Any filibuster can be defeated with only 51 votes using this Senate procedure.

[Better Believe It]

If GOP wins 3 Senate seats, and Dems don't destroy filibuster, then Dems can't govern after 2010
by Chris Bowers
Open Left
November 10, 2009

If Republicans make a net gain of three Senate seats or more in the 2010 elections (which is pretty likely according to current polling), Democrats will simply not be able to achieve cloture on any major legislation put before the Senate.

The watered down stimulus package passed the Senate with only 61 votes. The watered down health care and climate change bills will pass the Senate with somewhere between 60 and 62 votes. This is a pattern we will continue to see on every major piece of legislation before the Senate, since only Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are willing to compromise with Democrats at all. It also means that there is no hope of compromise with Republicans if they net only 3 seats in the 2010 elections.

If Democrats wish to continue to govern after 2010, the only sure-fire path is for 51 Democrats to use the nuclear option to end the 60-vote culture of the Senate.

Further, given the crises we face both as a country and as a species, allowing an even more conservative Republican Party to regain a veto over American policy is far, far worse than any esoteric argument about the "deliberative" tradition of the Senate. Further, after the way Republicans have acted in 2009, if anyone still thinks that meaningful bipartisanship can be achieved on major legislation, they are living in a fantasy world.

Engaging the fight over health care, climate change, stimulus spending, and other major legislative priorities is good. However, it is likely that this will all come to an end in only thirteen months if the 60-vote culture of the Senate remains in place. Getting rid of the filibuster--which can be done with only 51 votes--is necessary to ensuring continued Democratic governance beyond 2010.

Any filibuster can be defeated with only 51 votes using this Senate procedure. Anyone who remembers the 2005 fight over the nuclear option knows this.

Read the full article at:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15960/if-gop-wins-3-senate-seats-and-dems-dont-destroy-filibuster-then-dems-cant-govern-after-2010

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

How the "nuclear option" works:

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#Changes_to_Senate_rules

[Aramchek]

1. you've come a long way. Now you admit HCR and Climate Reform will pass

I guess as there passage becomes inevitable,
you have had to change your song and dance.

Your plate of Crow will be the biggest of all the bashers.

[villager]

2. un-rec'd? How many Republicans have infiltrated "D"U now?

n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

3. It was bullshit when the Republicans tried to do it and it was bullshit now

If we want an end to the 60 vote requirement Americans need to demand that Senate rules be changed.

[Better Believe It]

4. Let’s End the Filibuster by Brian Beutler

Let’s End the Filibuster
By Brian Beutler
November 25, 2009

So now there’s a de facto 60-vote requirement to do pretty much anything of consequence in the Senate. Not just to advance flagship legislation like health care, but completely uncontroversial legislation, as well. Recently a bill to extend unemployment benefits took a month to pass during which it had to overcome three 60-vote hurdles. It ultimately passed 98-0.

Ending the filibuster isn’t simply a matter of near-term partisan advantage. The current rules of the Senate have created a legitimacy crisis at the heart of our political system. Elected governments, both Republican and Democrat, can’t enact their agendas. As a direct result, elections have become perverse circus shows. Candidates and parties aren’t rewarded for creating effective policy solutions. Parties are punished by the sickened masses for failing to improve things, and candidates are free to make whatever outlandish promises they wish, knowing they’ll never stand a chance of becoming law.

Right now Democrats have a 60-member majority, and, with it in theory, enough votes to end all filibusters. That they still struggle to advance their agenda apace is an indictment of the party itself. But in 2011, or 2013, when its majority has dwindled, Democrats will have lost even the power to stumble around with a health care bill for months. All hope for further reforms will dim, and the country will continue to eat itself alive. The right time to address this procedural crisis has long since passed. But better late than never.

Read the full article at:

http://www.good.is/post/lets-end-the-filibuster/

[Better Believe It]

5. Time to kill the filibuster by Steve Mount

Time to kill the filibuster
by Steve Mount
November 25, 2009


We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the quarter, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.

Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate’s version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that’s part of it. It isn’t like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.

But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I’ve disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.

Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.

Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.

http://www.willistonobserver.com/index.php/Liberally-Speaking-11/25/09.html

[johnaries]

6. Not practical. Republicans considered the nuclear option

and dismissed it. Consider this - if the power-hungry Repubs dismissed it, then it must be REALLY impractical. Also, consider this - there is a reason it is called the "nuclear" option.

What we really need is a strong majority whip to bring the conservative Dems in-line.

[Better Believe It]

8. And their threat worked! Democrats went into a panic mode and surrendered the right to filibuster

against Bush's Supreme Court nominations.

Remember the "Gang of 14"?

Don't rewrite history.

Oh .... the 7 Democrat Senators who made that "deal" promised they would only filibuster a Supreme Court nominee under "extraordinary circumstances". For example, if the nominee were a terrorist or member of the KKK. Now that might meet the "Gang of 14" threshold for a Democratic filibuster! Of course, the 7 Republican Senators agreed to not use the "nuclear option" if the Democrats gave up the right of filibuster. Some deal!

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

Yesterday's meeting of the bipartisan group, dubbed the Gang of 14, was the first since Alito's nomination on Monday and it was eagerly anticipated because those senators have the potential to decide the fate of the nomination. In May, the seven Republicans in the group agreed to preserve the Democrats' right to filibuster judges in exchange for the party's commitment to limit filibusters to ''extraordinary circumstances."

Two of the group's Republicans, Graham and Mike DeWine of Ohio, have threatened to support changing Senate rules to ban filibusters if Democrats engage in the tactic to block Alito. It is known as the ''nuclear option" because Democrats say they would grind legislative business to a halt if Republicans make that move.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/04/democrats_wont_rule_out_filibuster/


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


Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option". This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. However, with only a two vote majority in the 108th Congress, the Republicans were in a weak position to implement this procedural maneuver.

Things changed in 2005 due to the 2004 elections. With President Bush winning re-election by a clear margin and the Republicans picking up further Senate seats (55-45) in the 109th Congress, the "nuclear option" became a more viable strategy to ensure confirmation.

Because of the political split in the Senate at the time (55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 1 Independent), if six Senators from each party could reach an agreement, it was realized that these twelve could both forestall the "nuclear option" and force cloture on nominees. With a cloture vote scheduled on the nomination of Priscilla Owen – the opening move in firing the nuclear option – for Tuesday, May 24, 2005, and with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid having evidently given up all pretense of finding a compromise (each have been accused of having desired the nuclear showdown for their own political ends), some members in both parties were focused on finding some alternative way out. In the end, seven Senators from each party got behind a compromise which stated, in essence, that Democratic filibusters would come to an end in "all but extraordinary circumstances," and the GOP would not use the nuclear option.

The Gang of 14 signed an agreement, pertaining only to the 109th Congress, whereby the seven Senate Democrats would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"), and in turn the seven Senate Republicans would break with Bill Frist and the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option." As the Republicans held a five vote Senate majority (55-45) in the 109th Congress, the agreement of these Senators in practical terms prevented the Republicans from winning a simple majority to uphold a change in the interpretation of Senate rules, and prevented the Democrats from mustering the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. While thwarting the goals of their respective party leaderships <1> the group members were hailed as moderates who put aside severe partisanship to do what was best for the Senate.

Three of the filibustered nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) having withdrawn, in the 109th Congress, five of the seven filibustered nominees (Owen, McKeague, Griffin, Pryor and Brown) were allowed to be confirmed as a result of the deal brokered by the Gang.

The Gang became active again in July 2005, attempting to advise Bush on the choice of a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On November 3, 2005, the group met to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, but came to no conclusions, noting that the hearing process had only just begun in his case. On January 30, 2006, the members of the group unanimously supported a cloture vote in the Alito nomination, providing more than enough votes to prevent a filibuster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

[happyslug]

7. There is the old fashion method, not used since 1964.

Remember the Filibuster is a result of the Senate rule that any debate must be agreed to by 60 Senator (In 1964 it was 67 Senators, the number of votes was reduced to 60 votes in the early 1070s).

What has happened since the 1970s is that the Senate does NOT keep debating on that issue that is being filibuster, instead the Senate goes on to other business. The purpose of this is so any filibuster does not tie up the Senate in regards to other matters (one of the side affect of a true filibuster). If the President pro temp of the Senate (who controls what is being debated, not Vice President) just keep going back to that issue, you can tie up the opposition. In effect FORCED the people who want to filibuster to keep on talking. Once the opposition stops talking have another vote to end the debate, when the Motion is defeated (lack of 60 votes) the President Pro Temp then forces the opposition to either keep on talking or to vote. This is what the Democrats have to force the GOP to do, keep on voting and debating this same subject. That is how LBJ forced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate, and it looks like how the Democrats have to force this act through the Senate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Strong K&R

Whether or not you agree with Chris Bowers on using "the nuclear option", the Senate is broken under current rules the way they are being applied. This is an important discussion.

I will add that if once it took 67 votes for cloture instead of the current 60, it should also be possible to lower the 60 vote threshold to a more reasonable number like 55. That is another option, but the status quo in this political climate does not work. It feeds obstructionism.

[QC]

10. The Democratic leadership doesn't want to eliminate the filibuster.

It gives them cover as they carry water for their corporate patrons.

"Gee, we would really, really like to ___, but those mean old Republicans won't let us."