Give Them a Real Filibuster!-Win the judicial nominations battle? Make the other side speak 24/7

Frontpagemagazine ^ | 4-29-05 | Dick Morris

[sport]

There will not be a battle.

The Republican establishment has neither the heart nor the inclination to fight the Democrats.

[Cboldt]

Byrd's filibuster was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I did a little google research and apparently Byrd had to keep talking for 14 hours because the majority had the votes for closure. A closure vote could not be taken until he yielded the floor.

Thanks for that. So all his yapping did was delay the inevitable. There were more than enough votes to move the question.

I can imagine that in some cases, such as close to a scheduled recess or end of session, the delaying tactic of holding the floor during open debate might delay the vote for months instead of days. But other than for the purpose of influencing other Senators' votes, or riling public sentiment, if the object is to stall the vote, a mere "I object to the vote" has the same effect as a long-winded speech.

This was an interesting tidbit in the article you linked:

And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

Truly, the Senate is dysfunctional. It seems they are proud of that ;-)

[Samwise]

I was lectured for suggesting this.

[jmksbv]

This all sounds like an old Star Trek episode....A Taste of Armageddon...

Synopsis:
The U.S.S. Enterprise is ordered to pick up Ambassador Robert Fox, who is headed to planet Eminiar VII on a diplomatic mission. Upon arriving at the planet, the ship is warned away.
Beaming to the surface with a landing party, Kirk and Spock are met by a young woman, Mea 3, who tells them that Eminiar VII has been at war with its neighboring planet, Vendikar, for over 500 years. Mea 3 takes them to the council chambers where they find banks of computers. Eminiar's head council Anan 7 informs them that the two planets have learned to avoid the complete devastation of war because computers are used. When a "hit" is scored by one of the planets, the people declared "dead" willingly walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized. Anan 7 further tells Kirk that his ship and all the crew aboard her have been declared casualties and will be executed. When Kirk flatly refuses, the landing party members are taken prisoner.

The council members are unable to convince Scotty, in charge of the U.S.S. Enterprise, to lower shields without a direct order from Captain Kirk. Meanwhile, Ambassador Fox has beamed to Eminiar and is also taken prisoner, marked for death. Kirk and Spock escape and gain the council chambers where they destroy the computers. Kirk tells the council members that they have made this war too easy for themselves and that they will truly experience the horrors of war if they do not learn to make peace first. Ambassador Fox volunteers to stay behind and negotiate a peace between the neighboring planets.

[The South Texan]

I agree. Dick Morris makes since for once.

[eeriegeno]

Truly, the Senate is dysfunctional. It seems they are proud of that ;-)

At first blush, I want to agree with you that the Senate is dysfunctional but, then again, they seem to have all of their legalistic and procedural strategies lined up to protect their 'little boys club' aka 'Club Senatatibus'! IMHO, it is high time for term limits of these a$$holes........

[small voice in the wilderness]

Load up the Clown Bus. It's time for a democrat filibuster three-ring death chat. I would love to see them line up and take their turns at the podium. 24/7. Until Byrd raises his limp hand from the Senate floor and whispers hoarsely to his comrades: "Rules be damned. Billy is calling and my life is ebbing. Slowly. Slow....ly....Billy...I'm a comin'...just...one...more...vote..."

[greasepaint]

response to post 35.
the priciple here is 'unlimited debated',
not 'unanimous consent is needed for everything'.

Something like this,
suppose Cheney says, "lets vote on Judge Judy".
at that point, there is either: vote, or more debate.
my understanding is, someone must stand up and talk,
I don't think that one guy can just say "I object".
To delay the vote, they must contine to talk.
That is what I meant by, 'make em talk'.

My theory is, there is some kind of combination
threat and side deal, from the Democrats,
unless the Republicans allow the Senate to
go on to other business during a filibuster,
Dems will withhold 'unanimous consent' on
hundreds of pieces of routine bs,
effectively shutting down the Senate,
a variation on that would be, if the Reps don't allow
multiple simultaneous filibusters, we
will filibuster everything.

for example, 'unanimous consent' allows the rules
to be suspended, thereby allowing something like,
some damn bill going into the record without
being read aloud in the Senate.

[Cboldt]

the priciple here is 'unlimited debated', not 'unanimous consent is needed for everything'. Something like this, suppose Cheney says, "lets vote on Judge Judy". at that point, there is either: vote, or more debate.

No. There is either vote, or absent unanimous consent, some other disposition. There is no obligation to debat, but debate might be a useful tactic in some circumstance.

my understanding is, someone must stand up and talk, I don't think that one guy can just say "I object". To delay the vote, they must contine to talk.

Then show us where the rules require that. That's what I asked for in the first place. I don't see any rule that makes them talk. I haven't seen any discussion, backed up with citation to rules, that explains how a Senator can be forced to talk.

I think you have a good handle on the ramifications of "unanimous consent," in that a Senator can use that to shut down part or all of Senate business. I think the issue of reading a bill into the record vs. having it enered without reading is not particularly relevant in a discussion of how to make Senators take to the floor. Although it is obvious that requiring reading (by a clerk) of a 1000 page bill or amendment would indeed slow down Senate business.

[greasepaint]

perhaps, 'make em talk', is poor wording, substitute..
'make em hold the floor'.

No rule makes a Senator talk,
I meant, in order to delay a vote, make em hold the foor,
for a week or two.

Can you cite a rule that , absent debate, one objection
can prevent the presiding officer from ordering a vote?

again, I think there is some type of side deal that
the standard procedure is ...
when there is a filibuster that can't be clotured,
the rules will be suspended, needs 2/3 but usually stated
as 'without objection', that suspends the rules and allows the
Senate to move to other business.

The implied threat is, if the side deal is disreguarded,
the offended party will object to everything and
filibuster everything.

[Cboldt]

No rule makes a Senator talk, I meant, in order to delay a vote, make em hold the foor, for a week or two.

No rule makes them hold the floor either.

Can you cite a rule that , absent debate, one objection can prevent the presiding officer from ordering a vote?

It's the notion of unanimous consent. Closing debate and moving to the vote requires either unanimous consent or cloture. Cloture is covered in Rule XXII.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm < Standing Rules

[greasepaint]

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/vote.htm

[votelife]

These are the Senators to call to help President Bush get a vote on his embattled judicial nominees:

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-2235
Phoenix, AZ: (602) 952-2410

Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2921
Providence, RI: (401) 453-5294

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-5344
Augusta, ME: (207) 622-8292

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-4224
Omaha, NE: (402) 758-8981

Senator John Warner (R-VA)

Washington, DC: (202) 224-2023
Roanoke, VA: (540) 857-2676

[Cboldt]

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm

So, here we see that a filibuster is not necessarily holding the floor. Any delaying or obstructive action will do.

unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

So, Frist says "Without objection, I move that we take a vote on the nominee." Some DEM says, "I object." Poof goes unanimous consent.

Your "vote" citation is interesting too, but it can't apply in all cases because some vote must, under the terms of the Constitution, carry by more than a simple majority. Now, I think Senate Rule XXII is unconstitutional as applied to nominees, because it is an encroachment on the Office of the President. But I still don't see how Senate rules can be used to force an obstructionist Senator to hold the floor in order to perpetrate the obstruction.

[greasepaint]

If what you say is true,
why bother with a 'real' filibuster? {my term}
There have been 'real' filibusters in the past,
of course, the most famous filibuster is from
the 1939 fictional movie, Mr Smith goes to Washington.

The Senate can do anything it wants when there is unanimous consent,
I assume lots of stuff gets done that way, including
allowing -->some<-- votes.
However, my contention is, one guy can't stop
a vote just by saying 'I object, and then dissapearing'.

Suppose twenty Senators don't like some particular bill.
When the presiding officer feels like calling for a vote,
he can't just do that, the princple of 'unlimited debate'
requires that the presiding officer must allow anyone
who has not spoken yet, to speak, and keep
the floor, as long as he remains standing.
With the other guys showing up when needed, this could
take days. The only way the for the rules to allow
the presiding officer to place a 'time limit' on
debate is cloture, 30 more hours, I think.
With the time limit, some of those twenty guys,
who ordinarily would be be offered their chance,
get none.
Note, unlimited time, is not multiple 'attempts',
you get one. I don't want to get into the quorum issue.

Clearly, this would be trouble if this happened often.
I think there is some type of gentleman's agreement
that, if there is not 60 votes for some issue, this
whole mess is not even attempted.
Likewise, for the 'home state Senator 'hold' thing',
that is what I would call a 'courtesy'.
Over time, the word 'filibuster' has come to include
this supposed 'side agreement'. I guess that the
side arrangement is enforced, from the point of view
of the minority, with the threat to withhold
'unanimous consent' on lots of routine business.
Nothing in the Senate requires unanimity,
its just easier that wey. Over time, the
media jumbles this up. Over time, people
speak as if one way to do something, is the only
way to do something. Don't believe everything
the media says, often, what is presented as a fact,
is just one side's claim or preference.

[Proud_texan]

""The Dems would never survive the negative publicity of actually filibustering"

Even if they did it's be fun to watch. Would Kennedy have an IV of vokda? Or would it be gin?

I heard a talking head saying that the dims won't countermove the nuclear option by stopping everything in the Senate because of the negative publicity. Here in Texas we only let the state pols meet every two years figuring we at least have a year off between screwings. Closing down the Senate would be a bad thing?

24/7 would be grand entertainment and the reason they went to the virtual filibuster is because they're too lazy to do it. Maybe they'd go 24/7 if they gave themselves another pay raise.

[Cboldt]

If what you say is true, why bother with a 'real' filibuster? {my term}

It's called politicking. I think the general reason it is done it to get attention. Maybe the individual demontration of strong will brings other Senators to this side. Maybe the long talk is to endear the Senator to his home state voters.

However, my contention is, one guy can't stop a vote just by saying 'I object, and then dissapearing'.

Your contention is not supported by the rules or other facts. The historical fact that some Senators have held the floor to stall a vote doens't mean that the rules require a Senator to hold the floor to stall a vote. One Senator indeeed has the power to stall a vote by saying "I object" and nothing more.

Don't believe me? Do you believe your own eyes? See the last 10 filibusters of judicial nominees. There was no vote, and the DEMs weren't forced to take the floor. It takes 41 Senators to sustain the "no vote" posture, because the "I object to voting" of less than 41 Senators can be overcome with cloture.

The only way the for the rules to allow the presiding officer to place a 'time limit' on debate is cloture, 30 more hours, I think.

Limits for debate are obtained either by unanimous consent or by cloture. It is correct that the general rules of the Senate permit a group of Senators to nearly bring the business of the Senate to a halt.

But just because there are or can be limits to debate does not mean a Senator has to take the floor in order to stall taking a vote. I'm still waiting for somebody to show the rule that forces a Senator to take the floor in order to stall a vote.

Don't believe everything the media says, often, what is presented as a fact, is just one side's claim or preference.

The function of the media is to sell hot dogs and beer. If one wants to know how things really work, one has to perform independent research. Take the popular notion that somehow, using either old or new Senate rules, the GOP can force DEM Senators to the floor. Yet, those pronouncements are not supported with explanation.

When the presiding officer feels like calling for a vote, he can't just do that, the princple of 'unlimited debate' requires that the presiding officer must allow anyone who has not spoken yet, to speak, and keep the floor, as long as he remains standing.

Any Senator can call for the vote, at any time. Even within the confines of procedure established bu cloture (Rule XXII). The primary function of the presiding officer is to keep order. I agree that, absent unanimous consent to limit a Senator's time for talking, a Senator can hold the floor for as long as he can. A call for the vote can be stifled for that period of time. But the rules don't force a Senator to hold the floor in order to stifle the vote. A simple "I object" is enough.

[greasepaint]

What you see on tv is misleading. Much Senate
'floor business' is done without a quorum.
Then, all stuff must be unanimous, or,
the one offended Senator would ask for a quorum rollcall,
which would fail, and the hole place has to shutdown.
There, with no quorum, 'I object' would work as you indicate.

If the Republicans wanted to 'call the bluff' of
the Democrats, the Reps would have to muster 51
Senators to win the inevitable quorum call.
Then, 'I object' would no longer work.
At that point, each Senator is allowed to speak once,
for as long as he wants, or can stand up, whichever
comes first, except if there is cloture.
This is called 'unlimited debate'.
With cloture, there is a time limit, not all Senators
wishing to take their shot would be allowed to speak.
When time runs out, or, when the last Senator wishing
to speak gives up, the vote will take place, 'objections'
or not. Note, all this time the majority mast
naintain a quorum.

There havn't been any judicial filibusters since
the LBJ era,
what you seem to call a filibuster, is just
the threat of a filibuster.

[Cboldt]

what you seem to call a filibuster, is just the threat of a filibuster.

I object to the term "filibuster" anyway. The question is what forces a Senator to take the floor in order to stall a vote.

Quorum or not, "I object" works. It worked 10-15 times last year, with a quorum on the floor. No vote on the judicial nominees. No holding of the floor by the DEMs.

[greasepaint]

'forced to take the floor', my term,
presupposes, that the Republicans ditch the 'side deal',
again my term. Without the side deal, with a quorum,
the only way {the minority} to delay votes is for Senators to,
collectively but as individuals, use their
privilidge of unlimited debate.

even with a quorum, the majority must ask to suspend
the rules, to do a mountain of routine crap.

even with a quorum, the majority might not want to
offend the minority, when the minority might
retaliate by objections, of which a key one is
the ability to do business on the floor without a quorum.