FILIBUSTER BUSTERS - FReep the Senate to STOP THE FILIBUSTER OF NOMINEES

[sanchmo]

"We cannot allow a minority, a small group of members, to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there."
- Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, and Mike Mansfield in

1975, when they used a "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules on filibusters.

[sanchmo]

G'mornin'
Now let's get to work... and pass it on.

[TEXOKIE]

bump for later

[rwfromkansas]

good work.

REALLY NICE JOB WITH THE 1975 QUOTE.

[Southack]

Simply write the approval of the judges into the budget bill under line items for their federal salaries.

Budget bills can't be filibustered.

[davidosborne]

Passing it on..

[E.G.C.]

Good morning, david. How's it going?

[davidosborne]

Good Morning... I am doing well thanks! and YOu?

[Oklahoma 1]

How would this affect Senator-elect Tom Coburn?

Could this possibly be a back-door attempt to keep Coburn quiet?

http://www.coburnforsenate.com/

[sanchmo]

I haven't been following Coburn all that closely, but what would someone be trying to keep him quiet about? He seems to support getting quaified judges / appointments through the system in an efficient manner.

Please elaborate.

[mrsmith]

Originally the Senate did not allow filibusters.

Under rule 9 in the original Senate Rules: "The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put?" and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put. Rule 9."
This is referenced in Thomas Jefferson's renowned "manual" that he wrote when leading the Senate as Adam's VP.

An explanation of 'the previous question' (which is still used by the House):
"The Previous Question. At the end of the hour, or at least after any time that the minority floor manager controls has been consumed or yielded back, the majority floor manager can be expected to move the previous question on the bill. This nondebatable motion proposes to end the debate on the bill, to preclude amendments to the bill, and to bring the House to a vote on passing the bill without intervening motions, except for the possibility of motions to adjourn or to table the bill or to recommit to committee.
The motion to order the previous question requires only a simple majority vote for adoption, and the motion rarely is defeated. As a result, debate under the one-hour rule rarely continues for more than one hour in total, not one hour for each Member. "

[101st-Eagle]

For any Constitutional/Congressional scholars out there, could someone please give me a nutshell version of what a rules change entails? Can it simply be done in comittee, without Dems being able to circumvent with a Daschle like maneuver, or does it take full legislature introduction subject to a fillibuster itself. Thanks for any info from the lazy guy.

[guitarist]

Hey, Okie. Interested in your post. Why do you link this issue specifically to Sen-elect Coburn? Sure he is among the top conservatives--maybe the #1 conservative--in the new Senate. But how does this issue pertain to him specifically? Explain your logic. Thanks, Guitarist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[wildbill]

IMHO the pressure should be put on the handful of Dem senators like Baucus (Montana) whose states went red agains by huge margins. These guys could buckle because many of them come up for re-election in 2006.

They saw what happened to Daschle.

[DrewsDad]

Why can't they just disallow filibusters for judicial nominees(since it's a Constitutional Duty) when they adopt the rules for the next session. Then you wouldn't have to go nuclear(if I understand it correctly).

[sanchmo]

Believe it or not, the simple change of disallowing filibusters for judicial appointments is the so-called 'nuclear' option. It's not really that nuclear!! The only 'nuclear' thing was the reaction Daschle promised from the Dems!

And why do it now instead of at the beginning of the next session? Because we have the momentum of the elections. Because the Dems are deflated & disorganized right now, but we can expect an organized & agressive resistance in January. And because the Specter fiasco has put pressure on the Senate GOP to do something once and for all about this problem.

[DrewsDad]

If you change it now, the Democrats have more procedural options to stop it. When they start a new session as a new body, they should be able pass the restriction before those procedural options are adopted as rules(as I understand it).

We went through this issue when the Texas State Legislators(Chicken Ds) flew the coop to New Mexico. It wasn't until the start of a new special session that they could cleanly adopt new rules without keeping the 2/3 requirement to bring a vote to the TX Senate Floor.

As you said, it can be done before then if we have the intestinal fortitude, but there are tactics that the Democrats can adopt that will bog everything down.

[sanchmo]

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276801/posts :
Republicans could ask their presiding officer - most likely Vice President Dick Cheney - to rule that it was unconstitutional to require more than 51 votes to confirm a nominee. Republicans would have to muster only a simple majority to sustain that ruling - thus setting a precedent that judicial nominees could not be filibustered.

Of course, any session of the Senate would be able to change the rule back, but the next session - with 55 GOP - would not do that.

The Senate is is session on Tuesday 11/16 to vote on a pentagon appointment.... the day BEFORE the judiciary chair is voted on.