Friday, April 15, 2005
Tricky Dick up to it again...
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin took the floor this afternoon to rant and rave about GOP abuse of power. Never in the Senate's history, claimed Durbin, has a majority of the Senate voted to change the rules.
As usual, Durbin scores a ten on style and a zero on substance.
Here are the facts:
A majority of Senators has also always possessed the constitutional power to establish new Senate precedents – including precedents that reverse prior precedents, and precedents that contravene the text of the standing rules of the Senate.
In fact, Senator Robert Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 – including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:
* In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating: “I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order.” That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.
* In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills – notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.
* In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to “deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed” to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38.
* In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what – even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.
Source: http://fromthebleachers.blogspot.com, posted by chappy22