Reforming the Senate (Would this Work?)

Great Debates
1

He’s my plan.

  1. Get elected to the Senate.
  2. Put a “Personal hold” on all appointments from judges to second lieutenants. All of them. Continue until they change the rules making it impossible for a senator to put hold on nominees.
  3. Filibuster every bill in the Senate. Nowadays for some reason you do not need to do the Jimmy Stewart thing, it is all paperwork. My party will join the other party in cloture. They I will do it again and again and again until they change the filibuster rule.

Would that work? One Senator being a pain in the butt?

(Mods please move this to whatever forum is appropriate.)

2

Don’t know whether it would work or not, but you’ve got my vote if you run on that platform here in Florida. Hell, I might even donate to your campaign!

However with a last name like “Qatar”, you might have trouble getting elected here… :wink:

3

Since the answer must be speculative, this is better suited to GD than GQ.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

4

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81567-bayh-lower-filibuster-threshold When Bayh bailed ,the fact that he called for lowering the filibuster thresh hold was not well reported. It has make governance nearly impossible.

5

One Senator can’t prevent a cloture vote. So, no, it wouldn’t work.

And #2 might “work” at getting you voted out of office next time around.

6

Six years is plenty long enough to completely paralyze the government. Something would have to be done long before then.

7

It’s worth a shot.

I’d vote for practically anyone for Senator if they were willing to go to the mattresses to reform the archaic Senate rules.

8

Paul, I’ve been seriously considering the same thing. But I would do the real filibuster if necessary. Everything comes to a stop! Until they learn to never give me the floor. :frowning:

9

OK. I think it more likely that the Senate would expel the Senator than change the rules. People don’t like to be blackmailed.

10

If they could get the 2/3rds necessary to expel, couldn’t they just keep overridding the holds and fillibusters? Expelling a senator for taking actions within the rules of the Senate would seem to me to be a precendent that few Senators would be comfortable setting…

11

Paul, I know you & I don’t agree on a lot politically, but I think we should form a movement.

12

IIRC Obama got around the recent filibuster by promising to use his power to appoint during a recess if the senate didn’t behave on judge appointments. For every loophole there’s a counter-loophole.

Also, isn’t it the case that the lazy man’s filibuster does not work on money bills?

13

Of course the purpose would not be to stop the business of the people. The purpose would be to make stuff so hard to do that they would have to change the rules. While I would certainly lose to cloture, I could simply do it all again the next morning.

BUT… I think the idea of the President Pro Tem never letting me have the floor would work for at least some things.

Expulsion does not seem like a realistic problem, but of course I could be wrong.

14

Of course the purpose would not be to stop the business of the people. The purpose would be to make stuff so hard to do that they would have to change the rules. While I would certainly lose to cloture, I could simply do it all again the next morning.

BUT… I think the idea of the President Pro Tem never letting me have the floor would work for at least some things.

Expulsion does not seem like a realistic problem, but of course I could be wrong.

15

Can a 2/3 vote override a hold?

Of course they can on the other votes. That’s why I said it wouldn’t be an effective strategy for an individual Senator.

16

But requiring 2/3 of the senators to be present for every single vote on the floor would really throw grit into the works. The idea being of course to force them to change the rules.

17

Just like they have adminstrative flilibusters now, they would probably develop an administrative cloture for you.

18

Another way to be a pain in the ass is to insist that every bill be read out loud. It takes unanimous consent (which is almost always given as a courtesy) to dispense with the procedure of having the clerk read the entire bill. That would be an even more effective method than the filibuster for slowing down the Senate, because unlike the filibuster it can’t be defeated with a 3/5ths cloture vote.