So what is up with the Senate attempting to make a filibuster illegal?

This is in regards to the upcoming Supreme Court Nominations.
It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.


SEE FOX NEWS BS STARTING THE SPIN BELOW: F@ckers!!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@2
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102847,00.html

The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters
Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Filibusters (search) have a long and illustrious history.

The term, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," became popular in the 1850s to describe efforts to control the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

The first recorded filibuster came in 1841, just after the Whigs won the White House and the Senate and wanted to give patronage jobs to their supporters, Senate historian Richard A. Baker said.

"Democrats decided they would talk it to death," said Baker, who said the filibuster lasted two weeks before agreement was reached.

In Congress' early years, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it became necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, which has only two members for each state, senators believed any member should have an unlimited right to speak.

Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917, when President Wilson (search) suggested, and the Senate adopted, "Rule 22." The rule allowed the Senate to end debate with two-thirds of the Senate, a procedure known as "cloture."


Wilson wanted to get around senators who were filibustering his efforts to bring America into World War I (search), Baker said.

Lawmakers had used a 23-day, end-of-session filibuster to defeat his proposal to arm merchant ships, which led Wilson to say the "Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible."

The Senate adopted Rule 22, and the United States entered World War I.

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths. Since the Senate already was at 100 members by then, the number dropped from 67 to 60. Today, filibusters continue as an effective tool to block legislation and nominations, partly because it still is difficult to get 60 votes in the Senate.

The record for the longest individual speech belongs to South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, who unsuccessfully filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., angered by the Democrats' filibusters of several of President Bush's nominations of federal judges, has proposed reducing the number of senators needed to force a vote on a judicial nominee on a sliding scale. The number needed would drop by three votes after each successive cloture roll call until only 51 votes, or a simple majority, would be needed.

It was voted out of the Senate Rules Committee in June but has yet to be considered by the full Senate.

Republicans also have threatened to request a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that Senate rules make filibusters on judicial nominations illegal . A parliamentarian's ruling can be upheld by a simple majority of senators.

That plan is referred to by both parties as the "nuclear option." Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt.




@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Filibuster and Cloture

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

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.

Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957

They can't accept any resistance. Complete Control.

The repukes want total submission as well.
This is just the begining of a long road to hell for the United States of Amerika.
God Help America

I live in a Single Party state. We just cheerfully added a constitutional ban on gay marriage to our statute against unlawful cohabitation (yes, unmarried hetero's are illegal, too in North Dakota).

Wages are low and profits are high.

Welcome to the future

Let's go to the constitution and the Senate rules, shall we?

First the constitutionality of the Senate 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.

Now the Senate rules in question:

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE XXII

PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS

Section 2.

2. 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.

<snip>

The constitution grants the power to the rules of the proceedings for the Senate to the Senate. The Senate has determined that altering the rules requires a vote of two-thirds of the voting members. The Senate has also determined that moving to close a debate in order to vote requires a three-fifths vote of the members of the Senate.

It would be unconstitutional for the Senate to ignore their rules in the matter of filibusters.

Trent Lott suggests ignoring the rules of the Senate AND THE CONSTITUTION with a dictatorship of the chair of the Senate.

Pretty scary stuff here. The rule of the constitution goes right out the window if they are allowed to proceed with their "nuclear option".

the senate can always change its own rules first of all, and second of all, the argument is fairly strong that you cant have a preceding senate impose its rules on a future sentate.

The nuclear option is not illegal, but it is pretty stupid to do, the Reps wont always be in charge, and they risk reaping what they sow the day we come into charge.

Then again, they may figure they will have at least 4-6 years in charge, and they are right, and that they can do a lot of damage in that time.

The bottom line is, we are in as weak of a position as we have been, well just about ever!

The rules can be changed, but only under the rules. It requires 67 Senators voting in the affirmative in order to change the rules.

Thems the rules. If they attempt to change the rules in any other fashion, they violate their own rules which is unconstitutional.

Shut up. Just SHUT UP!
Do what you're told.
They know best, we lost so we should just shut up or move out.


Kill me now...

the beauty of the filibuster is to prevent extremism if one party has a simple majority. The most dangerous aspect of the senate right now is unequal representation, as these unpopulated red states are getting two senators just like states with 20 or more times the population.

I will be surprised if it is done, it means the end of the
cozy duopoly that now runs things for its own benefit. It
means a real war between the parties.

but none has been so singularly hateful as to want to do this.

If you want to pinpoint the time and place - and source - of what we now face today, just look to newt's revolution.