Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Republicans Can Shut-down the Senate (after Reid ends filibuster)
WaPo ^ | 11/27/12 | Plumer

Posted on 12/05/2012 12:00:42 PM PST by pabianice

...Alternatively, the GOP could threaten to shut down the Senate entirely. This is technically doable. ”Keep in mind that a lot of what Senate leaders do day to day is done by unanimous consent,” explains Binder. If a single senator started objecting to every little motion and maneuver, it would become impossible to conduct any legislative business at all. Some examples:

– A 500-page amendment is brought to the floor, and the bill manager wants to dispense with the reading of the amendment? All a senator has to say is, “I object,” and it’s time to start reading all 500 pages out loud.

– The Senate leader wants to waive the rule that prevents committees from meeting while the Senate is in session? A single senator can object, and, suddenly, committees can’t meet.

– Reid wants to adjourn the Senate until Jan. 3? “I object.”

Any senator can do this at any time, if he or she is so inclined. Indeed, as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explains, this is basically what happens when a senator places a “hold” on a White House nominee. The senator is threatening to deny unanimous consent if the nomination goes forward.

There are a few precedents in the past for lawmakers bogging down the Senate. Back in 2010, then-Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) managed to deny unanimous consent for days on end in order to prevent the Senate from passing an unemployment benefits package that he thought needed to be paid for. His maneuvers earned him plenty of negative press. Other senators pleaded with him. Bunning simply shrugged and replied, “Tough shit.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
The Repubs don't have the guts. The MSM would camp on the lawns of their homes and threaten their children.
1 posted on 12/05/2012 12:00:46 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Sounds like something democrats would do if the shoe was on the other foot. Tell the republicans, “No Guts, No Glory”.


2 posted on 12/05/2012 12:03:39 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Reid is such communist scum.


3 posted on 12/05/2012 12:04:35 PM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

What’s that Star Wars movie line about the Republic ending with applause? Somehow the irony of how it happened and who actually ended it has no doubt been lost on that fatass George Lucas.

But regardless, the Republic is in fact dead. Welcome to the USSA; enjoy your stay, comrade.


4 posted on 12/05/2012 12:04:53 PM PST by henkster ("The people who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I remember years ago, Alabama had a Senator named Allen. I can’t recall his first name. He unfortunately died at a young age but he was a master of procedures.

There was one time when he single handedly stopped one of Senator Kennedy’s bills. We need another one like him.


5 posted on 12/05/2012 12:05:24 PM PST by yarddog (One shot one miss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Is this like “Deemed Passed” by the Dems?

Is this Harry Reid revising the filibuster rules when he screamed in support of them 7 years ago under GWB?

Is this tyrannical Executive Orders allowing open borders, US citizen surveillance and actual killing of US citizens without Congressional approval?

Is this unelected Czars and Bureaucrats/Agencies dictating the fate of thousands of businesses at failed junk science and far-Left beehive-housing schemes?

Oh, that stuff.

Never mind the GOP having guts.


6 posted on 12/05/2012 12:11:02 PM PST by wac3rd (Somewhere in Hell, Ted Kennedy snickers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

All of these ideas require something that the GOP is without - well, somethings, more accurately. Even supposing they WANT to.


7 posted on 12/05/2012 12:18:30 PM PST by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I suggested this to then Rep. Mike Castle regarding the DeathCare bill. He smiled and said: “Oh, we couldn't do that”.

The amount of courage in the Whig Party is as a pimple on a flea's antenna.

8 posted on 12/05/2012 12:22:34 PM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
What is the vote requirement for Reid to change the filibuster rule? I thought it was 2/3, which would require quite a few RINOs (I'm watching you McLame and Grahamnesty) to reach across the aisle.
9 posted on 12/05/2012 12:25:11 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Big Bird is a brood parasite: laid in our nest 43 years ago and we are still feeding him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I love it when people don’t recall history, much less very recent history. The 2012 Democrat Convention, 2/3rds voice majority to amend the party platform - the long and short is: You can object until you are blue in the face, but if the chair doesn’t care to hear you, it does no good.


10 posted on 12/05/2012 12:33:09 PM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
RE :”Alternatively, the GOP could threaten to shut down the Senate entirely. This is technically doable. ”Keep in mind that a lot of what Senate leaders do day to day is done by unanimous consent,” explains Binder. If a single senator started objecting to every little motion and maneuver, it would become impossible to conduct any legislative business at all. Some examples:
– A 500-page amendment is brought to the floor, and the bill manager wants to dispense with the reading of the amendment? All a senator has to say is, “I object,” and it’s time to start reading all 500 pages out loud.
– The Senate leader wants to waive the rule that prevents committees from meeting while the Senate is in session? A single senator can object , and, suddenly, committees can’t meet.
– Reid wants to adjourn the Senate until Jan. 3? “I object.
Any senator can do this at any time, if he or she is so inclined. Indeed, as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute explains, this is basically what happens when a senator places a “hold” on a White House nominee. The senator is threatening to deny unanimous consent if the nomination goes forward.

LOL, now this is what I am talking about. Fighting!

Now this was the post that brightened my day, just the thought of it makes me laugh, its so evil.

11 posted on 12/05/2012 12:41:37 PM PST by sickoflibs (Has Bohner caved yet? And called it historic again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; pabianice; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; ...

” LOL, now this is what I am talking about. Fighting!”

A strange word these days....


12 posted on 12/05/2012 12:46:58 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

looks like a job for Rand Paul...he could make their lives miserable, and get all kinds of air time too...


13 posted on 12/05/2012 12:50:14 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; sickoflibs; pabianice; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy

I have no faith in these spineless GOP “leaders”.

Allen West for Speaker, then Walker/West 2016.

Purge the RINOs, fight the Dems, f*** em all.


14 posted on 12/05/2012 12:53:52 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio; pabianice
RE :”What is the vote requirement for Reid to change the filibuster rule? I thought it was 2/3, which would require quite a few RINOs (I'm watching you McLame and Grahamnesty) to reach across the aisle.”

I recall MarkLevin was calling for Rs to do this over GWB's judges being blocked in ~ 2006 but the gang of 14 made a deal with each other to stop the rules change, which was just as well as Rs lost the Senate the next year..

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[44] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time
Wika: Filibuster

15 posted on 12/05/2012 12:55:07 PM PST by sickoflibs (Has Bohner caved yet? And called it historic again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

” I have no faith in these spineless GOP “leaders”.

Allen West for Speaker, then Walker/West 2016.”

A real ticket?

I forgot what one looks like : )


16 posted on 12/05/2012 1:00:35 PM PST by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
That's probably what I remembered. The new filibuster rule voting would itself be subject to the old filibuster rules until it passed, thus requiring 2/3 approval if any Republican had the spine to filibuster it. And that's a pretty big "if".
17 posted on 12/05/2012 1:00:49 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Big Bird is a brood parasite: laid in our nest 43 years ago and we are still feeding him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

Not just Rand Paul, there are others that need to prove they are conservative and with America. Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz to name a few.

This ploy is a great idea!

I’m still bettin dingy harry backs down before he does the stupid.


18 posted on 12/05/2012 1:04:53 PM PST by X-spurt (Ted Cruz for President of the Republic of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I’ve actually brought this exact tactic up many times. Any single senator can bring the chamber to its knees but it actually takes guts. Unfortunately, we are being lied to by our government. We haven’t actually had two separate parties for many, many years.


19 posted on 12/05/2012 1:07:57 PM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

the house republican majority can also refuse to pass anything pushed though using the new rules


20 posted on 12/05/2012 1:11:12 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
RE :”That’s probably what I remembered. The new filibuster rule voting would itself be subject to the old filibuster rules until it passed, thus requiring 2/3 approval if any Republican had the spine to filibuster it. And that’s a pretty big “if”. “

Like I said, Mark Levin suggested Senate Rs do this in his book Men in Black, back about 2004.

The theory behind the “nuclear option” was that the Senate had the right to determine its own rules and that those rules could be determined on the basis of a majority vote. Democrats objected, arguing that the Senate’s rules could not be changed without a 2/3 vote as stated in the Senate Rules themselves. Republicans countered that the Senate’s power to govern itself was founded in the Constitution itself and that internal Senate Rules could not deny that power.[1]
wiki/Gang of 14

21 posted on 12/05/2012 1:15:29 PM PST by sickoflibs (Has Bohner caved yet? And called it historic again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

This is not evil. This is playing with the hand dealt us. Evil is confiscating money and assets from folks that work to give them to folks who will not work


22 posted on 12/05/2012 1:17:23 PM PST by Mom MD (T he country needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mom MD
RE :” Evil is confiscating money and assets from folks that work to give them to folks who will not work”

That is called Democracy:
‘Vote for me and I will take MD Mom’s money and give it to people like you who need it more than she does, here's a free cell phone so I can text you on election day”

DA-DA.

23 posted on 12/05/2012 1:22:38 PM PST by sickoflibs (Has Bohner caved yet? And called it historic again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; pabianice

Rules can be changed by a simple majority on the first day of the session. For 224 years, however, the Senate has operated with the understanding that, unlike the House whose members are chosen anew every two years, it is a permanent body since only 1/3rd of its members are renewed at each election. Thus whereas the House drafts its rules anew after each election, the Senate continues to operated on its standing rules which require 2/3 vote to change.

What Harry Reid is proposing is ignoring this precedent and act as if the incoming Senate is a new body which can then adopt its rules be a simple majority vote.


24 posted on 12/05/2012 1:40:40 PM PST by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Conventions are not Congress. I beleive once someone rises and objects, the Chair has to recognize them.


25 posted on 12/05/2012 1:46:23 PM PST by X-spurt (Ted Cruz for President of the Republic of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Only the the pubics are going to do is drop pants, bend over and grab ankles.

That’s all, nothing else.


26 posted on 12/05/2012 1:55:40 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

I’m not going to believe that Marco Rubio is anything other than a phony little b*tch “conservative” until he proves otherwise.

Samethign goes for Cruz.


27 posted on 12/05/2012 1:59:38 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Allen West for Speaker, then Walker/West 2016.

My friend, It’s this or bust, as far as I am concerned. These two gentlemen have been fighting the fight.

I want someone who will stand up in the face of both the Dem commies and the spineless RINOs and tell them to go F*** themselves - in whatever terms they’re comfortable saying it.

Whatever we have to do to remove RINOs I am for doing it. Tea Party insurgency, by any means necessary.


28 posted on 12/05/2012 3:43:24 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
Reid is on par with being Anti-American with Stalin and Hitler.

How is it even possible that he gets reelected?

There must be some unbelievably vacant Dems out in Nevada, or they are scum like him!

29 posted on 12/05/2012 4:17:14 PM PST by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
All a senator has to say is, “I object,” and it’s time to start reading all 500 pages out loud.

Read the Commiecare™ bill.

30 posted on 12/05/2012 4:35:10 PM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

We should know within the next couple of years.

Cruz is for real. Read his history, this dude has been a Constitutional Conservative since Grade School!

The Cubans have seen what the likes of nobama can do a lot closer up than most of us.


31 posted on 12/05/2012 6:34:51 PM PST by X-spurt (Ted Cruz for President of the Republic of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

I hope so, I certainly hope so, because conservative leadership is needed beyond need. We have none whatsoever.

However, as far as the GOP is now concerned, my support trust and loyalty must now be earned through actions and deed, not through words, promises speeches, or anything of that nature, otherwise they are just going to get a big **** you from me.


32 posted on 12/05/2012 7:26:00 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

Bump.


33 posted on 12/05/2012 7:50:25 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chris37

There are so many of us thinking the same now that they ignore us at their own peril. What have we now got to lose? Freedom and Liberty are all but gone already.


34 posted on 12/05/2012 8:53:35 PM PST by X-spurt (Ted Cruz for President of the Republic of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

The only thing that I have to lose at this poin tis the GOP itself.

I want to lose them, and I will take pleasure in it.


35 posted on 12/05/2012 8:56:01 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NFHale; AuH2ORepublican; stephenjohnbanker

Interesting you mention the “defeated” West for Speaker.

The constitution doesn’t say the Speaker has to be a member.

There was talk among the democrats of making some non member the Speaker or suggesting a member retire but become Speaker anyway or something stupid like that.


36 posted on 12/09/2012 12:32:25 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Impy; AuH2ORepublican; stephenjohnbanker

If they’d put him there, I’d know they were interested in actually beating these f***ing commie pukes back into the stone age.

However, as it stands, they’re perfectly willing to go along with the Dems, and that makes them just as bad.

Actually, it makes them worse. They COULD do something to oppose them, but they choose to be complicit asswipes.


37 posted on 12/10/2012 1:01:20 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson