Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProcedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42929.pdf
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 819 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules (Original Post)
Roisin Ni Fiachra
Jan 2021
OP
The filibuster must die- it's the only way Biden's agenda will move forward
Fiendish Thingy
Jan 2021
#2
Moscow Mitch ignored standing practices and exploited loopholes in the rules.
Hermit-The-Prog
Jan 2021
#6
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)1. kick
Fiendish Thingy
(15,568 posts)2. The filibuster must die- it's the only way Biden's agenda will move forward
It might be the only way Dems take full control of the senate, including committee chairs.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,568 posts)3. Salient section:
The key to successful procedural change through precedential action, then, is to place a question before the Senate that, if agreed to by a simple majority, would result in limiting or closing debate on the rules change proposal (or the motion to proceed to consider it, etc.). Supporters of change might, for example, simply move that the chair immediately put their proposal to a vote. They might then, themselves, raise a point of order that their motion is out of order because existing Senate rules recognize no such motion. Normally, of course, on the basis of existing precedents, the chair would uphold this point of order, holding the motion out of order, leaving supporters no option but to appeal the ruling. Given that the appeal would itself be debatable, supporters would then still be faced with their original dilemma.
If the point of order attacked the motion offered by advocates of procedural change, on the other hand, but a sympathetic presiding officer chose not to rule on the point of order, and instead to submit it directly to the Senate for decision as involving a constitutional question, the situation would be reversed. Even if no constitutional question were involved, Senate Rule XX paragraph 2 accords the chair discretion to submit any procedural question directly to a vote of the Senate. In the past, the chair has sometimes exercised this discretion in cases in which previous precedential interpretations were lacking, although current practice reflects a strong presumption that the settlement of points of order will proceed on the basis of an initial ruling by the chair.
If the chair does submit a procedural question to the Senate for decision, the question is debatable, and would, accordingly, potentially be subject to filibuster. It would also, however, be subject to a motion to lay on the table. When a submitted point of order is tabled, the effect is the same as overruling the point of order, and thereby also holding the challenged action to be in order. In this way, a simple majority vote (on the non-debatable motion to table the point of order), by admitting the motion to proceed to a vote on the pending rules change proposal, might enable a simple majority to bring about a vote on the proposal itself.
This decision of the Senate on the submitted point of order could have the broader consequence of establishing precedent for a procedure under which the Senate could change its rules without having to face the potential that a supermajority vote would be required in the process. Even proceedings of this kind, however, would involve departures from established Senate practice in the process of approving procedural changes, at least insofar as the potential exercise of the chairs discretion in submitting the point of order (if it was not based on a constitutional question) would run counter to currently accepted expectations.
If the point of order attacked the motion offered by advocates of procedural change, on the other hand, but a sympathetic presiding officer chose not to rule on the point of order, and instead to submit it directly to the Senate for decision as involving a constitutional question, the situation would be reversed. Even if no constitutional question were involved, Senate Rule XX paragraph 2 accords the chair discretion to submit any procedural question directly to a vote of the Senate. In the past, the chair has sometimes exercised this discretion in cases in which previous precedential interpretations were lacking, although current practice reflects a strong presumption that the settlement of points of order will proceed on the basis of an initial ruling by the chair.
If the chair does submit a procedural question to the Senate for decision, the question is debatable, and would, accordingly, potentially be subject to filibuster. It would also, however, be subject to a motion to lay on the table. When a submitted point of order is tabled, the effect is the same as overruling the point of order, and thereby also holding the challenged action to be in order. In this way, a simple majority vote (on the non-debatable motion to table the point of order), by admitting the motion to proceed to a vote on the pending rules change proposal, might enable a simple majority to bring about a vote on the proposal itself.
This decision of the Senate on the submitted point of order could have the broader consequence of establishing precedent for a procedure under which the Senate could change its rules without having to face the potential that a supermajority vote would be required in the process. Even proceedings of this kind, however, would involve departures from established Senate practice in the process of approving procedural changes, at least insofar as the potential exercise of the chairs discretion in submitting the point of order (if it was not based on a constitutional question) would run counter to currently accepted expectations.
Schumer and Harris may need to use this strategy to at least adopt an organizing resolution, and perhaps in order to conduct any Senate business.
DeminPennswoods
(15,273 posts)4. The precedents have been established by Harry Reid, then
McConnell for confirming SCOTUS judges with a simple majority.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,568 posts)5. Those are narrow precedents, incorporated into current rules
This would be a full nuclear option for 1) changing standing rules including cloture/filibuster, in order to bring any legislation to a floor vote, and 2) adopting an organizing resolution.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,309 posts)6. Moscow Mitch ignored standing practices and exploited loopholes in the rules.