it, or their constituents raise holy hell with them about it.

[zipplewrath]

11. It's pretty easy

You can hold up business pretty easily in the senate. It'd be harder on the dems than the GOP. One or two senators can keep things blocked, and ultimately if you don't have the 60 votes, you lose. You can force all the votes you want. Without 60, you lose.

[onenote]

10. filibusters are hard to stop

Folks are under the mistaken impression that its hard to maintain a filibuster. In fact, its not that difficult; if anything, the burden is greater on the party trying to break it. That's because unless there is a quorum present -- 51 senators -- all business stops. So all the repubs need is a couple of folks talking; the Democrats need to have 49 or 50 members present to keep the pressure on the repubs. Historically, "real" filibusters succeeded more often than not.

[babylonsister]

12. digby heard you...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/exorcising-phantom-filibuster-by.html

[Arkansas Granny]

13. "The Phantom Filibuster" sounds like the title of a book written by Erle Stanley Gardner.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Your friends are morons.

The Senate requires 60 votes for cloture, or "closing the debate." A "filibuster" is when the Senate fails to hit 60 votes to close debate on a particular bill. This must--must--be performed under Senate rules before a bill may be brought to a vote. It is true that 51 votes can get bills passed, but you can't get to the voting part without 60 votes.

[AndyA]

16. Do you ever reply to a message without being insulting?

While most of the other responses have been respectful, educational, and beneficial, yours is discredited by your first statement. :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

17. No.

Many of the other responses have indeed been respectful. If you're looking for someone to tell you you're very smart and your friends are very in touch with politics, great, I suppose.

Be that as it may, your friends are morons who know very little about Senate politics.