Senate Filibuster Question ["vanity" question]

National Review | 9/21/2003 | Eala

[Eala]

In the latest issue of National Review (9/29/2003), on p.10 in the "The Week..." section, is the following (second bullet): "GOP Senators are often urged to make Democrats engage in an old-fashioned talk-all-night filibuster, but that's not possible under today's parliamentary rules (and with the GOP's one-seat majority)."

I confess to being among the FReepers critical of how the Senate Republicans seemingly indifferently allowed the Estrada nomination to be run into the ground. But the item says the rules are changed from before. Would somebody knowledgeable about this please explain?

[Keith in Iowa]

The problem is Bill First and his merry band of political eunuchs won't do it, not that they can't. These people have made Republican Leadership an oxymoron. Lott could be in charge, and it would be no different. Hillary has more testicular fortitude than the Republican Ledarship.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>Bill First

Oops. That's Frist. Dislexics Untie!

[Sloth]

I don't know what they mean, but I thought it only took a majority to change the rules anyhow.

[The Old Hoosier]

"Today's rules" as opposed to possible changed rules in the future that would prevent the filibuster of presidential nominations.

[The Old Hoosier]

What they mean is that the filibuster would require every single Republican to be present in the chamber at all times, while just one Democrat has to be there to object to unanimous consent requests. It would be fruitless and impossible to win.

[Eala]

The problem is Bill First and his merry band of political eunuchs won't do it, not that they can't.

That's what I had thought, but it seems the editors at NR think otherwise. Are they blowing smoke (NR seems to have changed over the years) or is there some substance to their statement?

[alnick]

A 24/7 filibuster would require only one democrat to be present while requiring all democrats to be present. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which side would win a filibuster where one side can have its members sleep and relieve each other while the other side is sleep deprived.

Of course, that doesn't stop the hotheads from griping about the GOP being weak, yada yada yada.

[alnick]

I meant "while requiring all republicans to be present."

[votelife]

from an AP article where Cheney is campaigning in NH...

He also won applause for urging a return to "dignity and civility" the process of judicial nominations.

"Right now, far too many nominations to the federal bench are being held up by the threat of filibuster," he said. "Our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow nominees of great merit to even have a vote on the Senate floor."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98177,00.html

[votelife]

Lessons of the Estrada Defeat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/976173/posts