I would like to submit the following to the Rank (not ranking) member of the Senate Democrats. Mr. Reid, what follows is the dictionary definition of "filibuster":
1.
A)The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
B)An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.
"http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Filibuster"
Mr. Reid. We, in fact, want to call this a filibuster. Further, we're blowin' this b***h up!
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
The words "filibuster" and "debate" are used, but the dysfunction is "refusal to vote." Every Senator knows where they stand on the nomination. There is no need for further persuasive debate.
In parliamentary proceedings, there is no way to separate taking the vote from debate on the matter. When a matter is brought before the body it can be disposed of in several ways. It can be ruled as not in the scope of the body's charter. It can be tabled by a simple majority for a variety of reasons, at a variety of points in its consideration. But tabling a point does not terminate it, the table is a place to rest. Of course, a tabled amendment to a motion dies if the motion is approved without the amendment.
If the matter is taken to debate, the debate will follow the rules of the body. Sometimes, cloture is required or desired. Its function is to reduce the amount of debate before taking the vote. Its function is emphatically NOT to avoid the vote altogether. Cloture is used to give power to the objections of members who have not had opportunity to speak, or who remain undecided on the matter because they have not heard enough debate. The need for debate is to faciltiate individual decision making, and once the members are firm in their convictions, the time for voting is ripe.
The Senate has divorced the vote from the debate, using the cloture device. They have done this by permiting and ENGAGING in extended debate, followed with refual to vote. The body of the Senate exhibits parliamentary dysfunction.
HATCH: Only the Senate itself can exercise its constitutional role of advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. That is, only a majority of Senators can exercise that role. I make this point so strongly because the minority is claiming the right to exercise this body's role of advice and consent strictly by the minority....
The minority can say this is a narrow effort focused on a few appeals court nominees. It is not. This is about the entire judicial confirmation process. It is about rigging that process so the minority can do what only the majority may legitimately do in our system of Government: determine how the Senate exercises its role of advice and consent.
109th Congress - Page S5739 - May 23, 2005
109th Congress - Page S5741 - May 23, 2005
HATCH: On April 8, 2003, Senator Bennett, my colleague from Utah, asked the then-assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, how much time the Democrats would require to debate the nomination fully. This is what he said:
There is not a number of hours in the universe that would be sufficient [to debate this nominee].They did not want to debate Justice Owen, they wanted to defeat her. Debate was not a means to the end of exercising advice and consent. It was an end in itself to prevent exercising advice and consent. The majority leader has made offer after offer after offer of more and more time, hoping that the tradition of full debate with an up-or-down vote would prevail. That hope is fading, as Democrats have rejected every single offer.
Finally, last month, the minority leader admitted that ``this has never been about the length of the debate.'' That is what the minority leader said. It has never been about the length of the debate. That was said April 28, 2005.