Posted on 05/09/2005 11:41:43 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
I say DO IT, ALREADY!!! Either make them filibuster 24/7 or force the issue the way the constitution was written. JUST DO SOMETHING!!
He hasn't the balls. He doesn't want the disapproval of the Dan Rather.
This is perfect example of why we keep winning elections and have virtually nothing to show for it.
The Republicans have total power to implement the nuclear option. The only thing that can prevent the nuclear option from being implemented is spineless and liberal Republicans.
Until people like you wake up and realize the McCains of Senate are obstructing conservativism more than the Democrats and must be dealt with, nothing is going to change in this country. Government will continue to expand, judges will create laws and rights out of thin air and force liberalism on the American people and illegal immigration will continue to be rampant.
How about if people like you realize that the best way to counter the effect a few contrarians like McCain, soreheads like Trent Lott and renegades like Lincoln Chaffee is to clean the Democrats (e.g. the Dorgans, Conrads or the Baucases) out of the few Red States that still have Democrat Senators. That day will never happen if we take the "a plague on both their houses" approach.
There was also an excellent piece from Tod Lindberg in the Washington Times this morning - Stop the filibustering.
He made a point that I haven't seen elsewhere, and hadn't gotten around to writing about myself. I've been snickering for weeks at the idea that the Republicans shouldn't change the filibuster rules because they'll want it when they're the minority party again.
"Then let the 'compromise' be to force actual filibusters. A minority of 41 can have endless debate IF those 41 senators continuously hold the floor, without disruption. If one of them leaves even for a minute (excepting say, 5 minute potty breaks, to preserve the dignity of the senate chamber), the presiding officer can order the debate ended."
"Let's see how long Barbara Boxer will put up with sleeping in a cot on the senate floor, right next to a snoring Robert Byrd."
Nope, you have your facts wrong on the way filibusters would be conducted with today's US Senate Rules. It would be the Republicans sleeping on cots, Boxer and Byrd would be home asleep in bed... Read this older post to see why your scenerio will not occur.
From an older post:
Originally posted by jwpjr:
"Good question! I say let's find out. After all, there hasn't really been filibuster in a long time. So far they have gotten their way by simply threatening to filibuster, not by actually having to hold the floor for days on end. I termed the technique the 'fili-bluster', it's all bark and no bite. I say let 'em have their filibuster, but make darned sure it's something akin to the marathon in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"! We don't need no stinkin' rule changes, just make them play by the current rules. They'll get tired and go home soon enough. The problem is though that it requires some real effort by the Republicans and after a couple of hundred years Senate rules passed with the purpose of avoiding the heavy lifting in law making have made the Senate and its schedule/workload a laugh."
This is about the Senate Rule XXII change strategy, not the so-called 'Nuclear Option':
The marathon filibuster won't work with today's US Senate cloture rules. Read on and see why... First some history. If the US Senate Republican majority cannot muster the 51 votes necessary to adopt a modified Rule XXII at the beginning of the 109th Session of Congress, then when shall it happen? Once the previous Rule XXII is adopted by the 109th Senate, it will take 67 votes to modify said 60 votes cloture rule during the 109th, forcing the alternative 'Nuclear Option' with Vice-President Cheney ruling from the chair... Remember that the cutting off any debate - 'cloture' has only been on the Senate books since the 65th Congress in 1917. Look at the historical table below and you will see in the grey-color highlights that shows that only the seven Senates of the 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, 89th, 94th and 95th Congresses have had a single party majority with enough votes to force 'cloture' on a filibuster, subject to the cloture rules of the day. All of those seven Senates were controlled by the Democrats. The Senate Republicans have never had a filibuster-proof majority in party history. A 'filibuster-proof' majority for any political party is quite rare...
Please note that in 1975 the Democrats did not have the 67 votes required to shut-off filibusters by Republicans who were objecting to the 'cloture' rule change from 67 votes to 60 votes. Under the leadership of Senator Robert Byrd(D) this Senate Rule XXII change was accomplished by simple majority vote. Does that situation sound familiar? Some contend that the US Senate is a 'continuing' body (never goes out of session) and hence is bound the rules adopted by previous Senates. Others such as Vice-Presidents Nixon and Humphrey have stated in their capacity as President of the Senate that current Senates may not be bound by the rules adopted by previous (long past) Senates...
Majority Party |
Number of Senators |
required for Cloture |
|||||||
Note: Grey shading indicates party has sufficient votes for cloture.
Note: All filibuster rule changes have always happpened when Democrats control the Senate.
Source: US Senate: Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present.
Source: Congressional Research Service: RS20801 "Cloture Attempts on Nominations". December 11, 2002.
Source: Congressional Research Service: RL30360 "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate". March 28, 2003.
Source: When the Majority Party Won't Listen: The use of the Senate Filibuster by the Minority Party by Thorson and Nitzschke - University of Minnesota at Morris.
The problem with operating 'status quo' is that position directly supports the contention that the Senate is a 'continuing body' and hence is bound the the established rules of a previous Senate. If Frist believes as he stated in his speech that he reserves the right to change Rule XXII at a later date, then that means that currently the Senate is NOT operating under any "Rules" but those imposed by simple majority (51) votes. He cannot have it both ways: the previous 'Rules' are still in force with no adoption by the Senate of the 109th Congress, or there are no 'Rules' until the current Senate adopts what the Rules committee puts forth... I don't see how he can combine both positions.
I wish that the Rule XXII would go back to the filibuster requirement of 'those Senators voting and present' if they re-adopt the 'three-fifths' cloture rule. Many on Free Republic complain about the ease of filibusters for the Democrats - the reason that it is easy is because the (assumed) current Rule XXII simply requires three-fifths of all elected Senators (60 votes) for cloture.
To bring back the old-fashioned "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" filibusters the Senate would have to have the same cloture rules in force as in the 1917-1949 and 1959-1975 periods which in today's rules would read: 'three-fifths of Senators voting and present'. The fact that the Rule XXII states it is simply 'three-fifths of all elected Senators' makes all the difference in the world.
Currently a quorum is required while a filibuster is being conducted (51 members present) that means the the Republicans would have to have at least 51 of their 55 members on the floor in addition to the one filibustering Democrat Senator. The other Democrats could be home asleep in their beds under the current rules since it takes 60 votes (three-fifths of all elected Senators) for cloture. If the Senate was operating under the older-style cloture (with today's three-fifths instead of the older two-thirds) rule of 'three-fifths of Senators voting and present' then and only then the Democrats would have to have a minimum of 35 Senators present to ensure that the presence of 51 Republican Senators would not allow the 'three-fifths of Senators voting and present' to achieve a successful cloture vote. The reason that the Republicans must have at least 51 members (out of their current 55) present on the floor is that if they only had 50 members present, under the current rules once the single lone filibustering Democrat got tired he could simply walk off the floor of the Senate and there would not be a quorum necessary to conduct any Senate business. If the Senate was operating under the older filibuster rules (voting and present) then the filibustering Senator would walk out of the Senate chambers with the other 34 Democrats and there would be no quorum (51 members) present and hence no Senate business may take place.
Bottom line: Under current Senate filibuster rules, the Republicans must have 51 (of their 55) members present in the Senate chamber at all times, while the Democrats could have just ONE filibustering Senator present. Contrast this to the "old-style" cloture rule requirements where the Democrats would have to maintain a substantial 35 member presence on the Senate floor, with at least two Democrats for every three Republican present on the floor, plus one. At least the Democrats could get tired, cranky and irritable too...
Hope this helps,
dvwjr
Senator Specter made a strong speech on the Senate floor yesterday, in full support of a floor vote, calling any deal that would forestall such a vote "repugnant".
Specter is on board.
Great... so as to my original point, let the "compromise" be a return to the old rule, which would require the filibustering party to hold the floor. The current rule is simply a de facto super majority rule.
If the Dems don't agree to this change, then have the Presiding Officer rule that the rule requires 3/5ths of those present to end debate.
This preserves the senate tradition of being a deliberative body, while forcing the minority to actually pay a price (24/7 on the senate floor) if they want to filibuster.
I have no idea why this isn't even being considered or discussed. Right now, it is "nuclear", some lame compromise, or nothing. A simple return to prior senate rules/traditions would be the best possible solution.
Still won't work. In the above post I indicated that to change the rules takes 67 votes in the US Senate. If the Republicans are having problems getting 50 votes for a ruling from the President of the Sentate (VP Cheney) the how could they possibly get 67 votes to change the 60 vote cloture rule? When the Republicans adopted 'by default' the rules of the previous Senate, they were hosed.
The President of the US Senate on his own cannot change the current three-fifths of all those Senators ELECTED to the older (1959 to 1975) rule of 'xx of yy of those Senators voting and present'. The way that Bobbie Byrd did that was to do it at the start of the US Senate session when the 'rules' were adopted by a simple majority vote. Majority Leader Frist did not do that in January 2005 when he had the leverage and timing. Now we are reduced to a parlimentary ruling from the chair to setup a vote, the "constitutional" option.
So the Republicans would still have to have 51 members on the floor, the Democrats ONE just to have a "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" style filibuster. Only the Republicans would be physically exhausted...
dvwjr
Bump
But, there is only one thing that spineless Republicans and RINOS understand -- losing power. The message must be sent that there can be no compromising on this issue. This may the be last opportunity to fix the judiciary in decades. Failing to get and up or down vote on all of these judges is not acceptable.
BTTT
Specter's speech mentions 9 of 12 nominees to the Fed Circuit.
Saad, Kavanaugh and Haynes were not mentioned. Disposition of the nominations is a matter of speculation, but the tone of the speech implies at least the 3 nominees not mentioned may be held in committee, if votes are taken on the 9 named nominees. The votes could come with or without calls for cloture.
Nominees with a "+" in front of their name are on the Senate's Executive calendar, i.e., they have moved out of committee. Note that 3 of the "1 of 4 are okay by us" nominees are now on the calendar. The DEMs deal to permit 1 of 4, if accepted, would result in a serious loss of face to the GOP.
All 8 nominees in committee, not just the 3 who were not named in his speech, should be viewed as potential sacrifices, notwithstanding Specter's expressed support for conducting Senate votes on their nominations.
Specter goes on to note instances of cooperation by President Bush with Democratic Senators regarding the selection of judicial nominees. The current status of the nominees was obtained at ...
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/ and
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1399660/posts?page=249#249 <- Full text
BTTT
I thought you only bumped the dull threads about you.
Again, I will believe it when I see it.
On your mark!
Get set!
Get set!
Get set!
Get set!
Get set!
Get set!
Get set!
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.