Let’s say that Obama decides to be the only Democrat besides Pelosi with a set of balls and has had enough of Reid caving into the Republican-generated deadlock. He tells Biden that his main job will be to preside over the Senate. The VP doesn’t actually have much power except in breaking a tie, but when presiding he does manage the debate. Using that power, could he overrule the deal made by Reid and McConnell and require debate or on a procedural filibuster does Reid kill the bill even before it makes it to the floor? If he does kill it, is there anyway for the VP to require it to come to the floor i.e. “killing it” is just a courtesy of dispensing of the required procedure including reading the bill, debate (hence procedural filibuster), cloture vote, etc. but technically those procedures should still be followed OR the VP could rule that they be followed and rule for himself on Point of Order/Appeal.
I’m not sure anyone can answer that question. Many have taken the position that the senate is a continuing body with only 1/3 of members being newly elected or reelected and therefore the old rules are in effect until changed. Others have disputed that claim. I don’t believe there has ever been a definitive ruling on that point. I guess if Biden had the balls, he could just do it and duck.
I’m not asking if Biden could change the rules. I’m asking that if under the rules Biden could force a real filibuster even if Reid approves a procedural filibuster.
I started typing responses a few times, but wasn’t sure if I was answering the right question. The answer to that question is no: if a presiding officer rules on something that the Senate, as a body, does not agree with, a majority can appeal the ruling and reverse it.
I think the idea is that 55 Senators support a bill but 45 threaten a filibuster. Reid agrees to a procedural filibuster but Biden says, “Nope. Let them read the phone book.” Can Biden make them follow through on the filibuster?
What we call the “procedural filibuster” is simply the Senate Majority declining to bring a matter up for debate since they don’t have the votes for cloture. I don’t see any way under the rules for the VP to force consideration of measures. The only way questions can come up except via the Calendar of Bills and Resolutions is through unanimous consent. Of course the VP could simply rule however he wants so long as there is a majority of Senators to to sustain him on appeal.
Reid could appeal from the decision of the chair and by a vote of 55-45 allow the procedural filibuster.
Pelosi has balls?!? Maybe that’s why she smiles so funny.
I think the main difficulty with the question is that the “procedural filibuster” is kind of a vague thing when you get down to it. It’s hard to put one’s finger on what a procedural filibuster really is, even though we know it when we see it, and it’s a little more difficult to figure out how to stop them.
One type of procedural filibuster is objecting to unanimous consent requests to do things like schedule votes, call up bills, and so forth. The rules of the Senate would have to be changed not to require unanimous consent. That’s a really, really big change to the Senate, and the Vice President could not really accomplish that in opposition to the wishes of senators.
There’s also the procedural filibuster of not having sufficient votes to invoke cloture, but also not actually doing any talking. The Vice President may have more options here, but things like the nuclear option (simply declaring Senate rules to be null and overturned by establishing a new precedent) is easily overruled. The rules prohibit “dilatory motions,” but perhaps the Vice President could rule the lack of debate to be dilatory, thus speeding a vote without a cloture vote, but that’s stretching the rules and could also be overruled by a vote to appeal the Vice President’s decision.
Then we get into really flaky stuff like the Vice President intentionally ignoring objections by would-be filibusterers, at which point one house of Congress is no longer a deliberative body governed by any rules at all. I’m not quite sure how that would be overruled by a point of order if the Vice President ignores such claims, but let’s get real – the Senate would no longer be a (small “r”) republican or (small “d”) democratic institution if presiding officers could simply run roughshod over the political opposition. I imagine such behavior, if it became practice, would be grounds for impeachment.
I’m having a hard time seeing ways to end the procedural filibuster that the VP could possibly carry out. Plus, the VP has no power to call up bills or force debates on things: the presiding officer of the Senate has very little power.