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

[Teaser]

Too bad, if true.

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."

Not sure where to go from here.

[hobbit709]

1. How does the Senate define quorum

If the rules define quorum as a simple majority of members, then they can conduct business with or without the repukes.

[razorman]

2. The senate leadership will be reluctant to set down any firm rules.

As we found out during the last Supreme Court appointment controversy (Re: The Gang of 14), neither party wants to enact a "nuclear option", or force real "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"-type filibusters.
Any precedent they set today can be used against them in the future when the other party controls Congress, which will happen some day. Congress is truly an "old boys' club".

[HereSince1628]

3. In the way-back Sen.s from both parties wanted to get legislation passed

Consequently, simply stopping all legislation would ultimately become unacceptable to the filibustering party.

Apparently, neither party really has strong feelings about any legislation, thinks that the public has not strong feeling about any legislation (other than punishing Wall Street bonus recipients) and the threat of filibuster is simply a convenient excuse for an incredibly weak-spined leadership.

[tkmorris]

4. But what they can do is refuse to move on

We only need 60 votes to invoke cloture. That is to say, to limit debate and force an up or down vote. If however, we fail to get cloture, that does NOT mean we have to stop debating that bill. We can continue debating whatever bill it is as long as we like. This essentially shuts down Congress until the bill is dealt with or tabled.

Frankly I'd like to see them do this. I know they fear that doing so plays into the Repubs hands, i.e. they want to shut Congress down, and unlimited debate effectively does that. However, on issues the general populace favors, them shutting down Congress just makes them look bad. I say we pick a popular bill and go for it. Destroy them.

[Ian David]

5. Then you continually hold quorum calls. Geesh. n/t

[Political Heretic]

6. Sigh. This article totally misses the point.

Yes, the days of Jimmy Stewart trying not to faint after standing and talking for hours and hours are long gone. The point of making the Republicans fillabuster is to bring the Senate to a halt, and then use all of the resources of the DNC, and the White House to paint Republicans as obstructionists.

This works better on some issues than others. Take EFCA for example. Had the administration elected to make EFCA a policy priority and assuming it could use some of its political muscle to keep its own party members in congress supportive and in line, it would potentially be quite easy and quite effective to paint Republicans as obstructionists who hurting the American worker and sucking up to big business. In this climate where the is so much (justified) anger on Main Street, the truth is really no one knows how effective that would be. I can't guarantee that it would work, but neither can anyone here guaranteed that it would fail. Too many of the rules have changed, the climate is unlike anything most of us have seen in a long time - or ever.

What bothers me is that we didn't elect to even try. That reflects a difference of priorities. I believe that things like EFCA are absolutely critical to the health of our society and to our economic recovery. My party believes in whatever its corporate masters tell it to believe in. My President, is stuck in the middle trying to make everyone happy when, in my opinion, he should be courageous enough to make the people who have been raping our society a little bit angry while sticking up for the interests of the American working class that has been shit on and kicked around for thirty years - to the extreme detriment of our entire society.

Why filibuster? To fight back. To show that we are going to stick, rather than roll over all the time. And to make outstanding political theater potentially making the GOP look so extremely bad that their few more moderate members jump ship on certain legislation that's important.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But to paraphrase Toby Ziegler, its not the ones we lose that bother me its the ones we don't even bother to suit up for.

[Romulox]

7. Senate rules are NOT part of the Consitution, and may be changed on a simple majority vote. nt

[Teaser]

8. Which is the method I support. Abolish the filibuster

it is an undemocratic technique, and has paralyzed the Senate for far too long.

[Romulox]

9. Agreed, with the caveat that the Senate is itself a deeply undemocratic institution

It is, after all, our "House of Lords".

[Hello_Kitty]

10. The 39 Republican senators represent 12% of the U.S. population.

It's maddening to realize that the mouthbreathers have such grossly out-of-proportion representation relative to their numbers.