Here is an idea for the Dems: when the repubs abuse their power do the same thing to them. I would put a hold on every single bit of legislation sponsored by Sen. Shelby until he releases every one of his holds. Likewise for all the other senators who are abusing their power. Let them scream to the media that they are being mistreated. This will not end as long as the dems allow themselves to be bullied.

The United States is about one election cycle from being as ungovernable as California.

Maybe Haiti will consider sending us foreign aid someday.

"I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" - Lt. Ripley.

The filibuster does not need to go away. What needs to change is the rules of how the filibuster works.

It was a rules change in the early 70s that created this whole 'cloture vote' nonsense and eliminated the need for the minorty party to actually filibuster (ie read the phonebook for hours on end). Thus the burden went from the minority party keeping somebody on stage for hours talking to the majority party having to maintain its own quorum and holding votes while the minority party just sits there and smiles.

Change the rules back to what they were. Make the minority party actually filibuster. No more of this 'threatening to filibuster' or 'cloture vote' crap. If Republicans want to stop a piece of legislation then they have to have to actually filibuster.

Well, heck, its not a beauty contest, its a class struggle, plain and simple. As Roger Waters (that famous British Poet.) wrote, "With, without, that's what the fightings all about."

Remember friends, it is in the Re pubs interest to bum out liberals, progressives and Democrats so we don't vote. Don't let this happen or we definitely lose.

As I said in a prior thread, "GOP will use any procedural tool available to them, no matter how bad it may look (holds, reconciliation, etc.) to accomplish their goals, while the Dems will not. But the public interprets GOP action as 'fighting for what they stand for, even if wrong" versus Dem action as "pussies won't fight for their basic principles, so I know they won't fight for me."" And the public rewards those whom exude confidence, even if wrong. But the Dems refuse to learn this lesson.

Not a winning formula, as we are seeing.

Dems need to be taking cues from Franken, Holt, Weiner, Grayson, not Obama, Reid, etc.

Steve, the way around "they'd use every parliamentary procedure imaginable to bring the Senate to a complete halt" is to rewrite those rules at the same time. i.e. Make the Senate more like the House.

Objective Dem wrote I would put a hold on every single bit of legislation sponsored by Sen. Shelby until he releases every one of his holds... . This will not end as long as the dems allow themselves to be bullied.

I agree with you that Democrats are allowing this to happen and that they need to do something.

However, as a member of the minority party, Shelby's legislation isn't going to go anywhere anyway. The hold is only valuable to someone who wishes to stop some imminent action. To the party with the agenda, a legislative hold has no appeal.

Okay, so a cloture motion is very close to a privileged motion, but it's not actually on the list of privileged motions that leads off Rule 22.

Hence: Does the chair, on the advice of the parliamentarian, have the authority to rule a cloture motion out of order if it's clearly dilatory?

I ask this because the purpose of parliamentary procedure is to get the majority's business done while respecting the rights of minorities in the body.

Until very recently, Senate minorities respected that overarching purpose. So no ruling was necessary on whether cloture motions were out of order. The current minority does not respect the purpose of parliamentary law.

So I'm raising as a possibility, at least, that the Senate parliamentarian should prepare a justification for ruling dilatory cloture motions out of order, and that the chair should make a ruling based on that.

The Senate can agree with the chair's ruling on a majority vote, I believe.

Just like real nuclear weapons, their value lies not in their use but in the threat of their use. Now the threat has to be credible, but you have to hold that threat over the heads of the minority or they will literally filibuster everything.

Recall, the mere threat of the nuclear option and therefore losing the cherished filibuster prevented the Democrats from using the filibuster for anything! Even wacko Supreme Court nominees like Strip Search Sammy Alito!

One would assume that a credible threat of losing the filibuster would cause the White People's Party to think twice about filibustering every fucking thing.

Yeah, second no-name above. As long as you're disavowing the previous rules of the senate to rewrite rule 22 you might as well scrap all the unanimous consent bits, and allow for a majority to cut off debate without delay when they choose. If you could (ha ha) find 51 dems with enough balls to do the former, it's a pretty short hop to the latter. The problem is somehow finding 50 dems to make any bold move at all, but who knows, maybe the republicans will manage to be so outrageous as to give spines to the spineless.

noname said:
Steve, the way around "they'd use every parliamentary procedure imaginable to bring the Senate to a complete halt" is to rewrite those rules at the same time. i.e. Make the Senate more like the House.

Or Democrats can simply forget about "comity" and realize that Republicans aren't going to be happy until they're running things again.

For example, if a Republican objects to a "unanimous consent" to waive the reading of a bill, make the person offering the objection sit through the entire effing reading of the bill. If they leave the chamber to go to the bathroom, the Speaker or President pro tem will say, "The Honourable Gentleman having withdrawn his objection by leaving the chamber, we will now proceed to . . . ."

I love it. I fail to see any significant downside, and a hell of a lot of upside.

How about tweaking the rules -- like limiting the number of filibusters per session? Each party gets, say, ten. Then they have to use them for the stuff that really matters. And put in the (Harkin, I believe) compromise, that it takes a diminishing number of votes for cloture. And fer Gawd's sake, Mr. Pres., get out there and help the Congressional Dems explain why they're doing this: so legislators will actually be earning their salaries by doing the people's business!

One would assume that a credible threat of losing the filibuster would cause the White People's Party to think twice about filibustering every fucking thing.

The only thing that would make the threat credible would be pulling the trigger.

I agree with RobK, once you've used 51 votes to destroy the filibuster, it's not much of a further step to destroy the unanimous consent rules. With that, the Senate becomes the House except featuring bigger egos.

The logic of the situation is that the GOP has declared all's fair by blocking everything. Destroying the filibuster and unanimous consent is just continuing through the same door they opened.

If this were a GOP Senate/President facing a solid 40-vote Dem bloc, they'd have no compunctions about doing what was necessary. Dems shouldn't either.

Fourth branch, baby!

I stopped reading right here:

The first step in exercising the nuclear option is for Vice President Joe Biden to state, in effect, "Previous Congresses can't tell this Congress what to do. Senate Rule 22 has no force because it was never agreed to by the current Senate."

What was it Bill the Cat used to say?
Oh yeah: ACK!

Biden should use the nuclear option to correct one of the original sins of the senate, Montana and California having equal votes. Votes to stop a filibuster should be weighted according to the population of each state. More often than not when Dems were the minority and filibustered Repub legislation, the Dem Senators represented a majority of the population (CA, NY etc..). What is happening now is Reb are filibustering when they represent a minority of the population (Montana, Alabama, etc...) and democracy gets the shaft. It keeps the filibuster alive but makes it less of an egregious affront to democracy.

"If Dems were to try the "nuclear option" now, chances are reasonably good that the already dysfunctional chamber may become even worse."

Not to be sarcastic or cynical, but that would be worse HOW?

Get rid of not only the fillibuster, but the Senate. This elite club of 100 is nothing more than a bunch of pampered, bought-and-paid-for rich white guys, who are now so arrogant they no longer even try to hide their corruption and immorality. We need a parlimentary system.

The filibuster does not need to go away. What needs to change is the rules of how the filibuster works.

The filibuster does have a legitimate use, which is to stop the Senate from doing something that cannot be undone. The confirmation of a SC justice, say, or going to war, or the passage of an unconstitutional bill that has no chance of being challenged in the courts. If there is a way to limit it to those instances, I say fine. But otherwise, it's useless.

RobK hits the point with precision!

Nelson (Ne), Landreau, Bayh, LIEberman, Baucus, Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstein, Hagan, Johnson, Lincoln, McCaskill, Menendez, Nelson (Fl), Pryor, Spectre, Tester, and Thune are all corporately owned DLC/Dino/Rethug-Lites who would likely never vote against their full Rethug brethren.

Where would the dumbocraps get 51 votes from?

Ben Nelson is only the front man for corporate interests among the corporately owned dumbocrats. And that because Nebraska is such a cheap state to buy. The rest of the above list are probably as much or close to being as much corporately owned; they just are held in reserve for real needs of the corporate/wealthy interests. Preserving a rethug veto over any/all legislation that impacts profits is such a need.

Yeah, sure, we can do this. And then what happens once Republicans are in charge again, and we've firmly established the precident that it's ok for each Senate to completely rewrite any rules they want? And then they write rules that forbid the minority party from speaking or making them sit on their hands while clucking like a chicken? Seriously. If we go nuclear first, then they'd be morons for NOT rewriting the rules again; and you all know that they'd screw us more than we'd screw them. That's a guarantee.

And look, Republicans DIDN'T do this. Even in the heighth of their hubris addiction they didn't institute the Anything Goes rule. And no, contrary to what a poster wrote above, the threat of the Nuclear Option DIDN'T stop Democrats from filibustering again. In reality, Republicans barely got any of their agenda passed when they controlled Congress, and had about as many problems with us as we're having with them. Just look at Congressman Ryan's absurd budget proposal if you want to see what a Republican Congress WANTED to do. But it didn't, because they didn't have the balls to do it.

None of this is to say I'm necessarily against going "nuclear," but merely that I'm a bit worried by the number of people who don't seem a little gun shy about this. Yeah, maybe Republicans have left us with no choice, but we shouldn't be happy about it. And if we go nuclear and the Republicans gain control some day, I'm positive all of you will be geniunely outraged by the antics Republicans pull against us; attacking Democrats for being too weak to stop Republicans the way they supposedly stopped us.

The last time the nuclear option was floated a bunch of centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats bunched together to insure votes occured on judicial nominees. I suspect that much the same thing would happen now. The result would be that the Senate would fall under the sway of a group of centrists. Maybe 15 or so Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans would rule the roost.

Of course it might be difficult to find Republican centrists right now, so the nuclear option might actually explode on the Senate.

Completely agreed with rRRk1 regarding the elimination of the Senate and a parliamentary system.

As for the nuclear option, the reason they are not going to try this is that they could not get 50 Democrats to vote for it. Idiots and traitors like Nelson and Landrieu like the filibuster because it makes them more powerful. Rigid old men like Byrd like the filibuster because it's old and rigid. Saps like Feingold like it because they refuse to accept that cooperating with Republicans means losing to Republicans.

Finally! Steve notices why the filibuster is not the problem...unanimous consent can be used to completely stop Senate business. A filibuster is simply the least time consuming and least disruptive method of minority revolt.

"With that, the Senate becomes the House except featuring bigger egos."

I'm not so sure that abolishing the filibuster and holds will make the Senate more like the house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Senate rules and procedures, both in committee and on the floor, lend themselves far more easily to obstruction and extended debate even without the filibuster.

That said - get rid of the damn things, the filibuster AND holds. Yes, Republicans will have the majority again some day, but that's a small price to pay for allowing our country to be governed in a reasonably sane manner, especially at a moment when the prospect of passing truly foundational liberal legislation is close at hand.

Doctor Biobrain: they got everything they wanted, except something like 7 judicial appointments, and the privatization of Social Security. They got wars, tax cuts, assaults on the Constitution. They got Alito and Roberts, which may prove to be the very worst thing that came out of the hellish Bush administration.

And, believe me, they will not treat Democrats (or the country) fairly if they ever get back in power regardless of what the Dems do now. The right wing is made up almost entirely of hateful, greedy, corrupt, power-hungry, venal, craven SOBs. I say nuke them and take back our country.

"And since unanimous consent is practically a requirement in the Senate to turn the lights on in the morning"

This too is a rule that could be changes with 50 votes. Constitutionally speaking, the only thing the Democrats can't do with 50 votes is exclude Republicans from final floor votes. If the Democrats kill the filibuster and Republicans respond with petty procedural bickering that shuts down the Senate, then the Democrats can and should strip Republicans of the right to participate in procedural votes.

That said - get rid of the damn things, the filibuster AND holds. Yes, Republicans will have the majority again some day, but that's a small price to pay for allowing our country to be governed in a reasonably sane manner, especially at a moment when the prospect of passing truly foundational liberal legislation is close at hand.

So you're saying that allowing Republicans to completely rewrite Senate rules once they take over would lead to a reasonable sane government? That's the precident that the Nuclear Option sets. It's not just about filibusters and holds; once we rule that each Senate gets to set its own rules, it's an invitation to a new Anything Goes rule in the Senate. If they can dream it, they will be it. Our current political woes aren't comparable to the political hell we'd be raising if we let the genie out of this bottle.

And it's a guarantee that if Republicans take over next year, any "foundational liberal legislation" we pass now will be destroyed before it's actually implemented. And all we could do is gnash our teeth and complain about how spineless Democrats are for not stopping them.

”they got everything they wanted, except something like 7 judicial appointments, and the privatization of Social Security”

Hell, they even got a appellate judge who believes that child labor laws are unconstitutional

Meanwhile, we cant get somebody appointed to a board charged with enforcing workers rights because he’s viewed as to much in favor of workers rights

Doctor Biobrain: they got everything they wanted, except something like 7 judicial appointments, and the privatization of Social Security. They got wars, tax cuts, assaults on the Constitution. They got Alito and Roberts, which may prove to be the very worst thing that came out of the hellish Bush administration.

cmac - You honestly think that's everything they wanted? You practically named everything they got! Two wars (one of which I approved of), tax cuts that were designed to expire after ten years, and some assaults on our liberties (none of which I liked, but none which were permanent). And beyond the nominations, everything you mentioned happened in Bush's first term. What of the 2005-2006 Congress? Please tell me the legislative steamrolling we received then.

They were unable to cut any social programs, any regulatory agencies, or shrink government in any way. Killing Social Security and Medicare have been a key part of their platform for DECADES, and they barely even tried. Hell, they gave Medicare a fricking drug plan, for christ's sake! Almost all the damage done by the Republicans was done by presidential fiat; not by his rubberstamp do-nothing Congress.

And seriously, if the few bills you mentioned are the only things Republicans want to do in Congress, then I don't see what's so bad about them. But the reality is that they were only able to pass popular bills, like taxcuts and war; and couldn't do a damn thing with the rest of their radical agenda. Why you people insist on mainstreaming these freaks by pretending that they already gave us everything they wanted is beyond me.

Yes, Republicans will have the majority again some day, but that's a small price to pay for allowing our country to be governed in a reasonably sane manner

umm, no. That's a huuuuuuge price to pay.

41 republicans (60 vote barrier senate) = already bad
50 republicans (50 vote barrier senate) = batsh&^% insanity

The Grand Corporate Party (GCP...not GOP) is not only undermining the American political process, they undermining America. They are employed by and for the trans national Corporate Powers for PROFIT at the expense of Earth and its denizens.

By "massive conflict on the floor" I hope what is meant is a brutal caning of 41 Republican Senators, because violence is all these dangerous, anti-American bugs/thugs understand.

"Just like real nuclear weapons, their value lies not in their use but in the threat of their use."

SW at 2:22pm gets it exactly right. The Republicans did not pull the trigger; they only threatened to pull the trigger.

We all knew the Republicans were just crazy enough to do it, so the threat stuck. It is a great advantage in negotiations to be perceived as just crazy enough to carry out your threats. Neither Reid or Obama or Biden can easily pull that off. They just aren't a trigger-happy group.

The way around it is to have Obama do his rational reasonable schtick where he very reluctantly and calmly states that he has tried everything he can to work things out, that our great nation cannot thrive with a stuck Senate, and that he has instructed Joe Biden to exercise the nuclear option if necessary to make the Senate function again. Yes, he should use the term "nuclear option" to get across that his limit has been passed. Hearing those words pass Obama's lips would shock, and shock is needed to get credibility.

Furthermore, to make threat credible he should not eliminate the filibuster, but only tame it, perhaps with the 60, 57, 54, 51 vote compromise.

The problem with this scenario is that it requires the Democrats to convincingly step way out of character, and doing so would carry enormous risks. Obama & Reid are not risk takers. I cannot imagine them doing what needs to be done to make the threat credible (contrast to Bush & Cheney).

Finally, it is not at all clear the Dems would have 50 votes to carry the motion. Too risky, and each one of those Senators would be giving away a power they might want to use one day.

All in all, ain't gonna happen.

Obama & Reid are not risk takers. I cannot imagine them doing what needs to be done to make the threat credible (contrast to Bush & Cheney).

Yes, and thank god for that. Nothing makes Obama look better than to contrast him with gamblers like Bush and Cheney. The presidency is far too powerful for those sort of people.

And tomtom, there's no point in leaving the filibuster if we go "nuclear" and allow Republicans free reign once they take over. This isn't just the filibuster that gets changed, but how the Senate chooses its rules. Once we do that, we can't take it back.

Doctor Biobrain,

Suppose that cooler heads among the Democrats prevail (and whether they are "cooler" or not, as SadOldVet points out, there are 15 votes among Democrats to continue business as usual). What is to prevent the Republicans from using the nuclear option the next time they are in power? Will they take into account the restraint shown by today's Democrats?

I think it's a mistake to say the appointment "failed". It succeeded but was then over-turned by the minority.

I would begin by citing our current national security emergency and decreeing the ends of filibusters and holds on any jobs related to national security. See how they react to that.

I would like to start a rumor that Mexico is in negotiations with the US to buy the Wall so they can keep Texans & other gringos out of Mexico.

The topic is only periperally the nuclear option. Really, it's about choosing the right moment to shift decisively to an administration that uses it's power effectively. Bipartisanship in fine, but it's not an end in itself. Anyone open to seeing the repubs' obstruction has now seen it; the whole country loving Obama can't be a precondition for an effective executive.

So, a little chatter about the N.O. is fine, but the real next step is to dust off two R's: Reconciliation and Recess Appointments. Not on health care, but on something significant that will pay dividends and backhand the Boehners. Ideally, IMO, use reconciliation with a strong WH-drafted bill creating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Let 'em scream about too much bureaucracy. This is good Democratic legislation that ensures some evenness to the playing field and forestalls predatory bubble-esque behavior by Big Finance. We can take this case straigt to the public.

In the end, the general public cares about issues, not process. The filibuster doesn't offend them, and nor will these kinds of executive prerogative, once the seal is broken.

What is to prevent the Republicans from using the nuclear option the next time they are in power?

Are you suggesting that we take a preemptive first strike, in case the Republicans might do it anyway? And sure, nothing prevents them from changing the rules next time, but if we do this now it GUARANTEES that it'll always happen. The practice of following previous Senate rules will be forever abolished and each Senate will then be tasked with creating its own rules, and the blame for this radical change will rest entirely on us.

Again, if we're taking this seriously, we need to stop thinking about this in terms of filibusters and what we need right now. It should be added that it's quite possible that this move isn't even allowed, so we might be talking for nothing.

If, a very large IF, the Democrats in the Senate do decide to exercise the "nuclear option", they should just return to what was in place prior to the 1970s. That should serve to blunt much of the criticism that is certain to erupt. Limiting the "nuclear option" to simply re-instating the filibuster rules in place prior to the 1970s should make it easier to quiet some of the more skittish Democratic Senators.
As for fears that the Republicans will re-write the rules when they eventually return to control of the Senate; so? There is nothing to stop such changes anyway, except public opinion, and we all know just how badly frightened of THAT present-day Republicans are! Any future Republican majority, considering their "base", won't hesitate, they'll just do it.
Personally, I have no doubt, that, had the "Group of 14" not acted as cover, Lott would have moved ahead and done what he threatened. And received the plaudits ("So bold and determined!") of the MSM while doing so.
If Reid asked my opinion, I would suggest that reconciliation and recess appointments be used as much as possible. Exploit the "budgetary related" requirement of reconciliation to its' utmost for HCIR, a jobs bill, carbon taxes and anything else that could apply. Limit recess appointments to national security and finance nominees; at first, at least. The administration's position can be that the only appointments made are related to defending the country from terrorists and Wall Street irresponsibility.
As they rely so heavily on them, let the Republicans defend those two groups...

This is easy-- imagine Democrats asking every day in every campaign ad:

"Do you want the minority to keep the majority from passing laws?"

"Republicans-- against democracy."

It even fits on a bumper sticker

It's worth looking ahead to reconciliation and recess appointments (more the former) and observing that, per the historical record, as soon as the Dems exercise some of these prerogatives, the WH and moderates will come under attack from the left for not going far enough. Normal enough, but this could escalate to a pitched standoff between left and center-left/WH where nothing has been streamlined, nothing resolved for the greater good, and there will be fodder for Fox/Right blogosphere for days, end result nothing but more public contempt for Dems and a weaker WH. Let this not happen.