Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate

Library of Congress ^ | Jan. 17, 2001 | Stanley Bach

[TLBSHOW]

I should have added-
There is no need for a cloture vote if the debate ends because everyone has exhausted their two allowed speeches during the given legislative day. Once there is no further allowed debate, there is a vote on the motion.



And why has this not happened yet? Just a question.

[William McKinley]

Well, in part because we haven't started down that process yet. Frist is doing so now, and people like you are screaming about it saying that it means the Republicans are caving.

Plus, the Republicans can, will and are using this to help pry voters away from Democrats.

By the way, contrary to the idea that a nominee is dead when cloture fails, we only have to look at Rehnquist. The Democrats filibustered against him, using the typical arguments (he is a conservative ideologue, he is a racist, etc). The Republicans went for cloture, and it failed (they got only 52 votes for cloture). They went for it again, and it again failed. But eventually, the debate ended without them ever getting cloture and he was confirmed.

Other nominees to judicial seats that failed cloture but ended up being confirmed are Daniel Manion as a circuit judge in 1986 (cloture was withdrawn, actually), Rosemary Barkett (again a withdrawn attempt at cloture) as a circuit judge in 1994, and Brian T. Stewart as a district judge in 1999.

There are other examples outside of the judiciary. It does not happen often, but for 7 individuals there have been failed cloture attempts on nominations. Four of these ended up being confirmed. Only three did not- Abe Fortas as Chief Justice in 1968, Sam Brown as Ambassador in 1994, and Dr. Henry Foster as Surgeon General in 1995.

[TLBSHOW]

I think we are going to cave......

Although they all support Estrada, some Republicans say the Senate has to deal with other issues in March, including a bill banning a late-term abortion procedure.


"The Senate has told us that in the next two or three weeks they will pass a partial birth abortion bill," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said.


Bush's $695 billion, 10-year tax cut plan also was introduced last week, and the Senate's version of the federal budget is likely to soon head to the floor. "We have to do the budget," said Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of Estrada's biggest supporters.


And then there is the war in Iraq (news - web sites).


"How much are we debating that?" said Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va. "Scarce to nothing is being said on the Senate floor as we prepare to go to war in all likelihood in a foreign land."


Republicans could always delay Estrada's confirmation until later in the year, or debate Estrada and another issue at the same time, aides said. However, Republicans have no plans to move on yet.


"We're going to wait to see how this thing plays out this week. Next week, I don't know," Senate GOP caucus leader Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania said Monday.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030304/ap_to_po/estrada_politics_3

[William McKinley]

I am sure that the Republicans are just dreading the idea that the American people will hear that a cut in their taxes is ready to be debated but can't make it to the floor because the Democrats are filibustering an eminently qualified hispanic judicial nominee.

[TLBSHOW]

My point thanks for making it with the tax post you just made. Now how about this below...Your 2 idea is fine if we have cloture. If not the filibuster goes on and we need to make sure the message gets out what the rats have done because they plan to switch it around and paint us as the ones shutting down the govt.

.......


Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

[TLBSHOW]

From your thread topic above.

Today, all-night sessions are very unusual. The Senate may not even convene earlier or remain in session later when a filibuster is in progress than it does on other days. One reason may be that filibusters are not the extraordinary and unusual occurrences that they once were.

THIS ONE IS TELLING ISN'T IT....
Another may be that Senators are less willing to endure the inconvenience and discomfort of prolonged sessions.

[killbuckner]

Ok... so while a 24/7 fillibuster is going on, the democrats need to make sure that they always have 40% of the current senators there (to make sure the republicans can't get cloture). The republicans need to make sure that at least 50 total senators are there (to have a quorum)- and that they always have at least 50% of the attending senators (to make sure estrada doesn't get tabled).

Does that line up with what your thinking on the subject is?

[William McKinley]

Yes and no. I don't think we can be going for cloture on two things at once. I think we would have to temporarily table Estrada and then introduce a measure to amend the Senate rules, then get the 16 members to submit a request in writing for cloture on that measure, then wait the two days etc. etc.

[killbuckner]

I am talking about under the current senate rules. I don't think that they have to amend them to get Estrada passed. I really don't think that all that many dems would be willing to stand up for 8 hours straight opposing estrada. I think that 20 is a worst case scenario. Even if they averaged 8 hours Estrada would be assured a vote in 2 weeks if the republicans are willing to have enough members in the senate that entire time. Actually- I don't think that it would take nearly that long because if we just didn't allow adjournment after a day like today, most of the dems who are adamantly against estrada have already spoken at least once so that would be half of their allotted time. Because there are no amendments possible it would be inevitable that Estrada got a vote and moderate dems would want no part of standing up and holding up debate ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A WAR ON. The big weakness the dems have on this is that there are only a few that are truly passionate about taking a stand this time. Its time to take advantage of that

[William McKinley]

I don't disagree with you- the only reason to do this slowly is if we think there is political advantage in doing it slowly, which is why on the other thread (don't know if you were there or not) I was saying that I am in no hurry as long as 1) national security is being taken care of, and 2) the political damage is being done to them and not us.

The whole tangent about modifying the rules was in case it came down to a problem with Republicans having 50 present 24/7 while Democrats rotated just a handful to keep the filibuster going while wearing us down. There are options.

[killbuckner]

OK... while a fillibuster is going why would the democrats be able to keep only a handful around? If at any point they had less than 40% of the republicans, the republicans could vote on cloture right? If we have 60% the vote passes and estrada gets his vote. You need to give 2 days notice in filing cloture, but once it has been filed a vote can be taken at any time right?

[William McKinley]

No. There are different rules for cloture depending on what is being discussed. For anything other than rule changes, it requires 60 votes for, period. For rule changes (including the rule mandating 60 votes for cloture on other things) it requires 2/3 of the Senators present.

[xzins]

thanks...I've bookmarked it.

[deport]

There is no need for a cloture vote if the debate ends because everyone has exhausted their two allowed speeches during the given legislative day. Once there is no further allowed debate, there is a vote on the motion.

---

But when does this start as they have been mulitiple times at bat for many of the senators.... They haven't adjourned the Senate as far as I know during this matter only placed it in recess. So I'm confused on this point. Plus what I've read at Riddick and others the Senate is unsure just how to enforce the two speeches per day limit.

Their rules are very hard to understand and have to be taken in total not just bits and pieces.

[mrsmith]

From the "it's always something department":

"...the chair has interpreted the word 'day' to mean only a calendar day in executive session but it can mean legislative day in legislative session, an interpretation that could affect implementation of the two speech rule under Rule XIX. "

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1419&Month=6&Year=2003

I think they're going to have to amend cloture.