Senator Vitter could bring the diapers.

... it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress."

There's the proof that the liberal-dominated mainstream media does not exist. If it did, that quote would be all over the place.

Senate Republicans are truly obstructionists and they're paying absoultely NO price for it. Because It's Okay If You're A Republican.

So, how many times did the Democrats filibuster GOP legislation during the last six years of GOP control of the Senate?

The upside to a real fillibuster is that it gets media attention and hence brings public attention to what is being fillabustered. In this case this is a good thing for the Democrats.

I think Strom Thurmond left his hamperful in the Senate when he passed on. They'll probably have to be washed, though.

Last week I mentioned that Republicans are basically filibustering everything they can get their hands on but aren't paying a price for it because filibusters are no longer filibusters.

And how is this any different than the Democrats filibustering all the time when they were in the minority? The Democrats filibustered John Bolton, Social Security, and Charles Pickering and used their filibustering to bash Republicans as do-nothing in order to win elections. Republicans are just doing to Democrats what Democrats did to them. It's hypocritical for you to complain about the Republicans when you never complained about the Democrats filibustering.

I have to agree with chickenbert. I'm curious as to if and how Democrats deployed this strategy over the last few years.

You can't have a gentleman's agreement when one side is openly contemptuous of civilized behavior. Fuck 'em - make 'em talk all night.

We have to acknowledge that Republicans are revolutionaries. They are modern day Jacobins . One cannot deal with them in a rational, civilized manner because they take that as a sign of weakness and become even more intransigent.

"The Democrats filibustered John Bolton, Social Security, and Charles Pickering and used their filibustering to bash Republicans as do-nothing in order to win elections. Republicans are just doing to Democrats what Democrats did to them."

Al, respectfully, you're a moron. Or you can't read. You gave three examples over a six year period. If you read the piece you'll see cloture has been invoked 40 times this year.

The problems the Democrats had in maintaining a filibuster was the Republicans had a larger majority. The only had to tempt a few Zell Millers or Liebermans to come across and break the filibuster.

Mike: One cannot deal with them in a rational, civilized manner because they take that as a sign of weakness and become even more intransigent.

Careful.

This is exactly the excuse that the neocons use to justify their policies with respect to the so-called GWOT, the war in Iraq (the same thing in poor Bush's deranged mind), and against their political opposition.

"But if Republicans have decided to abuse this agreement by invoking it as a routine measure, maybe it's time to let the American public know what they're doing."

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. There's no "maybe" about it. It needs to be done NOW.

And sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Fine. The Democrats did it, now the Republicans do it. Was there a "gentleman's agreement" when Democrats filibustered, so that they didn't actually have to yap endlessly, or did they in fact have to yap endlessly? Inquiring minds want to know.

In the meantime, let the Republicans yap. Show it on C-SPAN. It'll make it's way to YouTube.

For the conservatives out there, the difference between Democrats filibustering and Republicans filibustering is that right now, the Democratic leadership is trying to find a way to highlight to the American people what the Republicans are doing; the Republicans on the other hand threatened to change the very laws of The Senate itself in able to strip the minority party of any power. So, Democrats complain and look for ways to work while complying with the law, - Republicans complained and look for ways to change the law.

As we all know, Republicans consider the law to be a great inconvenience in their efforts to maintain our artificial nirvana for the obsolete rich, white, christian male.

And what happened to the 'nuclear' option?

Is it down the memory hole?

That Democrats are just now considering doing this is even more proof - should it be needed - that they are limp. Why on earth are they being so passive and shy?

The only reason I can think of is that they are afraid of the media which will spin anything as dangerous for the Democrats. (Saw another article just last week on the "if Dems point out how unpopular the Rep position is it could backfire!" theme.

Senators in diapers? What's not amusing about that?

Shorter Anonymous American Patriot:

"For the conservatives out there, the difference between Democrats filibustering and Republicans filibustering, is that when Democrats do it it's a good thing, and when Republicans do it it's a bad thing.

Kind of like the electoral college: Evil incarnate in Florida in 2000, potential savior of our nation in Ohio in 2004."

Why permit filibusters? In a democracy the majority gets to make laws, wise or not. Abolish the foolish filibuster rules which permit the gerrymanded Senate to be ruled by a tiny fraction of the population.

What the filibuster advocates are missing is that the Democrats want to make sure the defense contractors are paid, and this strategy would interfere with appropriations for armaments we do not need.

I really don't mind the filibuster, seems to me to be an imperfect but effective way to sort of, you know, protect the minority rights in Congress.

The problem is that Republicans are abusing it, as they have abused every sliver of power they have had since Newt and his gang of thugs took over Congress. The Democrats need to start to learn to fight like they fight or the Republicans will shit all over them until the end of time.

Al's an idiot, as usual, unless he can come up with about 350 Democratic filibusters during the first five years of Bush's term. Could you imagine what the press and the GOP would have been saying if they tried it? The wailing would be deafening.

In a democracy the majority gets to make laws, wise or not.

This isn't a pure democracy, thank God. In my opinion, the harder it is to pass laws, the better off we probably are.

aarp:

perfect point. the Republicans want to both filibuster and govern in darkness. All the Dems are saying here is "hey, if this is that important to you, filibustering this bill, then get up there on stage and tell the American People. At least Ol' Strom had the balls to make a fool out of himself for something he believed in, why don't you?"

A Senate filibuster was traditionally the means by which one could measure both the perserverance and commitment of a particular senator or bloc of senators to a particular position or idea, and was always meant to exact a physical toll upon those that would invoke the procedure.

At the end of the process, either the senator(s)'s colleagues would be convinced of an argument's validity and thus moved to act accordingly, or that argument itself would literally be exhausted without consequence, and the legislation in question could henceforth advance to some sense of resolution.

This particular "gentlemen's agreement" in the Senate is a much-abused bastardization of that enobling process, and has clearly become a preferred means by which most Senators can avoid any heavy lifting.

The most onerous feature of this "agreement" is the provision that allows a single senator to place an anonymous hold on a particular piece of pending business, which frequently requires proponents to seek the 60 votes needed to provide cloture, or "the end of debate".

All they presently have to do is meekly claim that they lack the requisite supermajority needed to either end cloture and thus move the legislation or nomination in question to the Senate floor (60 votes) or override a presidential veto (67 votes).

They can then wring their hands in faux frustration, politely lament their colleagues' opposition and further pontificate for the cameras, and then they're free to come and go as they damn well please without so much as breaking a sweat.

Good God! This has been going on all year and only now "there's a growing consensus that we ought to do that". Feckless Dems.

Current Senate Republicans in the Gang of 14:

John McCain, Arizona
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
John Warner, Virginia
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Susan Collins, Maine

So, why isn't the press, especially with respect to McCain, asking these Republican senators why they are allowing their party to filibuster after demanding that the Democrats stop filibustering?

What are they, the Gang of 5 Liars?

The reason why they don't force the actual filibuster is because it puts a crimp in the re-election plans of every senator running in 2008, not to mention that several of the Democratic nominees for president are members of the Senate as well.

The Democratic majority is fairly thin, so an actual effort to break a filibuster would keep almost all of them penned up in Washington; that means no campaigning for Hilary OR Obama.

If any of you Ladies in the house want to feel-a-buster,
I got this six-pack and these here two guns...

Ka PowW

"For the conservatives out there, the difference between Democrats filibustering and Republicans filibustering, is that when Democrats do it it's a good thing, and when Republicans do it it's a bad thing"

Well, if it really is such a *good* thing when Republicans filibuster, then I'm sure you'll have no quarrel with actually getting up on the podium and doing it for days on end.

That *was* in fact what this thread is all about. You did grasp that obvious point, didn't you?

Kevin wrote: "The downside to this, of course, is that a genuine filibuster shuts down the Senate and prevents it from considering other business." Uh, why is that a downside? The Democrats desparately do not want to bring legislation to the floor because they have too many internal disagreements to pass anything. It's much better politically to devote all Congressional energies to "investigating" the Administration. This has no downside for the Democrats and even ridiculous investigations into ridiculous subjects (e.g., into the use of political criteria in hiring and firing political appointees) can be spun in the press as positive accomplishments.

So tell me again why should the Democrats fear a filibuster? They should be clamoring for one as that will give them cover for getting nothing of substance accomplished with their new majorities.

Let the GOP vermin function in the harsh sunlight of public scrutiny and restore the physical filibuster requirements. These pond scum do best when they function in dark corners.

Drag them kicking and screaming into the bright light of day and watch them shrivel and die...

The whole enterprise needs a website and a name:

Republican Obstruction WebTV.

Play it streaming live and loop it endlessly 24/7. Cult TV for Wingnuts. For the rest of us: Democracy Deathwatch.

Says Conrad: "I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don't intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster."

I generally think the Democratic leaders are capable folks, but this drives me nuts, and I may change my opinion. It's obvious that this is what the Republicans have been doing for months, and the only way to make them stop is to make it cost, as it did in 1994(?) when they tried to shut down the government. So the Democrats need to make it clear that it is the Republicans (basically alone) blocking all legislative efforts. But I've barely heard one peep about it, and they're getting away with murder. If the Democrats don't point out that a minority is stifling all progress favored by the majority, they're dead in the water.

I guess the Democrats just do nothing out of fear of the disapproval of the great Broder.

The reason why they don't force the actual filibuster is because it puts a crimp in the re-election plans of every senator running in 2008, not to mention that several of the Democratic nominees for president are members of the Senate as well.

The Democratic majority is fairly thin, so an actual effort to break a filibuster would keep almost all of them penned up in Washington; that means no campaigning for Hilary OR Obama.

I disagree with Avatar.

Of 33 senators running this year, 22 are GOP. If Dems force a filibuster it won't hurt them as much as it will the GOP. And Clinton, Biden, Obama, and Dodd don't have to talk. Only the ones who want to block legislation will have to talk.

Of course, if the media starts reporting on it, then it might be more beneficial for candidates to be in the Senate than in Iowa, NH, SC, or NV.

The Senate has the power,with a majority, to agree to a variety of fillibuster rules.

How about this: The fillibstering senator has to drop his drawers with the sign painted on his butt reading, "I am an ass"

Forcing Republicuns to filibuster would be excellent political theater. CSPAN would finally be worth watching, and the cable networks would be all over it. Man, this would be fun! Do it! Do it NOW!

The Dems definitely should filibuster, and do it on onw of the war amendments. Make the GOPers defend the indefensible. Let them talk on and on, like Lindsay Graham on Meet the Press, not listening, clearly demented and out of touch with reality, just spouting talking points without caring if they make any sense or even if anyone is listening.

And no recess until the GOPers let them passm something. Better yet, since September and Petraeus are so bloomin' important, why pass the Defense Bill at all until we have heard from Petraeus? After all, why base funding on a strategy that may be changed?

northzax: "At least Ol' Strom had the balls to make a fool out of himself for something he believed in ..."

And he wore proudly the public's multiple treadmarks laid on his backside during his failed campaigns to derail the American civil rights movement.

One could admire both Sen. Thurmond's political audacity and commitment to perpetuating his own dubious brand of Southern Crackerdom, even as one was disgusted by his cynical and opportunistic shilling on behalf of the most rancid social anachronisms of his day.

Not only do I think that the Senate should not allow itself to take any action during a filibuster, I also think that the Senate must read every bill after final amendments without ever waiving the reading. We don't need any more USA PATRIOT acts trampling on the Bill of Rights or bridges for Senator Steven's corrupt constituents.

So how about someone dig up the filibuster counts for the last several senate sessions so we can see for ourselves if this is business as usual or not.

So far there's been no actual 'evidence' offered that anything unusual is happening.

Harry Reid is doing an outstanding job. He has my full support.

DBL: They should be clamoring for one as that will give them cover for getting nothing of substance accomplished with their new majorities.

Why would they clamor for one when they already have 40 to date and can expect more?

They already have cover, but the conservative-biased MSM refuses to report the obstructionism as a filibuster, though it be identical to what the press reported as a filibuster when the Democrats used it [apparently] far less frequently.

And since the GOP was able to squash the filibusters by the Democrats with their intellectually dishonest and unethical threat of a "nuclear option," what is the GOP's excuse for being a do-nothing, see-nothing, hear-nothing Congress?

I'm guessing that proposals filibustered by the Republicans were far more popular with the public than proposals filibustered by Democrats.

If a bill or appointee has broad public support, either party should pay a price for a filibuster.

Mimikatz: The Dems definitely should filibuster, and do it on onw of the war amendments

You want the Dems to filibuster on a war amendment rather than making the GOP filibuster on the meat and potatoes of every other bill?

Bad move, unless you're looking to hand the media a "Look how reckless the majority party is where our troops are concerned!" storyline while it continues to ignore Republican obstructionism.

From Kevin's lips to Reid's ears. Apparently Harry is going to insist upon an up-or-down vote on the Reid-Levin amendment, and if the Republicans want to filibuster, they're actually going to have to keep debate open. Reid may be envisioning only a couple of days of debate, however. From Americablog.

mimikatz & dawn: somebody does not know what filibuster means, I think.

I do apologize for going off topic (and I agree that forcing a GOP filibuster is long, long overdue), but those of you who enjoy the incomparable insights of Norman Rogers may find this amusing. I found this Yosemite tent village review on TripAdvisor over the weekend and almost fell out of my chair at its Normlike qualities (including his casual reference to his own time in San Quentin as he bemoans the criminality of others):

Stayed in an unheated canvas tent in Curry Village over the 4th of July 2007 week. I have NEVER been subjected to such a TOTAL lack of privacy, any RUDER and obnoxious neighbors (who were obviously low-rent, poorly bred and void of any decorum). The tent my wife and two kids (boy 6 & girl 5) were relegated to had rotted-out holes and weak spots in the wooden deck and many ill-repaired holes all over the clearly worn out, moldy stinking canvas roof and walls. I've had better creature comforts during my stint in general population at San Quentin and the LA County jail Twin Towers - at least I had my own commode, shower and sink in my solitary cell.

The surrounding tents (totally surrounded on all four sides by six tents) not 2-4 feet away were filled with members of the juvenile delinquency crowd of varied ethnicities and socioeconomic strata - all smoking drugs, screaming, cursing absurdly profane language at the top of their lungs and obviously participating in open sexual acts to the wee hours of the morning. I felt as if I were trapped in a middle eastern refugee concentration camp with convicted felons all around.
My wife and children just cowered in fear and openly cried all night, every night.

Additionally, gay men were having open sexual intercourse in the communal public showers every time I attempted to bathe...finally I just gave up on any hope of personal hygiene and resorted to Purell antibacterial gel baths in the parking lot.

The young and unskilled staff was rude, uninformed, apathetic and covered with inappropriate body piercings, tattoos and stank of extreme body odor. I suspect they were high on drugs the majority of the time they were on duty. Their attitude toward the paying customer can be compared to the typical young Los Angeles area restaurant wait staff ... they were just doing this "gig" until something better came along or until they were starring in a major motion picture - right - dream on - not on my dime pal!

David in NY: mimikatz & dawn: somebody does not know what filibuster means, I think.

Well, but that was my point in answering Mimikatz's suggestion that the Dems filibuster. If a majority party could filibuster a minority-written amendment to a bill, why the hell would it?

The threat to force senators to actually filibuster is an empty one unless the filibustering senator has very limited support to continue debate. If he has, let us say, 10 colleagues willing to help, then it is not much of a task to divide the work load of talking. If he can't get that number, then cloture is likely a foregone conclusion anyway. And you can't make the minority party carry on a filibuster without keeping a majority of the senators present anyway, so the Democrats would actually have to keep most/all of their members present to keep a quorum, or the senate couldn't actually consider passing or debating anything.

Filibusterers have a natural advantage over those wishing to close debate. To keep filibusters from happening will require elimination of the procedure altogether, and Reid himself threatened to close the Senate when Republicans threatened to do just that on the judicial nominees filibustered during the period of 2001-2006.

Even though I think the filibuster should be eliminated, it is hard to take Kevin Drum and other Democrats seriously since they supported the Democratic filibusters of the appeals court nominees and other legislation not covered by the appropriations process.

I wish they really would have one. Not a shadowy, virtual filibuster but a 5-day smackdown where the so-called "world's greatest deliberative body" actually debates an actual issue.

Democrats are on the right side of every issue. They should't be afraid of such things.

Reid should declare the "gentlemens' agreemant" null and void until Republicans start acting like gentlemen.

I tried a Google search on Democratic filibusters during Bush's first six years, and nothing helpful turned up. Does anyone know another source for such information? It would certainly aid in framing the discussion.

My general impulse is to suspect the GOP is using it with far more frequency than the Dems did, because since the ascension of Gingrich they have repeatedly pushed the envelope first (I seem to recall hearing they filibustered more often during Clinton's first two years than all other Congresses of that century put together). But it'd be better to see the numbers in black and white.

Of course the Democrats filibustered, but Repukeliscum, being Repukeliscum, were too stupid to make them actually filibuster.

That's the mark of today's Repukeliscum. They are just as stupid as the day is long.

It takes a smart, clever Democrat to discover that, if the fucking asshole Repukeliscum are gonna abuse the system, make 'em talk all night. Maybe, as a bonus, Orrin Hatch will have a negative reaction to all those fake drugs which are not tested and which are promoted by his son, and go into convulsions. That would be fun.

Stupid liberals!

You'll never win. You think you will win, and you try and try and you get just enough pity votes and just enough power and then you screw it all up, repeating your same mistakes over and over again. Witness one Representative David Obey, earmarking millions for an airport extension in Wisconsin so he can land his plane there and charge it to the taxpayer--when confronted, Obey says "I just wish there was more that I could do for the State of Wisconsin."

Meanwhile, Republicans like Mike Pence and Mitch McConnel move with catlike efficiency and carve up your little agenda.

Frauds! Charlatans! Your time is nearly up.

Donald from Hawaii - good summary! Thank you for taking the time.

Well, good for the Democrats. Of course, it still boggles the mind this wasn't happening in the first week after the election. The Republicans have been defeating bill after bill with this tactic (including bills the Republicans would normally support) just to humiliate the Democrats. And they're only now fighting back?

So kudos for finally fighting back. So why am I so pessimistic in thinking this won't end up making any difference? Just once I'd like to be wrong and actually see this administration NOT get away with something, or the Democrats actually succeed in something that really matter (re: the war, holding the administration accountable, etc.).

Here's hoping Charlie Brown finally gets to kick the football. But I'm not holding my breath.

What Reid should do in indicate that all bills will from now on be subject to direct filibuster. This will ensure that they go through the August recess.

If the Repukeliscum continue to filibuster, no August recess. This would have two benefits: 1) No recess appointments. 2) Make the Repukeliscum really mad.

"Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks"

Isn't that an Armenian Genocide-insensitive name for a political radio show?

Isn't "Steve Sailer" another name for "delusional racist?"

Sir, you are merely a fraud of another stripe and seeing your name around here reminds me of the time I had to put down a broken legged racehorse we owned in New York State. No one had the temerity to do the deed, so I went into the stall and put the animal down with a single shot to the head. I have always had the ability to do the difficult things in life and to do what no one else had the courage to do.

You're a little man, Mr. Sailer, and you relentlessly post accusations and charges you are not man enough to back up.

>>"And how is this any different than the Democrats filibustering all the time when they were in the minority?"

Because the Democrats didn't threaten to change senate rules to ban filibustering and jump up and down screaming "Up or down vote!! Up or down vote!!" on every single issue???

Maybe that is the difference.

It's nice to see the GOP get shot in the foot by their lapdog press, aiming at liberals.

The press does the Republicans' dirty work by painting every instance of GOP obstruction as an incompetent Democratic Congress unable to round up the votes. We have the votes, we just can't get GOP cultists to disobey dear leader, even if it means drinking the Kool-Aid. So if the press won't call it, call their bluff.

It's nice to see the GOP get shot in the foot by their lapdog press, aiming at liberals.

The press does the Republicans' dirty work by painting every instance of GOP obstruction as an incompetent Democratic Congress unable to round up the votes. We have the votes, we just can't get GOP cultists to disobey dear leader, even if it means drinking the Kool-Aid. So if the press won't call it, call their bluff.

We don't owe these guys any favors.

Wow,
After shortstop's little excerpt up there (and yes, that sounds EXACTLY like unka normie!) I was beginning to feel like I was actually missing reading one of norman's posts, you know, as a mid-morning pickup. Then he posts this crap:

...You'll never win. You think you will win, and you try and try and you get just enough pity votes and just enough power and then you screw it all up, repeating your same mistakes over and over again. Witness one Representative David Obey, earmarking millions for an airport extension in Wisconsin so he can land his plane there and charge it to the taxpayer--when confronted, Obey says "I just wish there was more that I could do for the State of Wisconsin."
Meanwhile, Republicans like Mike Pence and Mitch McConnel move with catlike efficiency and carve up your little agenda.
Frauds! Charlatans! Your time is nearly up...

Kind of a letdown, really. Maybe Unka Normie is past his prime. . .

People like Yancey like to pretend that the situations are exactly the same, but anyone who is not a dishonest shill for the RNC knows that the Republicans have been gaming the system for more than a decade. Did the Democrats filibuster egregiously unqualified hacks? Sure. On the other hand, anonymous holds were placed on Clinton appointees and then suddenly, the rules changed and these same tricks weren't available to the Democrats.

In other words, whine away boy. The facts aren't on your side and the American people aren't on your side. Why do you think the Republicans are trying to block legislation? So they can claim the Democrats can't legislate. If they are forced to explicitly filibuster the American people will no longer buy the bullshit from the corporate press that it is "Congress" that isn't working, they will be forced to see that it is entirely the Republicans who refuse to govern and will, once again, give them a well deserved boot.

Reid just told Senate that if Rethugs don't want to vote for cloture they can stay up all night debating.

Should be some interesting comments on how the republicants "support the troops" but can't support this support the troops legislation.

Here are the cloture votes for the 104th - 110th Congress
The 110th is proceeding at a record pace. Trent Lott remarked that the Republicans are not paying a penalty with the voters, so all is to their benefit. Where's the Fourth Estate? It's the new silent majority.

According to Trent Lott "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's working for us." According to Donny Shaw of Congress Gossip Blog the Republicans are on pace to shatter the old filibuster record of 82 set by the 104 Congress. If the current pace continues they will have forced cloture votes on about 144 bills.

Up or Down Vote, Up or Down Vote

Kind of a letdown, really. Maybe Unka Normie is past his prime. . .

At least I had a prime. You seem to still think vomiting in public is a way to express yourself. Good luck with that, bub.

When I vacation, I go for the gusto. If people get in my way, I go over, through them, under them, around them or merely wait for them to dissipate. I was into parasailing before anyone knew what it was--I rigged a stolen parachute to the back of a speedboat once and demanded the hired help drive the boat properly so that I could be held aloft and enjoy myself. At one point, I believe I invented the snowboard by using a single water ski to go down Bretton Woods on a dare in 1974.

You name it, I have probably done it. And get your filthy minds out of the gutter--my patience is at an end with you liberals.

Why permit filibusters? In a democracy the majority gets to make laws, wise or not. Abolish the foolish filibuster rules which permit the gerrymanded Senate to be ruled by a tiny fraction of the population.
Posted by: udthum

Gerrymandered Senate? Has someone been altering state borders without telling me?

Why is it even debatable whether to hold them to their filibuster?

The Ds and Rs are living in two different worlds.

Abolish the foolish filibuster rules which permit the gerrymanded Senate to be ruled by a tiny fraction of the population.

Another ignorant liberal steps in it, and you wonder why you can't win. You wonder why you can't get traction and survive. You wonder why the American people point at you and laugh.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Get used to being humiliated. It looks like the summer of Democrats is going to resemble Simon Cowell making fun of tone-deaf freaks.

wow. I never had Unka Normie pegged as an eXtreme Sportsman. Too bad he didn't invent eXtreme Russian Roulette.

Oh, yes; he's an intrepid outdoorsman, as much at home on the slopes and in the boat lanes as in the boardroom and white-collar prisons. But I've always wanted to hear about his hunting experiences. Tell us, Normie; have you ever gone shooting with VP Cheney?

Has someone been altering state borders without telling me?

Never been to the UP, have you?

Since us Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, are intellectually honest, I’d like to point out that many here (and on other sites) are mischaracterizing the nuclear option and resulting Gang of 14. The nuclear option was not aimed at filibusters in general but only at filibusters of judicial nominations (well, since we are familiar with the species Homo Republicanus, really only Democratic filibusters of judicial appointments by Republican presidents, but we’ll leave that aside for now). Essentially (surprise, surprise) the nuclear option was a cheat. Although the Senate rules clearly do not preclude judicial filibusters, and the rules require a two-thirds majority to amend, the Rethugs planned to have Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule that up is down….err, that the rules did not include such filibusters and be backed up by the (Republican appointed) parliamentarian. The Senate would then adopt that ruling by a mere majority vote. Your Republican Party. As always, the champions of the rule of law.

Where's the Fourth Estate? It's the new silent majority.

Posted by: Mike

Maybe the Fourth Estate is related to the Fourth Branch of Government.

When the party boy put away his fifth, he was left with Fourths. What a lucky guy!

I agree with many of the above. There's no "maybe" about this one.

I'm torn between forcing real filibusters (thereby making politicians torture themselves) and making it tougher for a minority to gum up the legislative works (thereby empowering congressional activity). The former is more fun, but the latter is better for the country, so I have to favor it.

"The downside to this, of course, is that a genuine filibuster shuts down the Senate and prevents it from considering other business..."

I'm sorry, this is a downside?!!

I have always had the ability to do the difficult things in life and to do what no one else had the courage to do.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

So why haven't you acknowledged your obvious mental health issues and gotten some substantial psychiatric medication?

Dayum, I leave you guys alone and...

1) No, a genuine filibuster does not prevent the Senate from considering other business. Kevin is wrong -- from pillar to post, on this one. (Judicial nominations are different, and he'd have done better to focus on them.)

A filibuster is simply a tool of a minority, of even a single Senator, to prevent the majority from passing a particular piece of legislation by refusing unanimous consent to vote on final passage. If a Senator (like LaFollette, for whom the original Rule XXII was written) refuses to allow a bill (like arming civilian ships) to get to a vote, that doesn't mean OTHER bills without such a provision can't move, with that Senator's hearty approval.

The Senate has NEVER shut down other business when a particular bill is being filibustered: who gave you that idea, Kevin? It's simply false.

2) As a tool of the minority, filibusters were used routinely in BOTH the House and the Senate throughout the 19th century. The House did away with 'em, along with other dilatory tactics like the vanishing quorum, when the Speaker asserted total control over the House agenda in the 1880s under Reed and later, Cannon (who was finally cut down when they took the Rules committee away).

3) The Senate tradition of the filibuster lasted much longer because it was reserved for the most part only for matters of great significance: LaFollette was trying to prevent America being drawn into the World War, after all. (They changed the rules to beat him: he was right, they were wrong.) Huey Long was famous for his filibusters, and while they were sometimes silly, they were all genuinely focused on massive expansions of Federal power (the New Deal) even if they weren't matters of principle, exactly: Huey followed the Senator Kerr Rule of being opposed to any deal he wasn't in on.

And for all of the inherent evil of Thurmond's record filibuster in 1957, he WAS trying to preserve white supremacy, not exactly a small issue in American history.

4) By the 70s, when the Senate had weakened its rules as part of ill-conceived reforms in the Congress, the filibuster had become a tool rarely invoked, and when it was (as over natural gas deregulation) it was not for matters of genuine significance or historic principle.

So,

5) As happened with the immigration bill, it isn't simply a matter of making Republicans (or any minority of Senators) talk a bill to death. (For one thing, changing 'present and voting' to 'duly sworn' was the death of the old-fashioned talking filibuster.) Because the Senate can proceed to other business by unanimous consent at any time, a filibuster doesn't stop the Senate while a (presumably unpopular) minority gets exposed as obstructionist.

As we saw with the immigration bill, if a majority wants to pass a particular piece of legislation DESPITE a minority's filibuster, THEY HAVE TO KEEP THAT BILL ON THE FLOOR.

They have to vote on amendments. (This can itself become a filibuster, as happened with the post-cloture amendment process over natural gas deregulation.) Each amendment may make the bill LESS popular -- as happened with the immigration bill which lost support every day it was debated, or else the Senate leadership can derail Senate tradition by restricting amendments (as Byrd did with natural gas).

But none of that serves the shallow ideological posing that passes for discussion 'round here. So, geeze, folks: LEARN something about a subject before you form an opinion, willya?

Diapers? They don't even get bathroom breaks!? Haha. Awesome.

Another ignorant liberal steps in it....Posted by: Norman Rogers on July 16, 2007 at 4:04 PM

....Maybe the Fourth Estate is related to the Fourth Branch of Government. ....slanted tom at 4:27 PM

What happened today Normie didn't you get your Zoloft. You come off like a comic book villain of the old Batman type i.e. the joker, etc.

So, geeze, folks: LEARN something about a subject before you form an opinion, willya?

Good. Then Rogers, Al, egbert, and mhr wouldn't pollute the board with their idiocy.

Yawn. The Republicans did this exact thing when they were in the majority. Brought in cots and so on, the whole thing, to show they were going to let the Democrats "really pay" for their filibustering tactics. It failed and they just looked stupid. Next.

Sorry, Americanist. Didn't read your comment before. That sums it up. Only thing to add is that it's the people who want to BREAK the filibuster who have to stay up all night (because they need 60 affirmative votes to break it - not voting or not being there is the same as supporting the filibuster in this case). The filibustering party only has to have one single senator on the floor at a time, until the others "get to 60" (which they never will). So basically the filibustering party will get to sleep all night, talking in shifts.

"my patience is at an end with you liberals." Put it to music, Fifth Beatle.

I agree that the Rebublicans (I like that typo) would go down in the public's estimation. Don't forget the wider world, where filibusters are unknown. I think all of a sudden people's eyes would be opened.

You name it, I have probably done it. NR

You have not gone to war...chickenhawk. Oh, I dare you to go to war.

Someone wrote:

"Al, respectfully, you're a moron. Or you can't read. You gave three examples over a six year period. If you read the piece you'll see cloture has been invoked 40 times this year."
______________________

So, okay, how many times a year was cloture invoked while Senator Daschle was running Congressional strategy for the Democratic Party? Or is this another case of cherrypicking the convenient facts? As someone said, "Inquiring minds want to know."

This has been an amazinlgy fact-free discussion. Go to the Senate web site and look at numbers

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

Looks to me that the numbers even out

cloture motions/failed motions (filibuster)

110 th Congress (07) Dem majority
47/19 40%
109th Congress (05-06) Rep majority
68/20 29%
108th Congress (03-04) Rep majority
62/37 59%
107th Congress (01-02) Dem majority
72/26 36%

Add them up:
Successful filibusters when Dems control:
119/45 37%
Successful filibusters when Reps control:
130/57 43%

Not a huge difference

Um, Campesino, just how far into the 110th Congress are we? Extrapolate that "47/19" to the full two-year period, please, and then tell me that there is not a significant difference.

"It failed and they just looked stupid."

Probably because a) what they did that for was not widely seen as a priority by the majority of the country, and b) it was a stunt to prop up their base and everyone knew it, even their base. The tactic itself was not stupid; what they used that tactic for was stupid.

Um, Campesino, just how far into the 110th Congress are we? Extrapolate that "47/19" to the full two-year period, please, and then tell me that there is not a significant difference.

************************************************

Could be if there's a linear progression

You write that "maybe it's time to let the American public know what they're doing." You think? Maybe? Oh, gosh, I don't know. We might be accused of being uppity, of having bad manners.

Um, Campesino, just how far into the 110th Congress are we? Extrapolate that "47/19" to the full two-year period, please, and then tell me that there is not a significant difference.

************************************************

Could be if there's a linear progression

You write that "maybe it's time to let the American public know what they're doing." You think? Maybe? Oh, gosh, I don't know. We might be accused of being uppity, of having bad manners.

"Could be if there's a linear progression"

It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that for the past six months, the Republicans in the Senate have been filibustering at a significantly higher rate than any of their counterparts did at any time in recent memory, which kind of blows your point out of the water.