Skip to comments.How the Filibuster Became the Rule
Posted on 12/02/2007 2:51:53 PM PST by neverdem
MR. PRESIDENT, I rise today to address the record number of filibusters in the Senate,...
So might begin the transcript in the Congressional Record if a senator were to discuss what may well be the most pivotal issue in American public policy these days the filibuster and its only antidote: a cloture vote that ends debate.
This is a sharp increase in the use of a filibuster as a routine mechanism, said Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan research group. The Senate is set up culturally not to act on anything quickly. Thats a good thing. But there can be too much of a good thing. He said he believes the current Senate Republicans have turned filibustering into a primary strategy.
The current gridlock has Democrats looking ahead, perhaps less concerned about getting to 60 on any given bill this year than with getting as close to 60 seats as possible in next years elections.
Republicans must defend 23 Senate seats, including 6 now held by lawmakers who are retiring, while Democrats have to defend just 12 seats and so far have no retirements. In virtually every scenario the Democrats will gain seats, though picking up nine seats seems unlikely. But if a Democrat wins the White House, Congressional Republicans would face less pressure than they do now under the Bush administration to maintain party loyalty.
The last time either party held at least 60 seats was in 1977-78, when the Democrats had 61.
Until that happens again, said Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, people can expect to see plenty of filibuster threats. I think we can stipulate once again for the umpteenth time that matters that have any level of controversy about it in the Senate will require 60 votes, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
DAWN PATROL On occasion, cots have been set up in the Senate when a long debate is expected.
Traitorous POS scumrag....
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I can't recall any such articles when the DEMOCRATS turned filibustering into their primary strategy. All of the sudden, this is NOW a big problem. I really can't wait until the NY Times goes completely bankrupt.
What’s wrong with a filibuster?
It sucks when we are on the wrong side of it, but it is great on the other end (which we are now).
IIRC This is coincidentally when the Democrats used the "nuclear" option and changed the votes needed for a super majority from 66 votes to 60.
No doubt the MSM were as outraged about the Dems actually using the nuclear option as they were when the Republicans thought about changing the rules for judicial confirmations.
Agreed “filibuster light” is lame. If they are going to filibuster make them pull a Jimmy Stewart, up all night!
If Norman J. Ornstein actually made this assinine remark, then he's got zero credibility. Where was this simple scumbag during the past ten years while the rats were perfecting this "strategy"?
Obviously they are anything but conservative.
"Who's got time to sleep?"
Oh, but haven't you heard? That requirement has been outlawed as a form of torture, akin to waterboarding and loud Metallica CD's being played ........
And to think Bill Frist wanted it banned...
Norman Ornstein is a black sheep.
If the Dems as a whole want to filibuster, they only need to have one guy there (or a handful at any rate), but the GOP would have to remain there in force.
If the Dems wanted to defeat a measure but couldn't, they could filibuster. If GOP Senators took a break and left, the Dems could end the filibuster and call the vote anytime there were more of them then there were of the GOP.
All the Dems need is a quorom and they can compel that.
Anyway, it's a risky thing. (Still, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of them!)
This was not accomplished through the “nuclear option” but through a formal rules change.
No he didn’t want the filibuster banned.
Only the unconstitutional filibuster of the President’s judicial nominees.
Isn't that want the Republicans wanted to do, a formal rules change that was then tagged with the "nuclear option" title by the MSM?
It was much more complex than a formal rules change, which requires 67 votes.