Posted on 12/17/2004 5:59:58 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
The Senate rule allowing four Senators to end debate was dropped in 1806.
Apparently though it was done not to allow unlimited debate, but because that rule (moving the question) was dilatory in it's own right.
It was dropped to speed up action in the Senate, not to slow it down.
... I'm surprised no one remarks upon the parallel between Byrd's "Rule 22" and Joseph Heller's "Catch 22"!
You mean the spirit of cooperation and bipartisan comity that has characterized the Senate ....
Oh, never mind.
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the righ[t] of self-government: they receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will: collections of men, by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men. "
Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Residence Bill Thomas Jefferson July 15, 1790
An interesting read in it's own right.
A majority can decide a 2/3 vote is neccessary to change the rules, or they can decide a simple majority can.
In fine, it's simply up to the majority.
No sense sending a copy to lame duck sometime-Senator Edwards. The last time I saw him an hour or two ago, he was chasing a speeding ambulance west on Main Street, resuming his more customary employment.
The process that you described for the nuclear option (or more appropriately the constitutional option) is consistent with what I have seen many times on FR.
I would appreciate your insight on the following options.
1. The Majority leader ignores the filibuster and procedes with a vote. Is it then the burden of the democrats to in effect bring up the nuclear option by raising the question to the chair? The thinking is this. They object to the action of the majority leader. They then have to ask for a ruling. What are the requirements for such a ruling?
2. The constitutional option gets voted down by the senate. Can one senator file a complaint to the Court system regarding the unconstitutionality of the filibuster for advise and consent. Otherwise, in effect a supermajority is required. It soes not seem appropriate for the senate to institute unconstitutional rules.
As a final thought, there are time to pick your battles. The integrity of the Court System is a battle that must be fought now. Almost nothing more (except National Security) is more important an issue for the government. I would agree that the votes were not there in the current Senate. I am hopeful that they are there now. In a Nov 7 thread, I suggested a quid pro quo for allowing Specter to become Judiciary Chairman was his support for the constitutional option. Now that this discussion has opened up, you could be certain that if the Democrats had a majority, they would enact such an ruling.
I am most worried about us trying to play nice and see what happens. I hope that we employ the constitutional option on Day 1. If the Democrats want to say they will tie up the Senate and appear obstructionist, then in the words of Dirty Harry "Make my Day".
As a final comment, I want to wish you and your family a happy and healthy holiday season.
Bob
The Nuclear option is merely the judicious exercise of available power.
It is catastrophic only in the view of those out of power.
I am not holding my breath. Too many RINOs in the Senate. Even after January!
IMHO, the smart thing to do would be for the President to nominate somebody that the 'Rats would desperately want to filibuster, but just couldn't. This is why I think nominating Janice Rogers Brown would be a great idea. I just can't see DiFi and BaBo filibustering a highly-qualified popular black woman from California even if she is quite conservative.
Well said. This gives me a great deal to think about.
I suggest the Republicans let them, and then publicly use the wording you just enunciated.
And then, privately let it be known that no Democrat or Republican who stands in opposition gets a thing for his district until things return to normal.
I vote for the common sense(nuclear) option.
I bet President Bush 41 thought that when he nominated Clarence Thomas. If the justice is pro-life, pro-traditional family, or for goodness sake's a Christian, then the scraping sound you'll hear are the knives sharpening. The libs will happily burn them at the stake.
No nodding off here. Not at all.
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.