A sure fire plan for Reid to humiliate the traitor Lieberman

[grantcart]

Follow up to a previous article on the US Filibuster explaining how it originated, the fact that it is relatively recent partisan tool in American politics:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/grantcart/234

This graph explains the point as well:




The Senate Majority Leader has two important tools that he can use to confront Lieberman and humiliate him in front of the world:


Step One - Invoke Standing Senate Rule XXII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#U.S._Filibuster_History

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may, therefore, be more powerful than an actual filibuster, which would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking.

Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they only need to indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.

This will require the Republicans and the traitor Lieberman to reenact an actual physical filibuster that Jimmy Stewart made famous in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington".



Step Two - Leave the Issue on the Agenda indefinitely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#U.S._Filibuster_History

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

Step Three - Schedule the Senate to meet 7 days a week and no holiday breaks

Simply schedule the Senate to meet in permanent session - No Thanksgiving breaks, no Sunday breaks and no Christmas breaks.

The result of these three steps would mean that the Republicans and the traitor known as Lieberman would have to maintain a 24/7 filibuster.

No other Senate business, including funding for the government, the war, or their own pet projects could be considered.

When it comes to an actual physical filibuster these scoundrels don't last long. Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 lasted only 24 hours and 18 minutes.


This would have numerous benefits. It would result in a public humiliation of the traitor Lieberman and it would show that the Republicans are paper tigers - they are willing to blow hard but they will not be actually sustain a filibuster that ruins their schedule with their mistresses.

It would also bring attention to the ludicracy of the filibuster, the relatively modern misuse of it and the extraordinary power small unpopulated states have that have resulted in the Senate becoming increasing less democratic in principle.

Short of tar and feathering it is the best way to expose them and humiliate them on a large stage.

[Wapsie B]

1. Humiliate them? The gop might get, well you know, angry if we expose them.

We can't have that happen. :sarcasm:

[elocs]

2. "The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night"

or Lieberman. The reality is that there will be no humiliation. Reality sucks, doesn't it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

Hoping for a C-SPAN spectacle of GOP obstruction, some impatient Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call Republicans on their filibuster bluff.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a plea typical of the genre, recently telling Politico that Reid should force Republicans into a filibustering talk-a-thon, "so that the American people can see who's undermining action."

By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

[grantcart]

4. And as the memo indicates a "call of a quorum" would be settled with

a 15 minute call.


The writer is suggesting something that has happened cannot happen in the future.


Involking rule 22 requires that the minority sustain a physical presence on the floor. Under Rule 22 a single person filibuster has never lasted more than 24 hours.


As for parlimentary rulings, they are not going to call Bob Dove, the rulings would be made by Vice President Biden who presides as President of the Senate.

[elocs]

6. Don't believe the Senate parliamentarian is a joke:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The central figure in Congress’s struggle to craft health-care legislation may be someone who’s neither a Democratic nor Republican lawmaker, or an elected official of any kind. He’s Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian.

It’s a role the obscure official could assume if the Senate fails to reach a bipartisan deal on a health-care bill. Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama say they would prefer such an accord. If they can’t get it, they have signaled they will turn to the so-called reconciliation procedure to short-circuit Republican opposition.

That move would enable Senate Democrats to pass a bill with 51 votes, rather than the 60 typically needed for contentious legislation. Under Senate rules, it also would give Frumin, 62, broad authority to decide which portions of the Democrats’ bill are relevant to the budget and empower him to delete provisions he considers unrelated.

“You’d end up with the parliamentarian of the United States Senate writing a health-care bill,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.

More at the link.

For those who are salivating at the prospect of Lieberman being humiliated or a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" spectacle, be prepared to be disappointed.

[grantcart]

10. You have interesting sources

here is the actual standing order 22 that makes the point made above, namely what one of your sources considers a myth in fact was used on Strom Thurmond with success when he tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


I haven't read all of the standing rules but in all of the standing rules that I have read it clearly states that it is the presiding officer has the ultimate authority to decide parlimentary related decisions.

Here in Standing Rule 28 it states that rulings on issues by conference committees by the presiding officer can only be overturned on appeal to the full Senate with two thirds of the Senate in agreement with the appeal.

http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=RulesOfSenate.View&Rule_id=fd8af2a4-e84b-42b5-a968-15ae11b902e2&CFID=21192151&CFTOKEN=73538187


Wikipedia states that it is the parlimentarian is an advisor only

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Parliamentarian

The role of the parliamentary staff is strictly advisory; the Presiding Officer is in no way required to follow their advice, though they almost always do so. The office also refers bills to the appropriate committees on behalf of the Senate's Presiding Officer.


Now I consider wikipedia to be a far second to actual original source material, but I would put it above the likes of Lamar Alexander who is consitently wrong on almost all matters.


The language of the rules above, including 28 would seem to support the Wikipedia claim. I look forward to reading the actual rules of the Senate that support your contention that the Senate Parlimentarian is left with powers that it does not have in any other part of the Standing Rules.

[elocs]

11. Here's another that I found posted here at DU:

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2008/12/why-republicans-can-effortlessly.html

Why The Republicans Can Effortlessly Filibuster
Over at Pandagon, commenter mjb explained why Harry Reid can't force filibustering Republicans to perform humiliating acts of phone book reading in front of the cameras, thus displaying their obstructionism for all to see. The answer is that a successful filibuster only requires one Republican on the floor, quietly objecting to unanimous consent for ending debate (they don't have to give long filibustery speeches or anything):

there isn’t really any way to force Republicans to speak to sustain a filibuster. The Senate can only proceed to a vote on a bill either by unanimous consent, or by getting 60 votes to invoke cloture. As long as one Republican is on the floor, all s/he has to do is object to any request for unanimous consent, and the Democrats have to get 60 votes. The threshold required for cloture is a percentage of sitting senators, not senators voting, so the Republicans wouldn’t even need to be there to vote against cloture; they just need to refrain from voting for it. The Democrats, on the other hand, would need to keep at least 50 members on hand at all times to respond to a quorum call, or else the Republican in the chamber would suggest the absence of a quorum and the Senate would adjourn. So Democrats would be bearing the brunt of whatever physical toll this would take, and Republicans would be the ones getting a good night’s sleep, and would have no incentive to cave. After all, Republicans are happy for the Senate to do nothing over the next two years; with Democrats in the majority, a long stalemate like this would be taking time away from work and votes on Democratic priorities, not Republican ones. The Republicans tried keeping the Senate in session continuously a few years ago to try to pressure Democrats to abandon some filibusters of judicial nominees, and it didn’t work. A similar effort in 2009 would encounter the same problems.

The only time a read-the-phone-book, wet-your-pants filibuster like in a Jimmy Stewart movie would take place would be when Democrats had the 60 votes to invoke cloture and Republicans could only stop them by refusing to relinquish the floor so that a vote could be called. Then McConnell really would have to keep talking. But this sort of filibuster never really happens, because it has no chance of working. After all, unless you’re actually in a Jimmy Stewart movie, the 60 person majority can keep being 60 people longer than any one person can stand and talk, so unless some Senator wants to get headlines for him or herself in a losing cause there isn’t any reason to do it.

I asked him why we have the interesting historical filibusters we do, like the one where Huey Long spent hours reading out his favorite recipes and how to make pot liquor, and he explained:

These are generally theatrical, rather than actual efforts to change the outcome. At best, the filibustering senator could hope to raise the profile of the issue, but he had no real hope of winning the vote. Long’s filibuster failed to stop the New Deal bill he was opposing, or to force the changes he wanted. Strom Thurmond’s record-setting filibuster similarly failed to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which had already been gutted by Richard Russell, anyway). The record he broke belonged to Wayne Morse, who also failed to stop the bill he was protesting against. All three were pretty assiduously self-promoting, even for senators, and they were hoping both to make their point in a dramatic way and to advance their own careers by doing so. And a lot more people remember them and their filibusters than the bills they were fighting, so I suppose it worked.

[grantcart]

13. Your citation makes my point

At best, the filibustering senator could hope to raise the profile of the issue, but he had no real hope of winning the vote. Long’s filibuster failed to stop the New Deal bill he was opposing, or to force the changes he wanted. Strom Thurmond’s record-setting filibuster similarly failed to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (which had already been gutted by Richard Russell, anyway). The record he broke belonged to Wayne Morse, who also failed to stop the bill he was protesting against. All three were pretty assiduously self-promoting, even for senators, and they were hoping both to make their point in a dramatic way and to advance their own careers by doing so. And a lot more people remember them and their filibusters than the bills they were fighting, so I suppose it worked.


It is true that they would have to maintain the floor with a single Senator, but you cannot maintain the floor in silence. Even if you could a single Democratic Senator could maintain the conflict by continuing to ask if the Senator will yield when the Senator has gone silent.


An absolute determination by Reid - even if it took weeks - would turn the country against the filibuster because end the end the American people believe in fair play and the idea that you can win by not allowing a vote is perceived by the public as being undemocratic and not fair.


The increased scruitiny would be huge.


I doubt that Reid has the stubborness to do it. Me, I can be fucking stubborn when I have to! lol.

[elocs]

15. I think the reality is that there will be no old fashioned "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" filibuster

no matter how many want to see it done.

[BunkerHill24]

3. I hope the Senate leadership finds a way to let Joe Go...n/t

[ChicagoSuz219]

5. I hope he, at least, votes to let the debate go forward...

...aren't there any brave republicans left in the Senate? Here's McCain's big chance to get all 'mavericky' again...

[Demeter]

7. Somebody Has Mistaken Harry Reid for a Man Who Gives a Care

He doesn't. He never has. The only time Harry got worked up, he was threatening Senators who objected to the bailouts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRLhedvFprg

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. +1

[cliffordu]

8. I like number three, it has the sexy cache of a nuclear meltdown in the making.

Make them get off their asses and do the jay oh fucking bee

[bonzotex]

9. Agreed....

This painless chicken-shite filibuster game has to end.

[tritsofme]

14. What incentive do Republicans have to cave?

If you're the minority and are unable to pass any legislation of your own, what do you care if the Senate moves on to other business? I'm sure they would be perfectly happy to not only stop HCR, but also financial reform and climate change legislation, and keep talking until the elections.

It will eventually be the responsibility of Leadership to move on and pass essential spending bills to avoid a government shutdown. That is how such a scenario may end.

But we don't need to have such an epic showdown on HCR, we will simply pass the bill using budget reconciliation rules with 50 votes plus Biden if the normal procedural hurdles are too great.