Filibuster question's

1) When do they officially vote? Is it this week?

2) What will happen with the democrats if they get rid of the filibuster? (I hope they do a walkout)

3) If we do take back the government in 2006 can we reput the filibuster in??

When Frist gets tired of debating Priscilla Owen, he'll call for a cloture vote (to stop debating) and when he doesn't get 60 votes, then they'll wheel in Cheney and change the rules (at least that's what I've heard the scenario will be).

2) I have no idea but I agree with the walkout idea. Hold a press conference on the steps outside Congress!!!

3) I think so -- if the Thug-controlled Senate sets the precedent to change the rules, then we can change them back when we get control (but would we want to?).

I heard that if they use the nuclear option, then the democrats will shut down the senate except for national security, homeland security, and foreign policy. How do you shut down the senate? Just not give them a quarom (sp?).

Brandon

D.H.

saying that it was more important for Senators to be present for the debate. Mitch "Girlie Man" McConnell was pissed ... This may be only one of the ways they slow down legislation.

1) no official vote yet. if Frist thought they had the 50 votes to get it through, he would have done it by now. Maybe next week?

2) They can stall business by many other means. Such as requesting that all pending legislation be read in its entirety. The current rule is that if even one senator requests it, the bill must be read. Imagine the time it would take for a 7,000+ page spending bill. And it would take 66 votes to change the rules against this.

3) Not if the Repubs take it out in the way they propose.
Any rule change must get a 2/3 majority to pass. But the Repubs are proposing the 'consitutional' option, meaning that someone will make a motion that this specific rule is unconstitutional pertaining to approving judges. Then Cheney would make a ruling that it is unconstitutional, Dems would immediatly appeal the ruling, and Repubs would move to table the appeal - which only needs 50 votes.
So if it is removed by being declared unconstitutional, there is no way it would be allowed back.

and avoid the Senate Parliamentarian -- he might not agree about the constitutionality issue.

There was a thread a while back that the Senate parliamentarian is against the nuclear option. I hope that Reid will try to get him to rule on it (such a ruling is non-binding but could embarrass a few members of the GOP).

2) well right after they'll go right to a vote on Owens and of course she'll pass. after that I'm not really sure.

3) of course, if it gets taken out... it's a rules change... granted I don't think we should do it the same way the republicans are getting rid of it right now...

D.H.

1) It's not likely to happen today. I would guess Tuesday, because Cheney is generally at Congress to attend the Repubs weekly caucus luncheon on Tuesdays. But it's just my _guess_ - Frist could let the debate go on longer.


2) Yesterday Senator Schumer held a conference call with some bloggers to talk about the issue. Here's what he said would happen if the n.o. is exercised:
Some Dem bloggers were on a conference call with Senator Schumer a little while ago, this except is from "Seeing the Forest"s account of the call:


"In response to a potential loss on the "nuclear option" Democrats are "not going to slow down the Senate, nor bring it to a grinding halt. They will use every senate rule they can to wrest the agenda from the majority. In the past it is comity that ..." and here he was called to the Senate floor, but he was going to say that as part of the traditional comity of the Senate the Minority party allows the Majority to set the Senate's agenda, and that will cease and the Democrats will start introducing their own agenda items, such as raising the Minimum Wage, and force the Republicans to a public vote on such bills as the Democrats have written them. What this means is that any talk you hear from The Party (my term for the Republican Party and all of its tentacles of propaganda and control: think tanks, Fox News, Limbaugh, etc.) about "obstruction" is just another lie. (Yes, Virginia, they lie.)"


Here's a link to some of the bloggers' links after the call, in case you want to check out what they had to say
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1791727&mesg_id=1791892


3) I don't know. Would the Dem senators put it back in, if they could? I don't know. I read one article yesterday that said that what the Repubs are planning on doing is having the filibuster on judicial nominees declared unconstitutional. If that is what happens, I'm not sure it could be put back in. If the Repubs succeed is getting away with it by just declaring that they are changing a precedent, I don't know how you can re-institute precedent.

Good question. Maybe other folks have an answer.

Can someone explain the abbreviations that are used here, such as n/t? I figured out r/w as right wing and l/w as left wing. What are others? I just need a quick run down if someone doesn't mind.

Brandon

n/t, nt = No text (entire message is in title)
eom = end of message (like above)
em = entire message (like above)
SCOTUS = Sepreme Court Of The United States
POTUS = President Of The United States

These are the one's that come to mind...

D.H.

On number two if they do get rid of the filibuster can we get it to where we can ban voting machine's all over the country too and hold REAL hearings on voting reforms? I hope the democrats do that though. I'd like for the health care issue brought up.