Reid moves to limit GOP filibusters

Washington Times ^ | 11/7/12 | Stephan Dinan

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Now, Boehner says he will make a “comprehensive immigration” deal with Obama and Reid is working on the filibuster rule”

Technically Reid would need 60 or 2/3rds to change that rule as I recall. Plus it would backfire if the GOP won the Senate back next year.

Back around 2006 Levin argued that the GOP should declare the filibuster of judges unconditional and change the rule with only 50+. But the gang of 14 killed that bad idea and they lost the Senate soon after anyway.

[Cboldt]

-- Technically Reid would need 60 or 2/3rds to change that rule as I recall. --

Two thirds of those present and voting. The "60" is three fifths of members sworn, and is a fixed number.

There is a good argument that a simple majority can change the rules, at the beginning of a session. The nuclear option that was bandied about in 2006 was a parliamentary move, other than at the start of a session.

It's funny how the headline is phrase in terms of limiting GOP obstruction. Am I to take it that DEM obstruction is to continue unimpeded?

Anyway, the Senate is an utterly dysfunctional legislative body.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Two thirds of those present and voting. The “60” is three fifths of members sworn, and is a fixed number.
There is a good argument that a simple majority can change the rules, at the beginning of a session. The nuclear option that was bandied about in 2006 was a parliamentary move, other than at the start of a session.”

Thanks, I couldnt remember which it was and was too lazy to look it up.

The contrary argument I heard is that the Senate never starts a 'session' because the terms are overlapping 6 years, versus the House where the terms are 2 years and everyone has faced the election.

In any case changing this rule is shortsighted for either party. Dems used it all the time against Bush.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Technically Reid would need 60 or 2/3rds to change that rule as I recall.

This is a murky legal question. The 60 vote rule is not in the constitution.

But what if Reid accepted a simple majority vote to change the rules? What would the GOP do about it? The SCOTUS has been very reluctant to accept such cases lately.

It's possible that even very leftist senators would vote against such a rule change, because it would make the senate just a second House whose menbers are elected in a different way.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

See post #24.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

See post #24.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”This is a murky legal question. The 60 vote rule is not in the constitution.
But what if Reid accepted a simple majority vote to change the rules? What would the GOP do about it? The SCOTUS has been very reluctant to accept such cases lately. “

As Cboldt helpfully pointed out it is 2/3rds now.

Legally the Senate makes their own rules so the majority can technically do anything they want. That is why Levin recommended that Republicans take such an approach ~ 2006.

So if Rs have the House but filibusters are more difficult then what does that really do, assuming they disagree and still cant stuff to Os desk?

It allows Reid to force Republicans to vote 'no' rather than vote block. Those voters can be used against them I suppose. It also makes the Senate look more functional than it has been by ‘getting stuff done’ when Senate Republicans are scared to go on the record as 'no ' and Bills get to House.

Now if the problem is the bohner Republican House than there are few solutions. We got the wrong party to depend on.

Technically the US constitition requires that all tax bills originate in the house but they ignore that, so the senate extended some of the tax cuts and is calling on the House to do the same.

[Cboldt]

-- But what if Reid accepted a simple majority vote to change the rules? --

Technically, a simple majority always carries. The issue is how long debate goes on, before the vote is taken. The Senate operates on unlimited debate, and the "60" number is how many it takes to put a time limit on the debate. When the debate is a rule change, it takes 2/3rds of those present to agree to limit the debate.

Senate Rule XXII

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

-- What would the GOP do about it? The SCOTUS has been very reluctant to accept such cases lately. --

There is no such thing as a trustworthy branch of the federal government. They all aim to maintain concentration of real power with the federal government. SCOTUS won't (and shouldn't) endorse or reject a legislative body's deviation from the organic principle that a majority rules.

Anyway, to answer the question, if Reid creates precedent, that precedent can be used by his opposition in the future.

-- It's possible that even very leftist senators would vote against such a rule change ... --

All of the senators are individually arrogant, and you are right, none of them wants to give up the individual power of control that flows from dysfunctional abuse of the rules.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Keep in mind and you know it, many Republicans thought they were going to get huge win on election night till Hume and Ingraham on FNC started talking about a possible defeat election night.

Ingraham on Special Report predicted that amnesty would pass this time. I hope she is wrong but Boehner is not hiding his madness, and he seems determined to infect others.

After Hannity's flip on amnesty, I wonder if he will take the backlash calls on his radio show :)

[Gilbo_3]

it is 2/3rds now.

isnt that 2/3 of present members ???

which begs the question of whether or not the commprogs believe they really will face another electorate after bambamII...???

reid has been pretty much playing 2nd monkey to the bambam for a long time, simply being the blocker...he may just decide that he can get a lil of the glory, and maybe even a statue or three ifn he goes all-in and ramrods some agenda...not to mention the possibility above concerning another election, if bam tells him the final push is going *forward*...

i dont put anything past these scumbag csers...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

When the debate is a rule change, it takes 2/3rds of those present to agree to limit the debate.

Doesn`t that contradict Mason's Manual? "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority."

Or does that apply only to the vote itself, and not to rules which could delay a vote forever? I am getting dizzy :)

[Cboldt]

-- Doesn`t that contradict Mason's Manual? --

I don't think so. A properly functioning deliberative body will give the minority the power to extend debate in order to obtain the opportunity to persuade, etc. Under Roberts Rules of Order, a Motion to To Suppress or Limit Debate requires 2/3rds to carry.

-- Or does that apply only to the vote itself, and not to rules which could delay a vote forever? --

Yes, Mason's Manual is referring to the ultimate vote on the issue before the body.

Inaction is different from taking an action. Failing to vote on the issue is inaction.

I think the Senate's use of minority veto on advise & consent is unconstitutional, as it disrupts the balance of power between the senate and the president. But for legislated points, the failure to get to the vote is simple dysfunction, without any constitutional ramifications.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

But for legislated points, the failure to get to the vote is simple dysfunction, without any constitutional ramifications.

I believe that we do need the 60 vote rule to stay in place. Now that the SCOTUS (yes, even the "conservative" Robert court) has allowed the commerce clause to be used for just about any purpose. Of course, I could speculate that such laws theoretically could be overturned by the congress.

But even worse is amnesty, which makes citizens, eventually, of people who will make whatever party the Left identifies with, to be the government itself. Amnesty would make several disastrous trends permanent, and, if it became law, I don't see how this process could be reversed.