Explain this to me? Why can't the Democrats filibuster the Nuclear Option?

I'm sure this has been explained here before, but I can't remember why the Dems can't filibuster the nuclear option. The Senate procedures confuse me.

What will our Dems do?

Do you think they will have 6 repukes to vote with them?

If they don't have the 6 repukes, can they use procedural moves to shut down the Senate to stall the Judicial votes? Or can they filibuster the nuclear option? If not, why not?

Is it inevitable that the filibuster will be gone if the Dems don't get the 6 repukes to vote with them? Or is there something they can do to stop the fascists?

Are we doomed? :(

They should start filibustering now and continue to do so for the next four years...

THAT is my question. :) If they can, they better!!! :grr:

...change the rules in mid-stream without consulting congress about it. In any civilized forum, that is called cheating.

It's a complicated procedure.

But here is how Salon Put it a couple of weeks ago.

"First, Frist brings one of the stalled judicial nominees to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. The Democrats filibuster. The Republicans try to cut off debate through a cloture motion brought under Rule XXII, which requires the support of 60 senators. The cloture motion fails. At that point, the Congressional Research Service says, one of at least two things could happen.

In the first variation, the man presiding over the Senate at that moment, probably Vice President Dick Cheney or Senate President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens, could declare Rule XXII unconstitutional and rule that, when it comes to judicial nominations, debate can be cut off by a simple majority vote. Democrats could appeal that ruling, which would then set off another round of filibustering. But a Republican senator could move to table the appeal -- a move that's not subject to filibuster -- and then Republicans could vote by a simple majority to do so. That would effectively dismiss the appeal, allowing the ruling from the presiding officer to stand. Rule XXII would be declared unconstitutional, and the majority could end debate on any judicial nominee with a simple majority vote.

"In the second variation -- and this part is required reading only for the Robert's Rules of Order fetishists among us -- a Republican senator, fresh off the loss on the initial cloture motion, could raise a point of order arguing that the requirement of a three-fifths vote to cut off debate on judicial nominees is unconstitutional. The presiding officer could submit that question to the full Senate for a vote. Under the Standing Rules, that vote would be subject to a filibuster, too. But the presiding officer could simply declare that it wasn't. That would lead, as in the first variation, to another appeal, another tabling motion, and then another simple majority vote on the question whether Rule XXII is unconstitutional.

"In either variation, the end result is that Frist -- with 50 Republican votes and a tiebreaker from Cheney -- could get the Senate to declare that the usual cloture rule is unconstitutional when it comes to judicial nominees. All nominees could henceforth be confirmed with simple majority votes -- i.e., with the support of Cheney and just 50 of the Senate's 55 Republicans."

It's hard to say what will happen now, but one assumes Frist wouldn't be doing this if he thought he could lose. So I assume he thinks he's got it made.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

This shit is really starting to piss me off

They are doing it one way or another...theft again...theft of the constitution and the rules of the Senate.

So what if Dems tried this in the past. We've not had a situation where the Supreme Court, Executive, and Legislative branches has been hijacked by a vile cabal of people to install the dictatorship of Richard Cheney. Now they want those Appeals Court Judges and decency of citizenship is not going to stop them from trying.

It's all in the hands of a few Citizen-Senators.

To dictate or not.

To be dictated to or not.

To be ruled by theft, lies, and murder or not.

If they want government for a few of them, by a few of them...then it means we are slaves.

to avoid a filibuster of the rules change -- letting Dick Cheney rule from the chair to impose his personal interpretation of the Constitution on the Senate. I tried to explain it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3705274&mesg_id=3705274

It is much, much worse than the MSM is presenting it.

Usually it takes 75% of the votes to change the rules.

However, the repugs are going to assert that the dem tactics are "unconstitutional" and ask for a ruling from the president of the Senate, Dick Cheney.

Golly, I wonder which way Dick is going to rule? That the senate rules as they have stood for a hundred or more years conflicts with the spirit of the constitution, and just coincidentally allows for a huge expansion of presidential power at the expense of the senate? Well, rock beats scissors, fuck yes!

So through the magic of a rule "interpretation" they get around all the requirments to amend rules.

By the way, there is a professional, paid parliamentarian on staff who gives nice, academic and researched opinions on rules. Any money on whether Unky Dick is going to refer this matter to him for an opinion or research? Rock beats scissors.

to the Supreme Court? . . . I mean, it's the judiciary that rules on questions of constitutionality, not the Vice President . . .

The rules of the Senate are not subject to Judaical review.

Art 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.

The Supreme Court isn't going to get involved in a decision on Senate rules. Of course, this is also why it's idiotic to complain that the rules on debate somehow violate the consitution. Each house can make it's own rules by express grant of the Constitution, period.

but will not be able to get it, so it is believed. Then they will appeal to the President of the Senate (Cheney) for a ruling and he will then declare that 60 votes are not needed - only a majority - and they will then vote to confirm Priscilla Owens. That is my understanding of the process.

Their plan is not to shut down the senate- that would be actionable.
However, there are a lot of shortcuts they use that are merely customary. One of those is that the actual reading of a bill is virtually never done, since the member's staffs are expected to read it, understand it, and provide the member with a precis of the contents. This allows an enormous speed up business on the floor (highly essential to those wishing to secure reelection pork) and also produces a much lower public exposure to scrutiny and criticism. The threat is that the dems, while allowing truly crucial legislation to proceed at normal pace, will demand a full reading of all other bills on the floor and also requiring most of the senate to actually spend time on the floor, rather than merely getting face time on cspan.

This would slow down the "bidness" of the senate, plus decrease the time the members could spend with their precious (and choicy, enormously powerful) committee assignments.
The congress critters probably would suffer, although the public and the country probably would not, at least in the near term.

couldn't they just change that little rule too? Couldn't they just declare that the reading of the full bills is "unconstitutional? Who's to stop them from changing every friggin' rule they want to change?

They'll do anything they want until we stop them. If our dems have a backbone they'll show as much spunk as the dems in texas had. They'll shut the thing down.

But in the end I fear too many of our dems are too comfortable with their perks to defend our interests.

They'll weep and wail and beat at their breasts in order to make some good theater...but in the end they'll go along like good little lapdogs.

I'd love to be wrong.

if the nuclear option is used. Frist claims that he is submitting to Cheney only the issue of whether Cheney can change the rule on filibuster solely for judicial nominees. But once the cat is out of the bag, it seems highly unlikely that they won't just use this strategy whenever they want.

They MUST take a stand NOW or never. It's do or die/put up or shut up time.

I like the actual floor readings of all the bills, though. It's a virtual shutdown.

I'm just curious what the theoretical result would be of a total walkout of all Democratic Senators.

Won't King Dick just change the rules to allow business to continue without a quorum?

According to Rule VI of the Senate rules

A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

That means that they never need more than fifty-one senators to constitute a quorum. Since there are presently fifty-five Republican senators "duly chosen and sworn", they can meet a quorum requirement all by themselves. Problem solved.

to read every word of every bill.

99% of the business of the senate is done without anyone being there or paying attention. Making the entire repug caucus attend for every reading, every assignment to committee , every vote, would drive them nuts.

The real fact is that the senate is made so that any single objection to any procedure means a debate and a calling of the roll has to be taken. It's impossible to get anything done, and all the republicans are doing is trying to carve out an exception to something that they would like to shoot through like shit through a goose, not because it is unimportant, but because it is, more important than budgets or declarations of war or anything else. Judicial nominations, which are going to institutionalize and legitimize a right wing coup.

Who is saying they can't. It is a procedural option that can be used when the rethugs try to circumvent the rules.