I’ve heard it said, here and elsewhere that Harry Reid could change the filibuster rule if he wanted to. Since it is crippling the Senate Dems, I’d think he’d want to. But I don’t understand what he would have to do, procedurally. If you could also explain what the downside of changing the rule would be, I’d appreciate that, too.
The downside is that his opponents will one day be the majority party, and can do unto him as he does unto them.
Exactly. The next time the Republicans control the Senate, remember this thread as Dopers all over this board sing the praises of the filibuster.
Granted they are used to achieve particular ends but surely the general opinion is not one of praise. Aren’t they seen as cheap, pathetic and childish? Or is it something young US politicians aspire to, “one day I will speak gibberish for hours to prevent anything being achieved!”
We don’t have such things here.
The “nuclear option”. IIRC the speaker/president of the senate (VP?) can declare that a simple majority suffices, and can alter the rules of procedure to require a filibuster to actually be one and expire when everyone has spoken, rather than declaring one and tabling the motion. (In the Canadian parliament, for example, they have a procedure called “closure”, where when the government invokes it - each member’s time is limited and total debate ends after X days or hours).
But, as mentioned above, the first party to use those tactics will invite the other side to do likewise.
Consider judicial or cabinet appointments - Bush had a list to appoint, but the Dems obstructed the process because they had serious questions about some judges and other appointments. (I.e. Bolton as UN Ambassador, a guy who basically said the UN was useless). Bush appointed the people during congrssional recess as “emergency” appointments meaning (IIRC) they stay there until congress approves them or someone else - but Bush was not about to nominate anyone else.
So, when Obama faced similar obstruction, he did the same thing.
What’s funny is the people who screamed during one session about the process approved of it in the next session, and vice versa. Both sides enjoyed doing “spin” for the cameras. Net effect, congress has effectively lost the ability to scrutinize appointments and block the bad ones.
Obviously, nobody is prepared to go that way with legislation… Yet.
I don’t see a reason why Reid wouldn’t get rid of filibusters if it’s in his power to do so with a Democratic majority. As I understand it, there’s something he could do but only at the very beginning of a congressional term. If the Dems win a majority this fall, but not a filibuster-proof majority, why on earth wouldn’t Reid kill filibustering?
At the beginning of each term the Senate officially adopts the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which establishes the broad procedural rules for the term.
It is changing those that would happen at the beginning of the term.
Standing Rule XXII is the one that sets procedure around filibuster and cloture.
With 24/7 coverage, I think that whoever is in charge should require a filibuster to be real. If you want to threaten one, you’d better be able to back it up on national TV. That alone would toss out the overwhelming majority of “filibusters,” because there’s only so many times you can go back to that well. Use it over something the people aren’t too interested in, like judicial appointments, and you kill your ability to use it against something major, like budget initiatives.
Yes, and they only require a simple majority to pass.
Actually, it doesn’t. Because two-thirds of the Senators hold over from one Congress to the next, the Senate has always taken the position that it is a “continuing body” and its rules remain in effect from one Congress to the next, without being readopted, unless and until changed.
However, it has been recognized on many occasions, under both parties, that this convention cannot be abused to prevent a majority from changing the rules–because each house of Congress has the power under the Constitution to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings”, and no Congress can bind a future Congress. This is the so-called “nuclear” or “constitutional” option and it has been used many times in the past, at any time during the term of a Congress, to weaken the filibuster rule. It could just as well be used to abolish it, but this has never happened for the practical reason given by Oakminster in post#2.
You’re glossing over the fact that there are also plenty of precedents of the Senate rejecting the notion that the rules can be changed by a majority vote.
More likely is a modification to the rule rather than eliminating it. It isn’t an awful rule in principle, it’s just been used lately in a way that was not orginally intended. In the end I expect no change. As long as the Senate is at a near equal division between the parties neither will risk a rule change that could bite them in the ass two years later.
A little history.
When the Senate was formed, it was considered improper to limit the time for “gentlemen” to debate a topic. So unlike other parliamentary rules of order like House Rules (US House of Representatives), Mason’s Guide (mostly used in legislative bodies) or Robert’s Rules, there is no limitation to debate built into the Senate Rules. There is a motion for cloture that can used that is very similar to the more common motion Previous Question that if passed ends debate.
Now this claim people make about the Senate Rules having to be adopted at the beginning of each session and using that to get rid of the filibuster is wrong. The adoption of the rules os merely symbolic.
[QUOTE=Senate Rule V]
-
No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.
-
The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.
[/QUOTE]
So what does it take to change the rules? You just read it - one day notice in writing. I can’t find any indicator of the number of votes needed to change a rule so unless someone else can find it I’ll assume a majority vote and that is the nuclear option.
They don’t have to select between no more filibusters and filibusters as they’ve taken place in the recent handful of sessions of Congress.
a) no more procedural filibustering. if someone wants to filibuster, make them stand up there and read the goddam encyclopedia for 72 hours straight
b) each Senator has one and only one filibuster opportunity allotted to them. use it up and it’s gone until the next session of Congress.
Well, we do here.
I for one feel that a simple majority of the simpletons in the Senate is something that the Republic can survive. However, I am doubtful that the Republic can survive letting the stupidest 41 percent of the Senators block any vote. But I’ve been wrong before.
They should do it now. Congress is divided now anyways, so doing it now won’t give anyone party an advantage. And no one knows who will control the Senate, so no one knows who it will help in the immediate future. Its a good point to weaken the filibuster while insulating themselves from accusations that they’re making an endrun around the rules for a partisan advantage.
(would’ve been even better to do it six months ago, when the control of the Senate and Presidency was even less certain)
The Republicans have been in control of the Senate various times through the life of this message board, so it should be no trouble at all for you to provide some links full of Dopers singing the praises of the filibuster, right?
Ok, I was under the impression from past discussion on the topic that the idea was that on the first day of the new term, the Standing Rules are not yet in effect and therefore the Rule XXII requirements for cloture do not yet apply and therefore no filibuster of an attempt to change the rules is required.
Found this Congressional Research Report (note that it appears to have been triggered by Republicans complaining about Democratic use of the filibuster at the time) from 2005 that talks about the issue in detail.
It report says that under normally operating conditions a change to the Standing Rules would be subject to the Rule XXII cloture requirements meaning that if Reid tried it today it could be filibusters (thought a simple majority is required to pass).
It reports that the precendent of the Senate is to consider itself a continuing body and therefore the Standing Rules never go out of effect. But there has been debate on the point and it is up to the Senate to decide how to do it. But the last serious attempt in 1967 did result in the Senate voting that the Standing Rules remained in effect with no window under which to operate without them.
Another version is that even if the rules are generally in effect, a previous term can’t impose its rules on a future term and so there must exist an opportunity to change the rules through simple majority vote. This argument was tried in 1969 and 1975 but both times the Senate decided the rules remained in effect continuously.
So it appears there is sunlight in the idea that the first day of the term would be a window when the Senate might change its cloture rules on a simple majority vote, but it would require the senate overturning past precedent.
At least that’s my reading of it.
It has been many decades since anyone had to speak to sustain a filibuster. All you have to do is pass a note to the front of the class and the filibuster is on.