And most important of all, Viking Kittens
Posted on 01/04/2005 2:06:11 PM PST by hinterlander
Will it be harder for the Democrats to maintain the filibuster with 45 Senators instead of 49?
Look, the Democrats know that Frist has the votes to do it...he
is going to give them a fair chance to cooperate..if they filibuster, then Frist will be able to say that he tried to work
woth them, but the D's wouldnt allow it.
"We can change the rule in 2007 if needed. We might not need to though if we pick up five more seats."
This is about the Senate Rule XXII change strategy, not the so-called 'Nuclear Option':
Waiting until 2007 might not be the best strategy. 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... Look at the historical table below and you will see in the grey-color highlights that only the Senates of the 74th, 89th, 94th and 95th Congresses have had a single party majority with enough votes to force 'cloture', subject to the rules of the day. All of those four 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...
Senator Frist(R) blinked...
Majority Party |
Number of Senators |
required for Cloture |
|||||||
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.
Hope this helps,
dvwjr
When the Majority Party Won't Listen: The use of the Senate Filibuster by the Minority Party
It's because of leaders like this that I never send $$$$ tp the republicans. My parents got sinded photos and a christmas card but I don't care. I will not support spineless republicans.
BUMP this outrage.
I simply can't get over this....
Turns out Frist is a spineless wimp. Who'd a thunk?
Who can be surprised. No one who follows politics can be deceived about what this means. Frist is telling the President to take his nominees and put them where the sun doesn't shine. Frist needs to go.
Have you read his actual speech? From the discussion here, I get the impression many have not.
Here's what he said about adopting rules of the 108th:
"But if my Democratic colleagues continue to filibuster judicial nominees, the Senate will face this choice. Fail to do its constitutional duty or reform itself and restore its traditions and do what the Framers intended. Right now we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce in the carrying over all the Rules from the last Congress.This was a shot across the bow while preserving his options."As a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support the Constitution, I cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the Senate fails to do its constitutional duty. We as United States Senators have our constitutional duty to offer the president advice and consent."
And most important of all, Viking Kittens
Is that from Frist's speech?
Republicans control 55 seats in the Senate is a false statement and is misleading to the point of being laughable if it were not so debilitating to getting important long standing problems solved in the Senate.
Clinton played the Rinos like beating on a drum when the spread was much less. And now that the Republicans have a clear majority it is in name only.
It stinks to high heaven and is a cancer.
It's a "maggot" gagging situation!
I've read the Constitution front to back on many occasions and I've missed the part that gives the Vice-President the power to rule on the constitutionality of a Senate action. If your scenario happened, whatever nomination that was being voted on at the time would be put on hold until the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court. And I suspect that they would rule that the filibuster was not unconstitutional.
No one knows what FBI files she has.
Once the previous Rule XXII is adopted by the 109th Senate,
Cheney would rule that the filibuster does not apply to nominations. The filibuster is a Senate Rule that is not subject to judicial review.
Senate rules do not restrict the filibuster from being used in matters of presidential appointments.
I think Frist must have Specter's vote.
I argued at the time that the Specter issue was on the table that his vote was needed to overcome the Rino resistance to the rule change. I think you have it right with Snowe, Collins, Chafee and McCain but there must be another holdout lurking in there somewhere. It can't be Specter. He sold his vote for the Judiciary chairmanship.
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 50 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 rule of 'three-fifths of Senators voting and present' then the Democrats would have to have a minimum of 31 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, once the single filibustering Democrat got tired he could simply walk off the floor of the Senate with the other 30 Democrats and there would be no quorum (51 members) present and hence no Senate business may take place.
Bottom line: with the old-style cloture rule requirement the Democrats must have a substantial 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.
dvwjr
the filibuster requirement of 'those Senators voting and present'
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.