Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Cheney says he'd break tie to curtail use of filibusters

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

ebayfool

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:20 AM
Original message

Cheney says he'd break tie to curtail use of filibusters

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.cheney16apr16,1,2277619.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

snip/
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney said yesterday that he is prepared to cast the tie-breaking vote, if necessary, to change Senate rules and bar Democrats from using filibusters to block President Bush's judicial nominees.

"I would support an effort to restore the constitutional practices that existed before the Democrats started using the filibuster for judicial appointments," Cheney said in an interview aboard Air Force Two.

If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist launches an effort to bar filibusters of judicial nominations - a step, known as the "nuclear option," that senior aides say is imminent - Cheney said he, as president of the Senate, would back the move.

"If the decision is made" to change the rules, Cheney said, "I would certainly work with Senator Frist to achieve our objective."

---------
Looks like the dickweed is ratcheting up the pressure on his weaker links, threatening dems that won't play ball his way - or both?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

0007

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:24 AM
Response to Original message

1. dickie didn't have to tell us what he'd do, we know!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mr.Green93

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:26 AM
Response to Original message

2. Can't we get a Judge

to rule this action unconstitutional and issue an injunction?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. Nope. It is just a Senate Rule.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. It's actually not clear whether courts have jurisdiction.

Without question, attempting to involve the courts in a matter of procedure would be unprecedented, but the circumstances themselves are unprecedented. The reason the courts might become involved is because of the approach the fascists are expected to follow. The 'nuclear option' would involve a floor challenge (a point of order to the presiding officer: Cheney) asserting "unconstitutionality" of the super-majority rule to invoke cloture. This is how the fascists plan on bombing the rules. Cheney would then, in a ruling form the chair, agree that the rule (Rule 22) is "unconstitutional" and declare a simple majority sufficient to close debate. The courts might then be asked to get involved under the theory that (since Marbury) they're the legitimate arbiter of "constitutionality," not the Presiding Officer of the Senate. Whether such an appeal is filed, however, and whether it's accepted is highly speculative.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Toucano

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #8

12. Excellent appraisal.

Thanks so much.

:applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CAMANY

(111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #8

46. Err that's actually not what would happen

Here is how the procedure would work

1. Debate would start on a nominee.

2. Democratic filibuster would start.

3. Republican would stand up and a bring a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

4. Cheney woud rule that it is.

5. Democrat would object and desire vote.

6. The vote would only require 51 votes to pass. They would likely have that, and the rule would be changed.

Courts would have NO jurisdiction here. This isn't unprecedented at all. Why? Because it's a rules change which is entirely constitutional and common and CLEARLY stated in the constitution to be entirely up to the members of the house or senate.

What it DOES is unprecedented. However, that's not unconstitutional either.

If they do this there is absolutely nothing that can be done except

1. Amend the constitution

or

2. Gain a majority again

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

struggle4progress

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #46

49. I think TahitiNut is essentially right. Rule XXII explicitly states ...

... that the 3/5 requirement for invoking cloture cannot be changed without a 2/3 vote of the Senate. So the Republicans, under the guise of a parliamentary ruling, would be changing a rule with only a bare majority of the vote, despite the fact said rule clearly stated a 2/3 vote was required to change it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CAMANY

(111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #49

52. Nope you're wrong

A senate rule is NOT above the constitution.

They are making the argument the *rule is unconstitutional*.

Making a point of order on the grounds a rule is unconstitutional ONLY requires 51 votes to pass.

You would require a 2/3 vote on a motion to change the rules. NOT a point of order backed by a claim of unconstitutionality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

struggle4progress

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #52

53. The Constitution says the Congressional houses can make their ...

Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 11:01 PM by struggle4progress

... own rules.

I cited a rule established by the Senate.

It is a long standing rule, and as far as I can tell the claim that the rule is unconstitutional is novel: it, in fact, appears to be pure buncombe, designed to provide a legalistic appearance of propriety to an outright violation of the plain language of the rule.

I consider that we have not seen such a gross parliamentary abuse offered as a normal and ordinary practice since the gilded age.

However, I am eager to hear you explain, with citation, those Senate rules governing the raising of "a point of order" on grounds of "unconstitutionality," as well as the legal theory (with specific reference to the appropriate Consititutional passages) under which this long standing rule has suddenly and miraculously become "unconstitutional."

I am further eager to learn the history of this new understanding of debate in Congress, with particular reference to the apparent peculiarity that this view seems to have no principled history but is instead suddenly discovered by extremists at the very moment that it becomes convenient for them to expound it.

<edit: typos>

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clark Bayh 2008

(173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #53

60. It's time to let these 10 judges go through & save the filibuster

Otherwise next summer Scalia can be made Chief Justice without a fight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bearfan454

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #60

65. No way. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Debs

(723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #52

76. If they are making the argument the rule is unconstitutional

Isnt THAT clearly in the jurisdiction of the courts? Isnt one of the Supreme Courts central duties to interpret the Consitution?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clark Bayh 2008

(173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #49

63. Schumer discussed this yesterday on TV

The repub senator explained that they don't feel they need a 2/3 vote because nothing in the constitution specifies that you need a 2/3 vote to change senate rules. It's brilliant.

Until the Dems start thinking ruthlessly instead of indignantly we're sunk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

struggle4progress

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #63

77. This Senate rule itself explicitly says that a 2/3 vote is required ...

... to change the 3/5 majority for cloture. The Senate adopted the rule long ago. Therefore the 2/3 requirement, for changing this rule, is a Senate rule.

I would describe what the Republicans propose as brazen, not brilliant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Freddie Stubbs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #8

48. The Constitution give the Senate the power to determine its rules

Article I

Section. 5

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kurtyboy

(968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #8

54. The Courts have no jurisdiction, the issue is not "justiciable"

Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 11:32 PM by kurtyboy

because of what is called the Political Question Doctrine. The question of what rules the Senate adopts for its own proceedings are political in nature, not legal. Even the Supreme Court cannot interfere, as that would be a violation of separation of powers.

If the parliamentarian of the Senate OK's the ruling of the Chair, there isn't much the loyal oppostion can do, except wait for the day when we are the majority. I'm alright with the rule change ONLY IF it applies to ALL issues in the Senate, not just the appointment of Judges. We ought to make some noise about the selective ideological way the GOP is utilizing the rules only when they benefit, ignoring or changing the rules when they don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ebayfool

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:30 AM
Response to Original message

3. A pretty good article - points out that the gop has used the filibuster in

Edited on Sat Apr-16-05 07:33 AM by djmaddox1

the past against dems, notes that he repeatedly reframes the issue of judicial nominations by calling them "appointments", & says he's trying to distance himself from Tom DeLay's call to have the House investigate the federal judges who ruled in the case of Terri Schiavo.

Not great, but better than some I've been reading lately!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftchick

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:35 AM
Response to Original message

5. OT but, what would happen if dickie croaked?

had the final big heart attack? What is the succession line or does chimpy get to appoint anyone he wants, like say Tom DeLay?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ebayfool

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #5

16. Hastert? I need to do a search on that one, I've seen it answered on DU

before - but I'm half asleep & don't remember, for sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hedda_foil

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #5

18. Hastert. Speaker of the House is next in line.

But only until * appoints a new VP who is then automatically next in line.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoCalDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #18

24. Vice President Jeb Bush

Edited on Sat Apr-16-05 11:11 AM by SoCalDem

You know he would pick someone he "trusts", and of course Jebbie will be unemployed in 06...they would pound us with the fact that kennedy chose HIS brother to be atty gen...And that's how it would start...it would "end" with ..President jebbie..

You know it could happen.. our country is just stupid enough and we all love a "story"...father is pres..TWO sons are pres..Babs is wife 0f pres..mother of TWO.. :puke:.. somewhere, someone is already preparing to write that book:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. Can't happen...

or at least gw*dipshit can't appoint relative to Cabinet.

I recollect that after Bobby Kennedy the President can no longer make similar appointments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AzDar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #27

29. But, but...the laws don't *apply* to the BFEE!!! Remember? n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zann725

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #29

55. And the laws that DO, Repugs plan on changing SOON by electing ALL judges

It's called "spreading Freedom" (for Repugs and Fundies).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kerrytravelers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #29

64. What does BFEE mean? I'm having a senior moment here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bearfan454

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #64

66. bush family empire of evil n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kerrytravelers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #66

68. Ah yes! Thank you Thank you Thank you!

I"ll never forget that one again (check out my sig line!)

The * family has done more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zipplewrath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #27

57. VP isn't a cabinet position

The VP is not a cabinet position and so wouldn't be subject to the relative rule. Jeb won't take the job though. Truth is that it would go to the person that Rove wanted running for office next, and that wouldn't be Jeb.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AzDar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #24

28. I think I just threw up in my mouth, a little. Sooooo plausible. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FourStarDemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #24

38. Sounds a lot like the Saddam Hussein and his two sons theme..

George would be Uday, and Jeb would be the more intelligent, but equally lethal other one (forgot his name)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

shanti

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #38

40. that would be usay

uday and usay.....:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FourStarDemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #40

41. right, thanks...... n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #18

26. And of course Hastert would have to resign from the House

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CAMANY

(111 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #5

47. Have you honestly never read the US constitution?

How old are you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SammyWinstonJack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #47

59. .

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kerrytravelers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #47

67. I second Blue State Native.

Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 09:35 AM by Kerrytravelers

:eyes: and

leftchick is nice and a longstanding member. There is enough hate eminating from the right, must we be nasty and hateful to each other, too?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

radfringe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:39 AM
Response to Original message

6. assume the "Nuke option" succeeds

at some point in the future - the repugs will be the minority party once again, the President will be a Dem and appoint "liberal" judges

without the filibuster -- the repugs will "whine"

Under Clinton, the repugs stopped alot of judges from coming to a vote, they had a little "rule" - If a judge was from a particular state, and that Senator did not like the judge - the Senator could "nix" sending the judge to the floor for a vote. Many of Clinton's appointees were stopped in this fashion.

well, that rule was abolished shortly after bush* took office so no Dem Senator could "nix" an appointee in the backrooms

no big surprise -- if a repug doesn't like a rule they change it

repugs are slitting their own throats on this one for short term gains

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boomer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. The fix is in -- no more Democratic majorities

>> the repugs will be the minority party once again... <<

I'm firmly convinced that the Republican party is supporting this measure because they do not expect to lose majority status -- ever. Diebold has locked them into power and voting has become nothing more than a futile ritual of impotent dissent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mazzarro

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #7

13. You may be right!

For a political party to be so brazen about a rule/procedure that may be used against it if the opposition gains power, the reThuglicans seem to be so sure of their control of the whole government that they are willing to institute this naked grab of power! Maybe they are so sure that Democrats will continue to be so inept and pathetic in opposition that they will not have much to worry about for a long long time.
Hmmmmm either way the reThugs do have something cooking in the backrooms!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

quiet_please

(31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #13

23. Keep something in mind...

There will be a two month lag between an election and swearing in that if the cons find out they are no longer the majority party they can switch that rule back. That gives them an option when they lose majority status.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

shanti

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #7

43. EXACTLY!!!!!

that's why they're pushing this - the fix is definitely in! :grr: it's why they're ramming ALL this bullshyt down our throats, the SS, BK law and look out for the upcoming draft.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ClayZ

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #7

51. I think you are right!

They will stop at NOTHING!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

struggle4progress

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #6

50. If the Rs pull the "nuclear option," then, when next out of power ...

Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 09:42 PM by struggle4progress

... if faced with a majority party that bear grudges and won't let them filibuster, the rightwing noise machine will be crying loudly that the Ds aren't playing by Senate rules ...

Remember, these slime buckets have no decency or sense of shame ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

paineinthearse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:51 AM
Response to Original message

9. Reid is toast if he cannot hold all the Dems.

So much for the "war room".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #9

20. So You've Already Decided To Trash Reid Before Anything Happens

So much for the "war room".

Lovely :puke:

Love how some DU'ers take crap from the Mediawhores like it's gospel.. not like they'd LIE about Democrats.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Chomskyite

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #9

35. Oh, he'll hold em all right on this one.

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JerseygirlCT

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #9

44. WE may be toast if he can't hold all the Dems. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JerseygirlCT

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:55 AM
Response to Original message

10. Before the DEMOCRATS started using the filibuster?

A little selective history there, isn't it?

Hope it comes back to bite them in the butt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pachamama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #10

31. What is the history of the filibuster? When did it start? How? Who? Why?

Anyone know? I'm just curious...this email post is the first time I've seen it suggested (by Cheney himself) that this was done by "Dems"...

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care who "started" it, it makes sense as a protection for the minority....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JerseygirlCT

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #31

32. This gives a brief history

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

***************
It's not necessarily that the filibuster has such an honorable history. As mentioned above, it was useful to those opposed to civil rights. However, to attempt to paint this as something new, something exclusively Democratic, is pretty painfully ridiculous. But that's coming from the guy who still insists that Iraq had WMD... honesty's the last thing I'd expect from Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KansDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #32

33. "Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators..."

"...blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s."

Strom Thurmond

In 1948, Thurmond was nominated for president by the States' Rights Democrats (�Dixiecrats�), southerners who bolted the Democratic party in opposition to President Truman's civil-rights program; he won 39 electoral votes. In 1954 he was a successful write-in candidate for U.S. Senate. In 1957 he staged the longest filibuster in Senate history, speaking for over 24 hours against a civil-rights bill. Thurmond switched from the Democratic to the Republican party in 1964...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DemBeans

(669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 07:55 AM
Response to Original message

11. of course Cheney would back the move

He's the prime fascist, the puppetmaster of evil. Destroying even the limited rights that exist for the minority in the Senate to install judges as extremist as he is doesn't surprise me one bit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rodeodance

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #11

14. te he -maybe someone will lock him in his bunker??

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bunkerbuster1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #11

58. What RW thuggery WOULDN'T Cheney back?

this is news? please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Roland99

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:35 AM
Response to Original message

15. Is this a polite of way saying, "Go fuck yourself"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kerrytravelers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #15

73. "Go fuck yourself"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously, I think it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Historic NY

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 09:22 AM
Response to Original message

17. How many votes do they actually need? I'm confused.

I previously thought they needed a supermajority of 67 votes to change a Senate rule. In 1975 Leader Mansfield got that number whittled down to a majority of 60 votes. If presently there are 47 Dem votes for no and 3 Rep voting with the Dem that makes it 50-50. Even with "crashcarts" tie breaker that still leaves 9 votes short of a 2/3 majority. Damn numbers games.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

struggle4progress

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-17-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #17

45. According to Senate rule XXII,

Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 07:58 PM by struggle4progress

" ... Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"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.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate ..."
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm

So you are absolutely right that a two-thirds vote would be required to change the filibuster rule. However, the Republicans imagine that they have found a way around this, something along the following lines: they will ask the presiding officer for a parliamentary ruling on filibuster, the presiding officer will rule that after careful research he has discovered filibuster to be unconstitutional and hence that the Senate cannot use the rule, and the Democrats will not have the votes to appeal the ruling. The approach is blatant nonsense, of course, but they are trying to lay the groundwork with articles such as exhibited at the top of this thread, in the hopes that we yokels outside the beltway will *gasp* and babble about Cheney's vote (or some other irrelevancy), rather than noticing the big shithouse stink wafting across the country from the whores in the Senate.

<edit: typo>

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

still_one

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 09:56 AM
Response to Original message

19. what would be a riot is if they passed it then lost in 2006

maybe cheney can eat a lot more fatty foods

these people are the scum of the earth

they are planting the seeds that have sealed our childrens future

They took an opportunity to unite the world after 9/11, and instead caused most of the world to detest us

That opportunity will never come again

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Straight Shooter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message

21. The mere fact it's called the "nuclear option" ought to give people a clue

The way I see it, Cheney is sending a message to his troops. Reid can take this message and doesn't even have to spin it, that Repubs are positioning themselves to have absolute authority and control over the lives of all Americans.

Absolute. authority. and. control.

Now, who the hell wants that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NVMojo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message

22. this work needs to burn in some sort of rich man's hell...I hate him.

Edited on Sat Apr-16-05 10:32 AM by NVMojo

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jack Rabbit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message

25. And when the Democrats retake control of the Senate . . .

. . . Cheney will break the tie and re-institute the filibuster, only the new rule will require a two-thirds vote for cloture.

They will, of course, use the exact same arguments that the Democrats are using to today to support this proposal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueIris

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 12:31 PM
Response to Original message

30. Good luck with that, DICK.

I've still got a decently good feeling about this one. Fuck their threats, we will prevail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Chomskyite

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 02:49 PM
Response to Original message

34. They're inching us closer to our briar patch, aren't they?

Harry Reid is playing the Brer Rabbit part perfectly.

If they want to launch the missiles, everyone gets vaporized. Then we take back both houses and we can shut down THEIR filibusters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ebayfool

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #34

37. I love that analogy! Perfect description of what it looks like Harry Reid

is doing! (& I like the mental picture that comes with it!)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message

36. Funny how non-elected persons love to fuck over democracy!

Take Cheney for example; total capitalist pig, cold blooded killer, imperialist. This is why the RW loves him, fundies can't get enough!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FourStarDemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:34 PM
Response to Original message

39. Dean, Reid &others must do everything they can to take down Frist in'06

We need all resources and a major effort to go after this animal's seat. Dirty fighting, swift boat-type tie-ins to the extremist, dangerous nut that he (Frist) is. Do unot him, and worse what he did to Tom Daschle. If Frist loses his re-election bid, that will also help seal his fate in '08, since it looks like he's also considering a presidential run.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Daphne08

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Apr-16-05 08:48 PM
Response to Original message

42. One Theocratic Oligarchy coming up!

Why can't these narrow-minded public servants get it through their heads that half the population of this country should also be represented even if in a 'minority' role!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rfkrfk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 07:06 AM
Response to Original message

56. There is a simple countermove to this --> tag team talkathon

When shrub nominates a bad judge,
get the floor, talk about anything except the judge,
and don't give up the floor, except to a friend.

Fight back.
You have to start somewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clark Bayh 2008

(173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #56

61. The senate can change its rules with a majority vote w/ the nuclear option

Thereby Cheney can cut off all debate or make a senator yield the floor for any number of reasons as long as 50 senators move to cut off debate.

Forcing the issue is a mistake on the republicans' part. In 2008 they might well have 60 senators. Since the next SC justice is absolutely crucial we must keep the filibuster in place & let these 10 judges go for a vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rfkrfk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #61

69. Dem Senators must stand and fight, somewhere

Cheney IMO will not overrule the 'general' filibuster.
Bad judges can be stopped, but it would take work.
I just don't think that the Senate leadership has the will for a fight.
Kinda sad, but gereral chit-chat seems to assume a cave-in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

malmapus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message

62. Can't say I'm surprised to hear this one

If they do pull it off, I really hope that it comes back to majorly bite them in 2006.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kerrytravelers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #62

70. Even if it does bite them in 2006, we'd still have to own the voting

machines.

I can not believe ANYBODY owns voting machines. That is just crazy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

The White Tree

(630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 10:31 AM
Response to Original message

71. Wow - Do you think they'll actually write the rule change that way

:sarcasm: And not directed at your post, just ruminating:

The vote on the floor is to change Senate rules and bar Democrats from using filibusters to block President Bush's judicial nominees.

So if the motion passes from this point forward, Democrats will not be allowed to filibuster judicial nominations. The rule only applies to Senators registered as Democrats and their conduct in the Senate in regard to judicial nominees. Republicans are not bound by this legislation in any way.

Addendum to rule - any Democrats switching party affiliation to Republican or any other affiliation, shall be bound by the aforementioned law until which time an election has passed and they have won reelection under their "new" affiliation.

Addendum to rule 2 - The Judiciary has been deemed to have no power to maintain that this change is unconstitutional as it has no power over the proceedings of the Senate in any way.

Addendum to Rule 3 - In case we forgot to stress it enough, Senators who have the appropriate party affiliation of Republican are in no way ever to be bound by this law. This is to be called the "Just in Case" clause.
:sarcasm: off (at least I hope this is sarcasm :tinfoilhat: )

That really would be the nuclear :nuke: option.

P.S. - Havin too much fun with smilies today :blush:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bushisanidiot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 10:38 AM
Response to Original message

72. Bwahaha! I love it when repukes eat their own.

They've lost control of their and are going in all different directions. Everyone wants to be a leader, but they don't bother squaring the facts up with eachother before running to the press to declare how amazing and wonderful their hair-brained ideas are.

Gawd, this is funny to watch!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

naderzenithnow

(61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 12:42 PM
Response to Original message

74. Shultz is a right wing asshole in liberal drag trying to move the

agenda to a repug one. Wolf in sheep's clothing piece of crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

davidinalameda

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-18-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message

75. and his point is what

why would anyone ask him about this--was yesterday that slow of a news day?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 08th 2024, 12:59 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC