Replies

Normally, yes, but during a nomination, no. I was wrong about one thing though. Each Senator can take the floor twice without consent of the Senate, so that can drag it out a bit longer.

But this is the system used to break a filibuster:

A) Democrats start debating.
B) 5 Republican Senators stand near a door to the chamber watching and counting the Democratic Senators.
C) When enough Democrats are out of the room, 4 of the Republican Senators leave the chamber and the 5th Republican Senator ask for a quorum count.
D) When it is shown that a quorum is not present, the Seargant-at-arms is sent to compel all the Senators to the chamber.
E) After all the Senators have checked in, repeat step A.

This causes great distress on older Senators, and since our two most fragile statesmen, Helms and Thurmond, are now retired, it will be most stressful on Byrd and Hollings.

The two speech rule is per day but that day may last over several days rather than a 24 hr stretch. I didn't think all Senators were compelled to attent but only enough to get 51 which is what a quorum is. There were never more than 75 present the other night during the quorum calls... so at least 25 weren't there (compelled).

I think they can make motions which are debateable, but not sure about amendments (but Daschle offered an amendment or something to Frist's call for the vote the other night), .... So as they approach the end of the two speech list on one topic another is established.

Yes it's an event that is tiring on all but not so much so when they have sleeping arrangements in the offices, etc.

The "modern," "silent," or "gentleman's" filibuster might more accurately be called the "lazy man's" filibuster. It has become so trivialized that there is no longer any need to silence an objecting senator. Once he signals his intent to filibuster, a senator is free even to leave town if he chooses, confident that he has triggered the need for 60 votes. The Senate will generally move on to other business, without any requirement that he be prepared to follow through on his filibuster threat. Sen. Robert C. Byrd has described the cozy arrangement as a "casual, gentlemanly, good-guy filibuster . . . Everybody goes home and gets a good night's sleep, and everybody protects everybody else."

But when a Republican minority blocked action on the Clinton agenda, Democrats cried foul, going so far as to launch a campaign in 1994 dubbed "Action, Not Gridlock" to abolish the modern filibuster. When the balance of forces changed in the Senate later in 1994, so too did liberals' rules of engagement and their view of the misuse of this particular parliamentary tactic. In early 1995, only 19 of 47 Democratic senators voted in favor of an unsuccessful attempt to get rid of the filibuster. "Gridlock, Not Action" had become the battle cry of the new Democratic minority now committed to blocking Republican initiatives.

Given the Senate's cherished respect for the rights of the minority — a status either party is just one election away from — the filibuster is unlikely to be abolished. As then-majority leader Trent Lott pointed out in 1999, "I might not much like it now, but someday I might like it more." And conservatives have reason to like a legislative maneuver that has been used effectively to block tax hikes, ill-considered campaign-finance reform, and Hillary Clinton's health-care extravaganza. Still, the modern filibuster has been abused to the point that, unless an initiative is protected by special rules generally reserved for budget matters, virtually nothing can happen without a 60-vote majority in the Senate. Some behavior modification is in order to preserve an important tool that is too easily abused.

"In general, regardless of who's using them or how they're used, this is not supposed to be a procedure that sets up a supermajority hurdle routinely," explains Norm Ornstein, congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's supposed to be something reserved for an issue of great national moment when a minority feels intensely about it." There will be little interest in restoring the traditional filibuster across the board because the burden placed on senators forced to meet its round-the-clock demands conflicts with a modern, "family-friendly" Senate.

But, with Kate Michelman demanding that Democratic senators filibuster any judicial nominee who fails to give full-throated support to abortion rights, and People for the American Way's Ralph Neas pledging "judicial Armageddon" to block the approval of the president's nominees, Republicans should be expected to fight back with the most powerful weapon in their arsenal. It is not too much to ask that Republicans inconvenience themselves on behalf of such consequential matters as a ban on cloning and the appointment of federal judges.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob.asp

You seem to have a good handle on the parliamentary procedures. Thansk for your expertise.

I'm confused by most of this. I understand that cloture requires 60% of the sworn senators (one way to get there with our 55 would be to get 10 out of office, but that's probably not feasible!). Therefore, we need 60 senators to vote to close debate.

The quorum call is apparently used to get 51 senators to the floor. Apparently, we had 49 Pub senators there on Weds night, but only a few Democrats? It seems to me the onus is on the ones who want to close debate rather than on the ones who are filibustering. With a quorum, can't one of the Democrats ask for a cloture vote?

How can the Pubs keep the Dems on the floor talking while letting the Pubs rest, without quorum calls.