Make them filibuster

[shawn703]

Call them on it. If this is going to be the issue that decides the outcome of 2010 anyway, let them filibuster until Election Day 2010. 24 hour news coverage of the filibuster too, so PEOPLE THAT ARE DYING BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE, THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR FRIENDS, CAN SEE EACH AND EVERY MOTHERFUCKER THAT CARES MORE ABOUT CORPORATE PROFITS THAN WHETHER THEY LIVE OR DIE!

[bigbrother05]

1. Exactly, most bullies back down when challenged

And if they don't, you have to suck it up and fight for yourself and those you care for. Force them to do it the old fashioned way, holding the floor 24/7.

[elocs]

2. Nice thought, but in reality the filibuster is not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

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

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."

[sybylla]

4. Actually, it can be.

The well documented Wikipedia page on this rule explains that it can become a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type of affair IF the Senate Majority Leader wants it to be.

So it's all up to Reid.

Procedural filibuster

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.

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

So I wish you'd stop running around DU decrying all the "let them filibuster" threads.

[elocs]

6. Well, wish again. Besides, I'm not running. Plus, I get to post what I believe

as well as those who post "let them filibuster".

I prefer Huffingtonpost over Wikipedia. I also prefer reality. Just like the old DU frog-marching Bush to the Hague, there will be no filibuster. It is a nice way for DUers to vent though.

[sybylla]

9. Kewl. Cuz it's easier to hang on to Dems not being able to do anything

instead of thinking they can.

Please, feel free to spread the disinformation. It seems to be what DU is all about lately.

[robinlynne]

5. so what. Don't Republicans want "up or down votes"? make them stop the vote.

[cali]

3. I don't think you understand the filibuster rules.

[Romulox]

7. And I don't think you understand Senate rules (hint: changed on a majority vote.) nt

[elocs]

8. Many do not, but they prefer their own version of reality.

Then again, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.