Make Harry Reid end the "Silent filibuster."

[Are_grits_groceries]

"Today, actual continuous floor speeches are no longer required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

Right now there is a silent filibuster with at least one person joining the Rethugs. All they have to do is get 41 Senators saying they will filibuster, and you need 60 votes to cut it off. They don't have to get up and continuously talk.

Harry Reid can demand that they use a traditional filibuster. It is time for him to do so and let people see what is going on. Let the people watch the Republicans physically stop the entire Senate from voting. Frame it that way. They won't even let anybody vote.

[Puglover]

1. I totally agree with this.

He should make them filibuster until they drop. :thumbsup:

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I want to see somebody read the phone book. nt

[adamuu]

16. While 123 Americans a day die from lack of health coverage

It should be easy to keep media coverage on your side, using this fact.

[rubberducky]

3. Is there a reason why they don`t demand a traditional filibuster?

[sandnsea]

4. Democrats changed the law

to keep one Republican from gumming up the works back in the 60s or 70s, thereabouts.

[rhett o rick]

5. What law? I believe the filibuster is a Senate rule that can be undone at any time with a 51 vote

majority. The question was why doesnt Sen Reid demand a traditional filibuster. It is his choice.

[sandnsea]

10. It is a Senate rule, Democrats changed it

If you want one Republican to be able to stop everything, go ahead and rally for the traditional filibuster. I think it's a stupid idea.

[rhett o rick]

11. You are not making sense. I dont want one republicant to stop everything, but

that's not what we are talking about. The filibuster rule, which as far as I know, hasnt been changed by the Democrats, simple says that anyone can discuss a bill indefinitely, unless there are at least 60% of the Senate that wants to vote to end the discussion and force a vote on the bill. It isnt one republicant that stops the process it is 41 Senators. And Sen Reid has allowed the republicants the luxury of never having to actually stand before the Senate and shut down all business while they hold up a bill. If they even threaten to filibuster he capitulates. Last year they did it over 100 times and Sen Reid gave in each and every time. I want him instead to force the traditional filibuster and make them actually have a discussion and stop all Senate business. That will show the public who is holding up passing decent health insurance reform.

I would appreciate any links to infor re. filibuster rule changes.

[sandnsea]

13. Yes it is what you're talking about

If you change the rule back to the way it was, one Republican can filibuster anything.

Yes, Democrats led by Byrd, changed the rule so we no longer have one person filibusters, we use the 60/40 vote.

I am sick, google up filibuster. I'm sure there will be tons of info about the rule change.

[Romulox]

14. Seconded that you're not making sense. They can do the same now...

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

20. I hope you get better soon. I think the Byrd rule you are thinking about pertained to reconciliation

[sandnsea]

21. No, I'm thinking about cloture

"Ending debate by a vote of cloture has also become less cumbersome. To make the trains run on time, in 1975, then-Majority Whip Robert Byrd pushed through a change in the filibuster rule, reducing the two-thirds vote requirement to a vote of 60 senators."

http://tinyurl.com/yhr4c8v

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm

[rhett o rick]

12. I'd like to know the answer to that. nt

[rhett o rick]

6. r 7. And I agree. nt

[iceman66]

7. Agreed.

[mdmc]

8. yes

[defendandprotect]

9. Agree . . .

[Romulox]

15. The Senate is already undemocratic. Rule by a 41 vote minority is ridiculous. nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

17. Here is an article on holds and the silent filibuster:

Holds are an informal device unique to the upper body. They permit a single Senator or any number of Senators to stop—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—floor consideration of measures or matters that are available to be scheduled by the Senate.

A hold, in brief, is a request by a Senator to his or her party leader to delay floor action on a measure or matter. It is up to the majority leader to decide whether, or for how long, he will honor a colleague’s hold. Scheduling the business of the Senate is the fundamental prerogative of the majority leader, and it is done in consultation with the minority leader.
<snip>
Potency of Holds
Holds are a potent blocking device because they are linked to the Senate’s tradition of extended debate and unanimous consent agreements. Party leaders understand that to ignore holds could precipitate objections to unanimous consent requests and filibusters.

Unlike filibusters, which may be partly educational in their purpose and which are televised nationally over C-SPAN, holds require no public utterance. Little surprise that holds are sometimes referred to as a “silent filibuster.”
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4Q%3C_9%0A

There is more at the site.

Here is another article:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%5CC3%23%40%20%20%0A

[FatDave]

18. Don't just bitch about it on DU, call the mellonfarmer! 202-224-3542

Senator Harry Reid's Washington DC Office

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. I want to see the filibuster!

I'd watch cspan at 3am just for grins at times.