Senate can change fillibuster rules

[varwoche]

Apparently, fillibuster rule can be changed with a simple majority:

Issuing a blunt warning to Democrats, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, said Thursday that the newly strengthened Republican majority would not allow filibusters to block action on judicial nominees in President Bush's second term.
...
Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who is chairman of the Rules Committee, has been among the Republicans who have also suggested that the Republicans try to win a change by seeking a ruling from the chairman, a position that a Republican would hold, that filibusters against executive nominations are unconstitutional. A favorable ruling would require just a majority to uphold.
...
"To implement it would make the last Congress look like a bipartisan tea party," Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is on the Judiciary Committee, said. "For the sake of country and some degree of comity, I would hope and pray that the majority leader would not take away the Senate's time-honored, 200-year-old tradition."

NY Times

 

[a_unique_person]

A filibuster was something that amazed me when I first heard of it. There is no concept of it in Australia. When time for debate is up, it's time for the vote.

 

[wageslave]

How short some memories are. Republicans filibustered Clinton : http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N17/filibuster.17w.html

 

[Magyar]

yea but now that the theocracy is here, the constitution is just TP.
The Christian right is fast on it's way to destroying this country.

They already pissed off all the cookes on the left (this wouldn't matter if the mid and mod left wasn't beginning to side with them in droves)

They've pissed off a large part of the moderates right with TOTAL fiscal irresponsibility and the patriot act. Who sadly still believe that they can actually control the christo-fascists. (they will be the ones who suffer the most, as "turn coats" once they realize their folly)

The only thing left is to piss-off the non-religious right. (My guess, - they will try to impose some kind of gun control under the guise of home land security.)

The only question is, will the spark come from a coalition of all these dissenfranchised people or will it come from within when
xians turn on themselves arguing about exactly WHO god is talking to.

Enjoy the board while it lasts. The next step in the patriot act by the christo-fascist is to ban the "liberal press" ( who are really neither left, right or bias, but total F*(&) ups at their jobs) and boards like this. After all we pose a high risk of sedition and a great threat to the moral fiber. They've taken care of the homos,
the spineless media is practically on it's knees. Now it's those pesky godless atheists who question the rightness and correctness of our fearless leader and undermining the war effort.












Yea yea yea I know woowoo conspiracy theories
Tell me you haven't heard EVERY SINGLE one of these suggestions expressed in a more flowery version from republicans like Frisk, Limbaugh, Fallwell(sp) Robertson, Keyes, Ashcroft and the list goes on.


The Constitution is DEAD - from the Patriot Act to Warren co, OH changing voting laws retroactive to the election, to now the reps trying to take away the option to filibuster - the only question left is whether we have another civil war or splinter into different nations. Will it happen tomorrow? Probably not. Will it happen? I say 50/50.

 

[varwoche]

The Senate's Republican leader [Bill Frist] says it's the job of the Judiciary Committee chairman [Arlen Specter] to get the president's nominees approved.

article

Frist has an interesting take on the role of the senate.

 

[shanek]

How short some memories are. Republicans filibustered Clinton : http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N17/filibuster.17w.html

First of all, they weren't filibustering the President; that's impossible. They were filibustering the Democrats in Congress.

Second, your link specifically refers to Clinton's economic stimulus package, while the link in the above article says the Republicans are looking to stop filibusters only for executive nominations under Constitutional grounds.

So, do you have any example of Republicans filibustering Clinton's nominations?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Plenty of precedent for changing the rules.
The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Senate can change fillibuster rules

Plenty of precedent for changing the rules.
The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters

Interesting, thanks. (Nitpick: I'm not sure that 2 changes to the rules over a 200 yr period qualifies as "plenty".)

 

[SlippyToad]

Apparently, fillibuster rule can be changed with a simple majority:

NY Times

I'd love to see the Republicans do it . . . and then lose the Senate in two years. No one party can control all three branches of the government for long, Grover-Norquistian fantasies aside. Filibuster is about the only way a minority coalition can express its views. So go ahead, morons. You're just a shift of public opinion away from locking yourselves out of a room and throwing away the key.

 

[Kopji]

That plan is referred to by both parties as the "nuclear option." Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt.

LOL, may they live in interesting times...

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Re: Senate can change fillibuster rules

Interesting, thanks. (Nitpick: I'm not sure that 2 changes to the rules over a 200 yr period qualifies as "plenty".)

Three, if you count the elimination of filibusters from the House of Representatives.

But that is plenty, besides that the Senate changes their rules all the time on other matters. There's even a permanent Rules Committee.

It's obvious that the filibuster was not something "enshrined" in the constitution, merely something it allows that was discovered later.

The Senate has always set their own rules. The House likewise.

And partisan monkeying with the rules has always been part of the system, too.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Senate can change fillibuster rules

I'd love to see the Republicans do it . . . and then lose the Senate in two years. No one party can control all three branches of the government for long, Grover-Norquistian fantasies aside. Filibuster is about the only way a minority coalition can express its views. So go ahead, morons. You're just a shift of public opinion away from locking yourselves out of a room and throwing away the key.

There is much wisdom in what you say. The problem is that the minority doesn't regard it much (of late or last) and digs themselves in a deeper minority hole. My view (which may well be incorrect) is that the Dems recent use of the recent filibuster tactics might! have been a major unspoken issue in this election. The republicans made a pretty big public deal about it and probably gained more mileage from it in this last election than has been reported.

So, look at the numbers.

Can they still maintain that advantage? The [remaining] dems, especially those that come up for reelection in 2006, might not be too willing to go along just to get along.

If they are, then a simply 51-50 vote would suffice to bust it, even if used on a one-time-only basis.

Doesn't matter. No way it can stand another two years even in the best pro-dem future.

 

[shanek]

I've really been thinking about the Constitutional argument here, and it's interesting. Article II Section 2 Clause 2 states that the President shall make these appointments "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Consent would certainly imply that the President can nominate anyone as long as a majority of the Senators agree to it, and therefore stopping this nomination by filibuster is unconstitutional.

But here's the interesting thing: Article I Section 7 Clause 2 says that bills that pass the House and Senate are sent to the President to sign. Since there is no proportion mentioned (unlike later in the clause when it talks about needing two-thirds to override the President's veto) we can assume "pass" means a majority, which is the way it's done now. But, by the same argument above, if filibusters are unconstitutional for Presidential appointees then they should logically be unconstitutional for bills as well.

 

[varwoche]

Apparently, fillibuster rule can be changed with a simple majority:

NY Times

What I didn't understand then (in Nov) was that the rules of the senate could be changed by a simple majority -- a rude awakening.

But what's this?

To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations.

Not so clear cut I guess.

If the dems disputed the rule change on this basis, how would it be resolved?

Incidentally, notice that Frist announced this strategy on Nov 12, 2004, ten days after the election.

 

[BPSCG]

But, by the same argument above, if filibusters are unconstitutional for Presidential appointees then they should logically be unconstitutional for bills as well.

I don't believe anyone is making the argument that filibusters are unconstitutional.

 

[CBL4]

This is an example of why I hate the republicans. There have been 6 acts by them that may be constitutional (I think two are not.) but go against the tradition that I was taught. And, yes, tradition does matter especially when it keeps the government running smoothly.

1) Alleging Bill Clinton committed "high crimes and misdemenours even though his crime was one that is rarely, if ever, prosecuted - civil perjury. (BTW, I believed Clinton should have resigned until the moment the Republicans stared making absurd impeachment noises.
2) Recalling an incompetent but law abiding California governor.
3) Redistricting house seats in Colorado and Texas which was the first time this was done not following a census.
4) Rewriting filibuster rules.
5) Advocating impeaching judges who are supposedly "activist."

You could make an argument that all these action are legal but the big effect is too increase animosity in government. This is not good for the country and in the long run, not good for the republicans.

It used to be that once someone was elected, he served his out his office unless he committed a serious crime. Redistricting happened every 10 years. Judges served until they died. Senate rules were not re-written on the whim of a temporary majority. This led to a stability and prevented constant absurd political posturing and hatred.

CBL

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Senate can change fillibuster rules

...
Incidentally, notice that Frist announced this strategy on Nov 12, 2004, ten days after the election.

This is the start of the Frist for President campaign. I hope that this country doctor is in for more than one rude awakening -- like how his Republican Senator competitors for that very same job will shiv him in the back when the filibuster disaster of 2005 is lamented down the road.

 

[shanek]

It might be appropriate to post this link in this thread, too. It's an excellent description of the filibuster from Orson Scott Card:

http://charlotte.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=705

The article gets cut off for some reason, but what there is of it is very informative.