Replies

True. And I hasten to add the filibuster is NOT a constitutional requirement either. It is simply a long-standing Senate custom, embodied in the rules. Before 1974, it required a two-thirds vote or 67 of the 100 Senators present, to end a filibuster. Then it was changed to reduce it to a three-fourths or 60 of the 100 Senators present to end a filibuster. The point here is the rules were changed before and they can be changed again. They are not Holy Writ.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

**** Before 1974, it required a two-thirds vote or 67 of the 100 Senators present, to end a filibuster. Then it was changed to reduce it to a three-fourths or 60 of the 100 Senators present to end a filibuster. ****

You're absolutely correct.
And I assume you know who changed those rules ...... but for those who don't -- it was the DEMOCRATS - led by Senator 'Sheets' Byrd and backed by "swimmer' Kennedy and IIRC senator "Plagiarizer" Biden. And the reason for the change was that the RATS complained that 'they' were being held hostage by the minority party. How's that for deja vu'!

And the rules change is really meaningless in the long run as when the RATS again become the majority party (which is inevitable someday), they can change the rule back.

Plus this rule change will only apply to presidential appointment filibusters not to any legislation. So all this whining by the RATS is nothing but hyperbole and grandstanding for the brainwashed sheeple.

The problem is that the cloture rule was changed in 1975 from two-thirds of those Senators elected AND present to the current rule three-fifths of those Senator just elected. This means that the Democrats can send ONE of their Senators to the filibuster, the Republicans must send at least 51 Senators.

It has been affirmed by two Vice-Presidents (in their capacity as President of the Senate), Nixon and Humphrey that any sitting Senate may change its rules and NOT be bound by the strictures of a previous Senate. Some Senators believe the fiction that since the Senate considers itself a "continuing" body that any rules set down by a long-gone Senate still hold sway over the sitting US Senate.

If that were so then a US Senate from the 1830s could have set a Senate 'rules' requirement that the filibuster 'rule' could never be changed unless there was a unanimous agreement from all US Senators (before they were elected), which would mean that a filibuster could never be stopped in a subsequent US Senate as long as ONE member objected to changing the 1830s Senate 'rule'. Imagine that since 1830 there would always be at least ONE Senator who objected to changing the long-ago set cloture rule: it would be more permanent than any portion of the US Constitution (except for the State's Senate representation portion) since it can be amended with a three-fourths majority of the Houses of Congress and the States...

dvwjr