Is there a rational argument against making Republicans filibuster on the floor?

[Oregone]

And if so, does the benefit of this approach outweigh the potential risks posed to the system by making filibuster too easy to conduct?

Thoughts?

[Warpy]

1. None. In fact, the only time Reid brought in cots and told them to do it

they caved immediately.

Did Harry learn anything from that?

Apparently not.

[Oregone]

3. Wouldn't consistently forcing filibusters to the floor act as a deterrent then to future filibusters...

One would think. Conversely, to give in to symbolic filibusters and move onto other business, or capitulate, would further encourage these nominal filibusters.


The only reason I can ascertain, is the Democrats are not in favor of the particular legislature that Republicans threaten to filibuster against.

[Warpy]

7. Yes, it's why I could throttle Reid with a smile on my face.

That's exactly the lesson he needs to learn.

It's not a gentleman's club where mutual respect is practiced any more, Harry. You need to stand up to bullies.

[Recursion]

17. You can't "force a filibuster" the way people are talking about

The Strom Thurmond reading from the phone book all night thing is just when one or a very few people want to stop something that both parties' leadership has agreed on. If 41 Senators don't want to vote for cloture, cloture doesn't pass. The Republicans don't need to talk to keep debate from ending. They can all just sit there. Reid could just keep calling cloture vote after cloture vote, but they'd just keep voting no.

[AnArmyVeteran]

94. Then keep them there! Give democrats 'speed' till repukes fall asleep...

Then keep them there! Give democrats 'speed' to keep them awake & when GOBPrs fall asleep and have another vote. Stay there for months if needed, but FORCE your opponents to take a stand. Even the inept media would have to cover the proceedings if congress stayed in chamber for 10 days and nights straight, or 30 days and nights, or longer. I'm so sick of the weak kneed democratic leaders caving in to the evil forces in the right wing.

Under Bush, republicans had nowhere near the majority that democrats have now, but republicans managed to shove through most of the things they wanted. Hell, they even gave the corrupt and dimwitted Bush authorization to go to war. How stupid could anyone be to give Bush that much power? And they did it knowing Bush would invade Iraq, a country which HAD NO CAPABILITIES TO ATTACK THE US and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. I knew Bush and thugs were lying. Why didn't the democratic dimwits in congress? Hell, only one democrat voted against the Patriot Act. Sometimes I wonder whose side are democratic senators and representatives on? Certainly not the side of the people. I am tired of gutless cowards, inept dolts or corrupt frauds in my government.

Reid is an inept 'leader' of the Senate and should be replaced. If he gets beaten by an insane, mentally challenged, cruel hack like Sharron Angle then Reid deserves to lose. But even if he wins he needs to be thrown out of his Senate position. I don't know how Reid got the job to start with. He has zero leadership skills. That position needs to be filled with someone with damned guts, someone like LBJ.

[treestar]

132. Bush got what he wanted, when he did, by using 911

End of story. This one is getting old.

And Repukes do not want as much. And what they want falls under reconciliation more easily.

[backscatter712]

138. Exactly. Filibusters aren't like in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

When the GOP wants to filibuster, only one of them needs to show up at the Senate chambers, to say the magic words "I suggest the absence of a quorum", which forces a quorum call, and then at least 51 Democrats need to answer the quorum call, or the Senate session is adjourned. The GOP senator just has to force quorum calls over and over. Tune into C-SPAN while this is happening, and all you'll hear is the elevator music.

The best way to fight a filibuster is the way it was done for the Wall Street reform bill - schedule cloture votes over and over and over, while having Democratic Senators and other personalities do a non-stop campaign on the cable news circuits blasting the GOP for being douchebags. It worked for the finance reform bill, because Goldman Sachs' dirty laundry was getting aired out, they were extremely unpopular, and we could easily tar the GOP for supporting Wall Street instead of the American people. They caved.

It will also eventually work with the unemployment bill, but Democrats need to be extremely aggressive with the cable-news campaigning and repeated cloture votes.

[asdjrocky]

2. Not that I know of.

To me this is just more proof of collusion, more good cop-bad cop stuff. All a show for the masses, or at least the masses that care enough to pay any attention at all.

[myrna minx]

4. It might make them angry. We can't have that. n/t

[lob1]

5. The dems let the pubs get away with the fillibuster most

of the time to hide their own corruptness.

[havocmom]

9. my fear is you are correct

It is not DEM v GOP on the Hill. It's theater. Most of both teams playing for same owners.

[Better Believe It]

6. No. That just serves as a convenient excuse for inaction and political paralysis.

As has been explained many times on DU.

Reid has the power under Senate Rule 22 and the Constitution of the United States to end the "two track" Senate floor debate procedure, stop "procedural" pretend filibusters by Republicans and even stop any kind of filibuster, real or imaginary, from beginning!

[Oregone]

10. So is the filibuster as useful of a tool for the party in power to shape public perception?

Who is really getting the most use out of the notion of the filibuster?

One party can invoke the term to shape or stop policy, and they directly bear responsibility.

The other invokes it as an excuse to water down policy, while shifting the blame to the opposition.

The later seems to be the much more politically prudent use of using the notion in the public sphere.

[Better Believe It]

77. What the public sees is Senate paralysis and inaction under the leadership of Democrats.

I think that's how millions will look at it.

They wonder how can a minority of Republicans so easily stop a Democratic led Senate from functioning. Are they smarter? That sure won't get Democrats many votes. It won't help Republicans much either but a lot of potential Democratic voters will either stay home or vote for independent candidates.

[fishwax]

8. no

not that I'm aware of :shrug:

[Recursion]

27. There's a very simple, rational argument against it: Reid can't

If there are 41 Senators who will vote against cloture, then debate doesn't end. Reid can't make them get up and talk. All he could do is keep calling the exact same cloture vote, over and over again, and it would keep coming up as 58-41.

[annabanana]

47. then he should DO that.. over and over and over again, dusk to dawn

and into the next week, next month...If that's what the Republicans want to do instead of govern....

[Recursion]

51. Right, but then it's Reid, not the GOP, who comes off looking obstructionist

The Republicans say "we're trying to move on with the business of the American people and Senator Reid is calling the same procedural vote hundreds of times" while Chris Matthews nods and looks on gravely.

[BlueIdaho]

11. Time to change the Senate rules...

If the Senate believes it's an important tool - fine - but it's time to make them return to the old school stand and deliver until you collapse filibuster. Let them bring the Senate to a grinding halt and then reap the whirlwind of angry voters.

The same with "secret" holds. What utter bullshit. If you want to singlehandedly stand in the way of the work Senate, you deserve the glare of the spotlight and the full rath of voters.

[napi21]

20. Most of the time I feel that way too, but then I realize that the Dems

won't be the majority party forever, and is it wise to eliminate things now for our benefit, but have to live with those same rules when the tables turn?

[Recursion]

33. Well, they could change the rules after the next election

And it's looking like they might. But under the rules as they stand, Reid can't make the Republicans stand there and read from the phone book. He just doesn't have the votes to get debate to end in the first place (and yes, I recognize the irony in the fact that people only need to stand and talk forever after "debate has ended").

[Better Believe It]

44. The Senate has the right and power to change rules at anytime they wish, including the rule saying

when they can change rules, such as the beginning of a new Senate!

[Recursion]

48. Sure, they could initiate a rules change motion, but that motion itself...

...would be governed by the current rules.

And 41 Senators would vote against cloture on it. The point of changing the rules at the initiation of the next Congress is that at that point it's easier to pass things because they don't have the rules on who can obstruct and how set up yet.

[Better Believe It]

127. The Senate President , Biden, could rule that Senate rules can be changed at anytime with a simple

majority vote of Senators.

[Better Believe It]

128. For weekend DU'ers

[Recursion]

129. Yes, as I pointed out downthread

If you want somebody to do away with the filibuster as a whole, that's narrowly within Biden's powers, and has nothing to do with Reid. And he probably couldn't get 49 Democrats to go along with it.

[Recursion]

12. Filibusters don't work the way DU seems to think they work

They could simply call cloture vote after cloture vote, but the Republicans would just stay there and keep voting no. It's a waste of time and money.

The "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or Strom Thurmond reading from a phone book thing only happens when the leadership of both parties wants to move forward but an individual or small group want to make a point of holding out. That's not how 99% of filibusters have happened -- normally the minority party simply announces they won't vote for cloture. The majority party could keep calling votes, but it's not going to do any good.

Republican Senators don't have to go up there and talk to keep stuff from going for a full vote. There's nothing Reid can do to make them go talk. Everybody could just sit there or go to their offices and work.

[Oregone]

16. "It's a waste of time and money"

On the other-hand, does saving time and money at the cost of consistently producing mediocre legislation outweigh the alternative?

[Recursion]

19. I think you're missing my point

Reid can't make them get up and talk all night. You only do that if you're a lone Senator trying to stop both parties from voting for something. 41 Senators can simply say they won't vote to end debate, and debate doesn't end.

[Oregone]

24. I understand that

But is the alternative of constant easy filibusters grid-locking legislation better than illustrated, active obstruction on camera?

[Recursion]

26. Even before the Byrd rule change, this situation wouldn't require somebody to stand up and talk

If you have 41 Senators who won't vote to end debate, then debate won't end. Strom Thurmond got up and read from the phone book because LBJ, Mansfield, and Dirkson convinced enough Democrats and Republicans to vote for the Civil Rights Act that debate ended. So Thurmond (and a few other Southern Democrats) took the floor and kept it as long as they physically could. If there had been enough Senators unwilling to end debate in 1964, Thurmond and the gang wouldn't have had to do that; they would have just kept voting no on cloture.

Thurmond was a Democrat back then, and Democrats were in the majority in the Senate. This is how the Jimmy Stuart thing, when it happened, usually did: a member of the majority party is trying to block his own party from moving forward with something he doesn't like.

[Oregone]

29. Im not sure you get the whole public display of obstructionism thing

[Recursion]

31. I do. I don't think you get that Reid is ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to force the GOP to do that

All Reid could do is keep holding the same cloture vote, over and over again, and have it keep coming up 58-41 (59-41 once Byrd's replacement gets seated). Debate on the bill would never end, and the Republicans wouldn't need to do anything except keep showing up for the cloture votes and voting "no".

[Oregone]

32. "All Reid could do is keep holding the same cloture vote, over and over again"

You mean, all he could do is have the Republicans publicly illustrate obstructionism? Sounds good to me.


"the Republicans wouldn't need to do anything except keep showing up for the cloture votes and voting "no"."

Thats all they would need to do. Perpetually obstruct on camera

[Recursion]

34. IMO that would make Reid look stupid and childish

Like an 8-year-old who keeps calling for a do-over.

[Oregone]

36. Currently he looks like an 8 year old getting slapped around by their step-dad

Yup...so much better.


Well, if you will always cede the political narrative to your opponent, then why bother?

[annabanana]

49. IMO it would point out that the 'pubs have put the breaks on government altogether

[tritsofme]

35. Reid is already doing this.

He has called for multiple cloture votes to highlight Republican obstructionism on things like the unemployment extension, finreg, ect, and has frequently been able to break through.

But this is about all he can do. If there are not 60 votes to end debate, there are not 60 votes.

[annabanana]

50. It won't get reported until he does it into the next news cycle, and the next. . n/t

[Better Believe It]

71. No. Senator Reid was permitting the Senate to consider and debate other legislation

during the fake filibuster under his "two track" procedure.

Nothing was held up by the Republicans.

Reid withdrew that bill and did not keep it "alive" for Senate consideration.

[Recursion]

72. But then it's Reid being obstructionist

You want him to refuse to do any business as long as the GOP won't vote to end debate on a certain bill. Fine, he can do that. But then it's him being obstructionist, not the Republicans.

I can't think of anything that would make the GOP happier: all of our legislation gets blocked, and Reid is doing the blocking. Yeah, sounds like a great idea :sarcasm:

[Oregone]

75. It comes down to whatever narrative you are more willing to believe

And if you are more willing to take the Republican narrative to heart, and suggest perpetual capitulation to them instead, all the power to you.

[Recursion]

80. Let me get this straight

You want Reid to stop all Senate business as long as the Republicans refuse to vote for cloture on a single bill. Thereby letting them block all legislation rather than one bill at a time. You want Reid to refuse to conduct any business, and you think this will make the Republicans look obstructionist, rather than the guy who has the power to consider new legislation but doesn't do it?

[Oregone]

83. Absolutely.

Pick a bill America believes in and Republicans hate, and draw a line in the sand. Get your PR people camped out at each news outlet and your releases ready, and watch the fireworks fly. Deliver an ultimatum and let the chips fall where they may. Show a little spine, and get some respect. Frame the debate such that all that business will be pursued the moment the Republicans vote for cloture. Put the ball entirely in their court.

[Better Believe It]

90. No. That would make a filibuster real and it would be the Republicans filibustering, not Reid

So you think the public would blame Democrats and not the Republicans for tying up the Senate with a filibuster to prevent the jobless from getting unemployment benefits.

Ya. Un huh. That's for sure. Got your finger on the pulse of the nation, do ya?

:)

[Recursion]

130. You really aren't thinking this through, are you?

Once Reid decided to stop all business until a cloture vote passed, the Republicans would come up with some extremely popular bill and introduce it, and then talk about Reid being childish and blocking it, which would actually be pretty accurate.

Seriously. You just aren't thinking about this very much. You want Reid to block all legislation, and you imagine this will fool people into thinking the Republicans are blocking all legislation.

[lamp_shade]

18. What you said is absolutely true, but nobody here wants to listen. Thanks for posting this.

[Better Believe It]

28. You're mistaken. Filibusters don't work the way you seem to think they work

"Republican Senators don't have to go up there and talk to keep stuff from going for a full vote. There's nothing Reid can do to make them go talk. Everybody could just sit there or go to their offices and work."

That's just factually wrong.

While it's true that Republicans forced to filibuster on the Senate floor could not be forced to talk, they could not just willy nilly leave the Senate floor to work in their office or meet up with some hooker like they do now! Senator Reid has the power to end that bull shit!

If Republicans would like to stand up like dumb shits in the Senate chamber for hours or days, with their mouths shut before TV cameras, and look like a deer caught in headlights, let them! That's almost worth paying to see! :)

After Senator Reid pulled the unemployment compensation bill from consideration after it failed to receive 60 votes allegedly need to end a pretend Republican filibuster, here's what I posted:


----------------------------------------------


The unemployment bill only costs a little over 3 billion for a year. A real budget buster some claimed! Yet, that much money is spent in a single day for the Department of War(Defense) and supplementary war appropriations! Plenty of money for war.

What makes this really bad is that 57 Senators voted for the unemployment benefits. That's enough to easily pass it. But, not by Senator Reid's count. That because Senator Reid permits Republicans to engage in a "procedural" filibuster.

What's that you might say. Well, a procedural filibuster permits Republican Senators to notify Senator Reid with a piece of paper that they are engaged in a filibuster against a specific bill without having to actually engage in a bona fide filibuster!

And Senator Reid, with the apparent approval of most Senate Democrats, also allows a "two-track" debate on the Senate floor.

It works like this. While the Republicans are engaged in a pretend Senate filibuster, Senators can debate and vote on other legislation on the Senate floor! Isn't that sweet .... and convenient for Republicans. Senator Reid can end his "two track"
rule along with phantom Republican filibuster if he chooses to.

And he along with other Democratic Senate leaders could make it clear to the media and general public that 60 votes are not required to pass legislation in the Senate. Instead, they perpetuate the myth that 60 votes are needed and that their hands are tied because they can't stop Republican filibusters that are allegedly tying up the Senate.

Stop the bull shit!

Reintroduce the bill and include COBRA health insurance help!

Pass the fricken unemployment compensation bill!

Dare the Republicans to filibuster on the Senate floor against it!

I'm tired of seeing Democrats acting like frightened helpless wimps because right-wing Republican deficit hawks are now demanding cuts in spending that helps working people and the elderly.

And I'm tired of that old song and dance act claiming Senator Reid and his fellow Democrats don't have the power to end this obstructionism. Some might even think that Senator Reid along with several other Democrats don't really want to end Republican obstructionism because these bogus "filibusters" provide a convenient excuse for inaction and political paralysis.

It's time to go after the opponents of help for the unemployed.

BBI

Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster
By MANU RAJU
March 4, 2010

Senate Democrats may be ready to actually make Republicans carry out filibusters.

Basking in their political victory over Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) blockade of an extension of unemployment insurance, Democrats say that they may force Republicans to talk endlessly on the floor in the months leading up to November’s elections.

For months, House Democrats — and liberal activists — have implored Senate Democrats to let filibusters unfold over hours on the Senate floor, rather than try disposing of Senate business with cloture votes and unanimous consent requests.

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

“When we think the Republicans are being unreasonable — we’re going to consider our options under the rules of the Senate, I think there is a feeling after what we went through with Sen. Bunning’s blockage and unemployment benefits that we need to stand up more and make it clear what this obstruction costs,” Durbin said.

In the past, Democrats have hesitated to employ the tactic, fearing that it would serve only to bottle up the agenda further and create even worse perceptions of the Democratic-led Congress. Instead, when Republicans have threatened to filibuster, Democrats pull the legislation from the floor if they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html

-------------------------------------------



Democrats May Force All-Night Session
By John Stanton
March 2, 2010

Democrats are hoping to turn the procedural tables on Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and use Senate rules to break his blockade against an extension of unemployment insurance, including possibly forcing a round-the-clock session.

Although no final decisions have been made, Democrats confirmed it is increasingly likely that Democrats will force Bunning into an actual filibuster of unemployment insurance extension Tuesday night by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote.

Although Members often threaten actual filibusters, they rarely materialize. Instead, lawmakers tend to rely on “Cadillac filibusters,” essentially stalling procedures that can be used to block legislation without having to actually stay put on the Senate floor.

Democrats on Tuesday signaled they have the resolve to remain in session throughout the night to force Bunning to abandon his cause. The American people “want an end to these games. And I hope that today we’ll see the end. If we don’t, we’re going to have to have a long, long night ahead of us to make the point that it’s wrong for one Senator to stop our people, our American people, from getting the help they deserve,” Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Tuesday.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43730-1.html

-------------------------------------------

Dems likely to force Bunning to stay on floor to filibuster
by Jed Lewiso
DailyKos.com
March 2, 2010

If Jim Bunning wants to continue his filibuster against the extension of emergency unemployment benefits, Senate Democrats increasingly likely to force him to stay on the floor -- all night, if necessary -- to carry it out.

According to Roll Call, Republicans are demanding Democrats hold three separate votes on so-called "pay-fors" in order to win Bunning's agreement on the unemployment benefits extension. Each "pay-for" take money from other programs to pay for the extension. Last week, Democrats agreed to one such vote, but today Majority Leader Reid rejected the Republican ransom, saying Democrats would honor their original deal, but that it was unacceptable to shift the goal posts just to score political points on the backs of unemployed American workers.

A side note: a few hours earlier today, Fox claimed that Bunning's filibuster had been resolved. Maybe that report was Fair & Balanced, but it wasn't right. But now that Democrats are making it clear that Bunning is going to have to actually stay on the floor round-the-clock to conduct his filibuster, hopefully we'll see some actual progress.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/2/842314/-Dems-likely-to-force-Bunning-to-stay-on-floor-to-filibuster

[Recursion]

30. If Reid doesn't have the votes to end debate he can't magically bring a bill for a vote

It wouldn't even get far enough that the GOP would have to keep the floor. Hell, Reid could have the floor the entire time, and he still couldn't end debate and bring a bill up for a vote if 41 Senators don't agree.

[Better Believe It]

42. So how many months do you think the Republicans will tie up the Senate ....

and not permit any legislation to be addressed in order to stop .... unemployment compensation to the jobless?

You keep the bill alive, don't permit two track Senate debate and force the Republicans to engage in a real filibuster, not the fake kind of procedural move which is improperly called a "filibuster".

But, let's test your theory and see who is right!

And don't rely on Senator Reid's "excuse memo" regarding filibusters. He can just as easily write a "new and improved memo" if and when Senate Democrats along with the White House lean on him to stop Republican obstructionism.

[Oregone]

43. "But, let's test your theory and see who is right!"

Sounds good to me

[Recursion]

46. None of you have explained WHAT REID IS SUPPOSED TO DO

How is he supposed to magically "force a filibuster"?

[Better Believe It]

58. Withdraw his "two track" rule and not accept /recognize a "procedural filibuster" notice

from any Republican Senator. Put them on notice that such slips of paper will not be accepted by the Senate chair.

[Recursion]

60. What do you think the "procedural filibuster" consists of?

A bill being debated under normal rules requires 60 votes to move it out of debate and to the floor for a vote. As long as 41 Senators are willing to keep voting "no", the legislation is blocked. That's the procedural filibuster. What do you suggest Reid should do about that?

[Better Believe It]

85. That's already been explained in detail.

"That's the procedural filibuster. What do you suggest Reid should do about that?"

Withdraw the "two track" rule and force Republicans to filibuster on the Senate floor.

This is not rocket science!

[Recursion]

86. The President of the Senate (not the majority leader) can "withdraw a rule" under certain conditions

So, A) your beef is with Biden, not Reid, and B) that would be so politically disastrous that it's not remotely being considered by anybody except apparently on DU. And for that matter I don't think Biden could get the votes even to do that.

[MineralMan]

13. I do wish they would force the GOOPers to actually filibuster,

especially this election year. Show them for the obstructionists that they are. Will it happen? I just don't know. I'm not sure that Senator Reid has the will to do it.

[Oregone]

25. "Show them for the obstructionists that they are. "

Precisely. Some people are missing just that. Having a minority shut down congress using procedural tactics could be political suicide if done properly (have narratives previously woven and PR releases ready for news outlets).

I know the status quo is no damn walk in the park.

[Recursion]

38. The minority is *already* using procedural tactics to shut down the Senate

It's not been political suicide for them yet. Are you saying people are going to watch an endless series of quorum calls and/or failed cloture votes on CSPAN and have that change their minds?

[Oregone]

40. If a black man can get elected in the US...

Surely a party can construct a political narrative that highlights and repudiates perpetual obstruction...if they wanted to.

Am I suggesting doing this out of the blue? Not exactly. They could accompany the action with a full out campaign against it and humiliate the Republicans for obstructing the will of the people

[Better Believe It]

88. The procedural filibusters have not shut down the Senate because of Reid's "two-track" rule.

Turn on C-Span and you would have seen the Senate in session discussing other matters during those Republican "procedural filibusters" against unemployment benefits for the jobless.

[Recursion]

106. It's not "Reid's" rule, it's the Senate's rule, and has been for decades NT

[Recursion]

39. It's not about will, it's about what Reid can and can't do

If 41 Senators will not vote for cloture, the bill is stuck exactly where it is now: in "debate". Nobody needs to talk to keep it there.

[napi21]

14. The one rational reason I've heard of is that NOTHING else

gets done during a fillabuster. NOTHING! No arguments on anything else except the one issue at hand. It also depends on just how they run the fillabuster. I've read some guides that say it wouldn't be oly one person, but could be multiple people insuccession, which means you could rotate through all 40+ Pubs whith each one babbeling for several hours. THAT could last throughout Obama's entire term!

That would mean that if Dems pushed the Pubs to fillabuster on unemployment extention, financial reform, immigration, removing the cap on oil co's liability, and on and on.

I've read other guides that say one person could begin talking, and when he got tired or had to leave the floor for some reason, another Pub would stand up and say FILLABUSTER and he would take over for the previous guy, and of course continue that forever!

From every search I've read, the Jimmy Stuart type does not exist anymore.

[Oregone]

21. Yes, all business is stopped

And there is also 24/7 cable news networks that would obsess over all business being stopped. Its not always the worse thing, in terms of politics, to have your opponents commit political suicide to make a point.

OTOH, the alternative we have of a symbolic, nominal filibuster to constantly obstruct progressive legislation is by no means acceptable either.

[Recursion]

23. Basically, yes

Though in the rules of debate for most bills, a single Senator could conceivably keep the floor as long as he or she wished (in theory he wouldn't even have to talk, just stand there).

The only way he could "force a filibuster" of the reading from the phone book kind would be, ironically, by getting a Republican to vote to end debate. Which he can't seem to do.

[tritsofme]

15. Because the "real filibuster" is a myth.

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."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."
<SNIP>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[librechik]

22. yes, let's get rid of the filibuster. That would be rational.

They won't. That is insane.

We don't use the filibuster to any good effect when we are in the minority.
The Rs abuse it when they have it.

Get rid of it. Everything should be straight majority rule. Period.

[Better Believe It]

37. Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can rule that 51 Senate votes can end filibusters

If Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above options whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing these options. By BBI.


---------------------------------------------

During the filibuster, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as President of the Senate, ruled that the debate over a rule change could be ended with a simple majority. Mansfield opposed Rockefeller's ruling and introduced a motion that was quickly tabled, 51-42, thus endorsing the majoritarian decision of Rockefeller. Conservatives were outraged and Mansfield, Byrd, and Minority Leader Robert Griffin attempted to overturn the precedent. Ultimately a proposal by Sen. Russell Long to change the cloture limit to 3/5 for two years and then revert back to the original 2/3 limit led to a compromise between the two factions to overcome Rockefeller's ruling.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

-------------------------------------------



The Case for Busting the Filibuster
By Thomas Geoghegan
This article appeared in the August 31, 2009 edition of The Nation.

In 1975 Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that just fifty-one senators could vote to get rid of the filibuster entirely. A simple majority of liberals could now force change on a frightened old guard. But instead of dumping the filibuster once and for all, the liberals, unsure of their support, agreed to a "reformed" Rule 22. It was this reform that, by accident, turned the once-in-a-blue-moon filibuster into something that happens all the time. The idea was to reduce the votes needed to cut off debate from sixty-seven, which on the Hill is a big hill to climb, to just sixty. Liberals like Walter Mondale wanted to make it easier to push through civil rights and other progressive legislation. What's the harm in that?

The only problem is that, because the filibuster had rendered the chamber so laughable, with renegade members pulling all-nighters and blocking all the Senate's business, the "reformers" came up with a new procedural filibuster--the polite filibuster, the Bob Dole filibuster--to replace the cruder old-fashioned filibuster of Senate pirates like Strom Thurmond ("filibuster" comes from the Dutch word for freebooter, or pirate). The liberals of 1975 thought they could banish the dark Furies of American history, but they wound up spawning more demons than we'd ever seen before. Because the senators did not want to be laughed at by stand-up comedians, they ended their own stand-up acts with a rule that says, essentially:

"We aren't going to let the Senate pirates hold up business anymore. From now on, if those people want to filibuster, they can do it offstage. They can just file a motion that they want debate to continue on this measure indefinitely. We will then put the measure aside, and go back to it only if we get the sixty votes to cut off this not-really-happening debate."

In other words, the opposing senators don't have the stomach to stand up and read the chicken soup recipes. We call it the "procedural" filibuster, but what we really mean is the "pretend" filibuster.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/geoghegan

[tritsofme]

41. On what basis do you find it likely Republicans will invoke the nuclear option

in the form you propose if they gained control of the Senate?

With a 55 seat majority in 2005, they chickened out on a much more limited version of the nuclear option than you advocate.

I think it is much more likely that neither party will ever take up the option of reforming or removing the filibuster using a ruling from the chair as opposed to an actual rules change.

[Recursion]

45. +1

There is absolutely no way Biden would do that. If you think the Teahadists are crazy now, that's nothing compared to the absolute apeshit armed revolt we would have on our hands if Biden did that. They probably will try to change the rules in the next Congress, and they probably will end up requiring more activism to delay procedures, but the idea of Biden ruling it from the chair is just not going to happen.

[Better Believe It]

87. All the Republicans had to due was threaten it in 2005 and Democrats

gave up the right to filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court picks!

[tritsofme]

89. Democrats reserved the right to filibuster under "extraordinary circumstances"

What you state is incorrect.

[Better Believe It]

52. Senator Reid forced Republicans to engage in a traditional filibuster in 2007!

There were only 51 Democrats plus two independents in the Senate that year.

--------------------------------------

Reid forces traditional filibuster

During the summer of 2007, Senate Republicans were successfully filibustering the Levin-Reed amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Department authorization bill that would set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a statement saying:

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.” But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces. I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down. If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster

-------------------------------------------

After Republicans filibustered for 24 hours, Senator Reid, as one would expect, caved into the Republicans. -By BBI

Democrats Won't Force War Vote
Effort Halted After GOP Blocks Proposal
By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 19, 2007

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

The vote followed 24 hours of Iraq speeches on the Senate floor, stretching from 11 a.m. Tuesday until yesterday's 11 a.m. vote. Cots that had been brought in for the overnight session were wheeled back out to a congressional storage facility, after being used by just six senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071800482.html?hpid=artslot

[Recursion]

53. OK, but no Republican had to get up and talk

He just kept the Senate in session all night, called for a few votes, and watched them fail.

It was a publicity stunt, and it didn't accomplish anything.

[Oregone]

54. So your alternative to attempting a successful publicity stunt is perpetual capitulation?

Why try? Fuck it man. Let's go bowling.

[Recursion]

61. I don't see any "capitulation" there

Reid didn't have 60 votes. You literally want him to keep calling the same procedural vote, over and over again? Hundreds of times? Thousands?

[Oregone]

64. Stopping business the Republicans don't like, or giving concession is capitulation

[Recursion]

65. So you literally want him to call the same procedural vote, hundreds of times, over and over?

And you think that would make the GOP look stupid rather than Reid?

[Oregone]

67. Yes, I want the Republicans to obstruct and vote 'NO' repeatedly

On camera.

[ProSense]

70. "vote 'NO' repeatedly On camera." They already do.

Now, how does that solve the problem?

[Oregone]

73. In the context of a filibuster?

Dont be dishonest.

[Recursion]

76. Yes, in the context of a cloture vote

They usually hold two or three to make the point, then they move on. You seem to want to keep losing the exact same vote, over and over again, while nothing else gets done.

[Oregone]

79. "They usually hold two or three to make the point"

Oh. Point taken. Put the three symbolic, customary votes out, and cave.

Thats precisely what I was referring to.

:rofl:

[Recursion]

82. Why is losing 100 votes better than losing 3?

Are you just a sucker for a lost cause?

[Oregone]

84. Why is losing 3 better than losing none?

Why vote for cloture at all? Why not just cave in the back rooms?

[onenote]

96. it doesn't work that way

Invoking cloture is formal multi step procedure that begins with the filing of a petition by at least 16 senators, followed by a waiting period of two days. While a vote against cloture can be reconsidered with a new vote immediately, successive cloture votes require new petitions, new waiting periods. So its generally not possible to stay up all night have repeated cloture votes unless there is unanimous consent to waive the rules, which of course there would not be. While its possible to file daily cloture petitions so that there could be one (or with reconsideration, two) cloture votes a day, that's about the limit.

To give an example, the campaign finance act in the 100th Congress was the subject of 8 cloture votes. THe first was on June 9, 1987. Four more took place between June 16 and June 19 (one per day). There was a lull and new cloture votes were held in early August and again in mid September. The last attempt came in February 1988.

[Oregone]

97. What way?

I'm not referring to a specific way. I'm asking why 3 failed cloture votes is the optimal amount to ensure both procedural efficiency and proper political maneuvering. Why is not more optimal for these purpose? Why is any a better option than none at all? What are these hidden rules this poster is using for a premise to hold up their entire argument?


2 failed cloture votes a day paired with suspended business, debate and a campaign to draw attention to the obstruction, over some period of time, will not fall off the front page.

[Better Believe It]

59. So you think Senator Reid should have stuck to his guns and not caved? I agree!

[tritsofme]

55. Bill Frist forced Democrats to engage in a traditional filibuster in 2003!

Also held an all night session, 30 hours straight. He ended up "caving in" to Democrats.

That's what happens when you don't have 60 votes.

[ProSense]

56. So this is just to show that the Senate can waste time?

Yesterday's 52 to 47 vote signaled that a slim Senate majority supports bringing home most combat forces by May 1, 2008, and came amid indications in recent weeks that a growing number of Republicans are concerned about progress in Iraq. Although Democrats won four Republican defectors, they fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the GOP's procedural objections.

Seriously, if it still needs 60 votes, what the hell does wasting time accomplish?

Do you think the media or anyone watching is going to perceive this as a victory for Democrats?

[treestar]

133. They don't know what they think but apparently

What they think is that by keeping them up all night, some Republican will go ahead and vote for cloture because he/she can't stand to have to keep voting against cloture. Sort of a mild form of torture, I suppose.

[blueworld]

57. Not in my opinion. Saving time is an obscene excuse.

Forcing them to filibuster openly would illustrate beautifully the obstructionism which binds them all together. Listening to their whiny excuses & lack of logic might also illuminate some independents & fence-sitters. Drag them into the light, force them to show what they are. Focus ferociously on their lack of concern for problem solving & their excess concern for party power.

Getting the guilty to slip up by using their own words against them is a time-honored technique.

[Recursion]

62. How do you suggest Reid "force them to filibuster openly"?

I'm seriously curious what you guys seem to think Reid can actually do.

[blueworld]

136. Don't "cancel" - force it to the floor. Are you implying he can't? n/t

[Recursion]

137. Force *what*, exactly, to the floor?

He has held cloture votes, they have failed. That is "forcing it to the floor".

What else do you want him to do?

Once again: the Strom Thurmond or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type of filibuster only happens if both parties already agree on moving forward with legislation and one legislator (or a small group) wants to make a point of holding out as long as they can. Without the votes for cloture there's no "to the floor" for Reid to "force".

[Better Believe It]

63. The Republicans won't hestitate to stop Democratic "filibusters" when they win a Senate majority.

As they might in 2010 or 2012.

They won't need an excuse. They didn't need one in 2005 when they threatened to use the Constitutional Option to prevent a filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court appointments. In response to that threat, Democratic Senate leaders surrendered the right to filibuster against Bush's nominees. Have we forgotten that?

The Republicans will stop any Democratic "procedural" filibusters they don't like. They won't bluff.

If necessary, the Republicans will get a ruling from their Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal or appointment and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

They were not afraid to do that in 2005 when they had a majority in the Senate and they are even less likely in the future to hesitate in using their Senate power to end real or threatened Democratic procedural filibusters.

Meanwhile, it seems that far too many Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate than use their majority power to run the Senate.

And voters will remember that.

[Mojeoux]

69. 10000%

[ProSense]

74. In order to do that they will need 60 votes

and likely some Dems will join them, but they will still need 60 votes.

So unless you're arguing that some Republicans should oppose the filibuster, what's your point?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Obviously, there' not enough dry powder accumulated.

Although there is enough money to prevent it.

[Better Believe It]

68. Democrats have the following options to deal with Republican "filibusters"

If the Republicans organize a Senate floor filibuster against legislation or appointments, the Democrats have the following options.

1. They can surrender to the mere threat of a filibuster and withdraw the nomination or bill.

2. They can weaken a legislative bill and give in to Republican demands until a few Republican Senators vote in favor of cloture.

3. They can surrender to an actual filibuster after taking one or two quick cloture votes to give the appearance of resistance just before they withdraw the legislation or nomination rather than let a filibuster come to a conclusion.

4. Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate and proceed with an up and down vote.

5. Use the "constitutional option" (nuclear option) in which the Senate easily changes Senate rules which would require 51 votes to approve legislation or an appointment and end a Republican filibuster.

So what really is the "nuclear option" which scared the crap out of Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators in 2005?

-----------------------------

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

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

[ProSense]

81. What?

"Let the Republicans filibuster until the public tires of Republican obstructionism and 60 Senators finally agree to end debate"?

So you think Republicans will give in after a lot of talk and vote for cloture?

Exactly, what gives you that impression?

And how does this prove that 60 votes aren't required?

[spanone]

78. i wish they would have kept them there thru the 4th of july holiday

and every minute of everyday have a spokesperson out there reminding the media and population WHY THEY ARE THERE.

[DCBob]

91. This has been answered and reanswered about a hundred times on this board..

Boring.

[Oregone]

92. Not sufficiently enough to quell debate. Inquiring minds would like to know

The current reasoning doesn't seem rational to everyone, whatsoever. The entire "Move along, nothing to see here" line just doesn't seem to be holding much weight.

[DCBob]

93. Recursion answered it about a good as anyone could..

and he was more patient that I would have been. I find it hard to believe you are still not statisfied. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

[Oregone]

95. By providing insufficient answers, therefore the debate remains relevant

That poster is operating on the premise that 3 failed closure votes is the optimal amount for political and procedural purposes, and that anymore would instantly result in the framing of Democrats as obstructionists, rather than the Republicans perpetually voting "No".

You have to take a few leaps before swallowing that completely.

[BzaDem]

98. Cloture votes can only occur once every few days.

It's in the Senate rules.

So if you wanted to hold up the Senate for a period of x days to force cloture votes on a given bill, the obstruction would only be displayed for a TINY fraction of that time (i.e. 20 minutes for a vote every 2 days). You might be able to use motions to reconsider to get it to be 20 minutes for a vote every day. But while this is going on, that track can't be used for anything else. In other words, to force a 20 minute vote to show obstruction, you need to waste 1-2 days where obstruction is not visible at all.

Basically, it comes down to there being about 20 times the amount of stuff that has to pass (including lower court nominations, which are important as they are for life terms) as there is time remaining in the session. They aren't about to make that worse by wasting more time on forcing votes every few days that the media will barely report anyway.

[Oregone]

104. "that the media will barely report anyway"

Lets put that to a test.

As of now, I see ZERO evidence that 3 failed closure votes is the optimal amount to accomplish any stated goal, and I see an equal lack of evidence that pursuing more will instantly frame the Democrats as the obstructionists. If these arguments against growing a spine continue, we should demonstrate them in real life so people have something to go by.

[BzaDem]

109. They have had more than 3 in the past. It didn't get anywhere.

On a campaign finance bill back in the late 80s, they had something like 10 cloture votes over a period of weeks. It got nowhere. There are probably instances where there are more.

[Oregone]

114. "There are probably instances where there are more"

And there are instances of less, which resulted in cloture.

Its never a one-size-fits-all approach. A lot of it depends upon where a country currently stands, how the people feel about the specific issue and other pressing matters, how well the framing is constructed, etc.

If rolling over isn't an option, fighting becomes more viable.

[BzaDem]

116. Just because a vote changes from no to yes doesn't mean it changed because of repeated votes.

Often people filibuster until certain changes are made, or to temporarily stall for time to see if some agreement can be reached. If you know of an instance where repeated cloture votes changed an outcome (where another factor was not the cause) on a consequential bill, I'd love to hear it and read about it.

[Oregone]

120. Essentially, you can shout down any potential, proven strategy by denying causation

Its great lengths to go to in order to carry water for the "capitulation" strategy.

To each their own.

[DCBob]

99. So you admit Reid cant force them to filibuster in the traditional sense...

read a phone book, recipe book, etc? Thats some progress. As far as making them continuously voting no, Reid has done that up to point and it has worked somewhat on issues that only needed a couple of votes from Snowe, Collins, etc.. but doing that for days and days on issues that are more opposed by Repubs would be a waste of time.. they dont care. Its a badge of honor to them and it would probaby end up backfiring on the Dems.

[Oregone]

101. "Reid has done that up to point and it has worked somewhat "

:toast:

:party:



It can be done. Its not impossible. WOW

[BzaDem]

102. Yes, holding one vote every day or two (wasting the time in between votes)

is possible. On issues that Snowe/Collins support, they will vote for the bill. (I.e. an unemployment-extension-only bill). On issues that they don't support, it doesn't work. The wasted time to visible obstruction ratio is something like 72 to 1. That wasted time is time not going to other things like confirmations to lifetime appointees to the courts of appeals/district courts/other legislative issues.

[Oregone]

107. Oh yes...we don't want to interrupt to incredible efficiency of the Senate

Encouraging nominal filibusters by not sufficiently challenging them is interfering with efficiency on its own (not to mention, the efficiency of elected politicians to adequately express the will of the people)

[BzaDem]

108. The problem is that "challenging them" does not "discourage" filibusters in the slightest.

If you don't end your obstruction, I'll, I'll, I'll, ... force you to take a vote in 2 days! MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! That will show them!

And if you vote no then, well, I'll just have to... make you do it again in another 2 days! How much more of this can you take!

:rofl:

Some discouragement.

"we don't want to interrupt to incredible efficiency of the Senate"

Just because the Senate is inefficient now doesn't mean it can't become a LOT MORE inefficient if we took up your idea of "discouraging" filibusters by "sufficiently challenging" them.

[Oregone]

111. Im not necessarily sure we have sufficent proof to determine that

3 show votes, and on to other business? Thats enough to go by?

[BzaDem]

112. You really think there is a chance that a threatened vote every 2 days would sway anyone?

To me it seems so obvious that it wouldn't that we don't need to waste weeks of Senate floor time (and several lifetime appointments to the federal bench) trying to prove it.

Senators have votes all the time. An additional vote is barely noticed by them. Additional votes are not a marginal cost to them at all. You don't need proof that the cost won't sway them when there actually is no cost.

[Oregone]

113. With business suspended over a length of time and a full media campaign behind an ultimatum?

We don't know until we try.



"To me it seems so obvious that it wouldn't"

Well, doy, let's just roll over. It seems like the obvious thing to do

[BzaDem]

115. Oooooh, a "full media campaign" and an "ultimatum."

Sounds scary.

In fact, for most issues, Republicans are PROUD to repeatedly vote no. Scheduling more votes would be a benefit to them as far as they were concerned. On the jobs bill, we would schedule a vote on our bill, and they would force a cloture vote on the same bill but "paid for." Over and over. They would feel that the more time spent on proving that they are "fiscally responsible" (or whatever they want to call it), the better for them. Meanwhile, they would relish in the fact that they are stalling other business that would otherwise get through (such as 99-0 votes on district court nominations).

In short, Republicans would LOVE Reid to implement your strategy, and we are very fortunate that Reid is not doing so.

[Oregone]

117. " In fact, for most issues, Republicans are PROUD to repeatedly vote no"

They are also proud to stop liberal legislation, or rape it until its meaningless and pin the tail on the Democrats

[BzaDem]

119. Yes, they are. That's exactly why forcing more votes will not move legislation.

Just because we don't like that doesn't mean there is a viable option to prevent it.

[Oregone]

121. Good. Lets just give up then.

Actually....why don't we let them write the bills (and we will let them vote against them too)!

Oh....we are getting so maniacal here...they won't see what coming. Its 3D Chess.

[BzaDem]

122. This whole "fight" vs. "give up" argument is really not applicable to this case.

You fight when the potential benefit to fighting is positive relative to the cost.

You do not fight just because you are in denial about the Senate rules. You do not fight just because you are pissed about not being able to get what you want, with no potential upside other than making you feel better (and a very real cost).

In this case, not only does the cost outweigh the potential benefit, but there actually IS NO POTENTIAL BENEFIT (and the Republicans think there is a benefit to THEIR SIDE).

There is a 60 vote threshold to most bills out of the Senate. Being in denial about that (or saying we should "fight" as opposed to "give up") doesn't change that.

If you want to fight, you should fight so that we have 62-63 votes in the Senate (so we can pass anything and ignore the qualms of Ben Nelson/etc). You shouldn't pretend the threshold isn't 60, or that it can be lowered by forfeiting legislative time on the calendar by forcing repeated votes every few days with the same outcome.

[Oregone]

123. "the potential benefit"

Which has not been sufficiently established through trial and error.

[BzaDem]

124. It also has not been established that throwing a rock at my window will break it.

After all, it has never been done. My window has never broken. So we shouldn't assume that throwing a rock at it will break it. We should use "trial and error" to prove it.

:rofl:

[Oregone]

125. Please do so.

And send me a picture

[treestar]

135. Thank you for the sanity!

Some are just frustrated and would prefer to handle that by making up imaginary Senate scenarios. Easier to blame Reid than to work on those Senate campaigns.

[treestar]

134. Full media campaign?

Do you not think the M$M would spin this in the Republicans' favor the whole way?

:rofl:

I think you are obsessed with a fantasy of unlimited power of force. If only Reid would just do this, everything would be great. An easy way out. If Reid had that easy way out, why wouldn't he take it, if he is so spineless?

[DCBob]

103. Cheers back..

:toast:

I am having a glass of cheap merlot.

[mdmc]

100. It would take a spine to do so

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

105. It has nothing to do with "spine," and that is the most intellectually dishonest argument about this

issue.

It has to do with Senate rules, not with "spine." As a general matter, anyone saying these things have to do with "spine" should not be taken seriously.

[mdmc]

110. So why not make a Senator stand and deliver

why fold up front?

Or, when the GOP is in control, why won't the dems threaten to filibuster? (cause the GOP would crush them, imho).

[BzaDem]

118. Because that isn't possible in the Senate rules?

Why can't people get that? Why is this SO HARD to understand? Why do people keep making up Senate rules out of whole cloth and then ask why their made-up rules aren't being observed?

"Or, when the GOP is in control, why won't the dems threaten to filibuster?"

Tons of GOP bills have been killed because of threatened or implicit Democratic filibusters. In general, the GOP doesn't try to enact non-reconciliation bills unless they have 60 votes, so no filibuster is needed.

[Better Believe It]

139. No. In fact, it is very easy to accomplish by whatever party controls the Senate.

Question: "Why is this SO HARD to understand?"

Answer: Because it's not factually correct.

Senate Democrats can both make and interpret the rules when they have a majority in the Senate and the President of the Senate, Joseph Biden, can also play a huge role in interpreting Senate rules.

Read the Constitution of the United States and Senate Rule 22.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

126. Two reasons to oppose

1. The aroma of smokie marshmallows as the Senators did the s'more melting thing in the lobby.
   
2. After it was over the janitorial staff would have to clean up the lobby and store the cots.

[TheKentuckian]

131. I seem to recall the pukes folding like a cheap tent when Christmas vacation was in danger.

Endless votes eating up personal time and cutting into fundraising seems to motivate them quite a lot.