# What will it take for Senate Dems to be willing to break a filibuster? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857 "2010-01-21T16:33:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/21 "2010-01-22T23:20:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > It would definitely work if they had the balls to do it, but the Democrats won’t do it. They _have_ the balls, it’s just that [they keep gluing them to their thighs.](http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2010/01/22/the-weeks-best-late-night-jokes-63.htm) Playing nice is a disease that needs to be drummed out of leadership positions. Unfortunately it’s so pervasive that the only people who can make a dent in it are individual votes. They’ve got to stop electing wimps, even if they are three term senators. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/22 "2010-01-22T23:22:23Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I want to be careful here, because criticising other peoples governments never ends well here. > > Is there any good argument this to occur other than “the rules kinda allow it”? It seems farcical to allow a very small number of individuals to derail the democratic process in this way and impede a majority opinion. As it exists now? No. As it was used a long time ago, I can see an argument. Basically it would come down to allowing a small minority who feel very strongly prevent action by a majority that does not care as much. It gives attention to the issue and forces those on both sides to suffer somewhat to get what they want. It could also just serve to slow down the process and encourage compromises. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/23 "2010-01-23T01:53:38Z")
How many times have the Republicans actually filibuster anything in this congress? Is there a procedure? Or it’s not even a procedural filibuster but rather the threat of a procedural filibuster? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/24 "2010-01-23T02:43:13Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I want to be careful here, because criticising other peoples governments never ends well here. > > Is there any good argument this to occur other than “the rules kinda allow it”? It seems farcical to allow a very small number of individuals to derail the democratic process in this way and impede a majority opinion. There is some logic to it. It prevents the senate from simply ignoring issues that the a minority finds important. The idea is even a minority should get enough time to make their case for or against any legislation. While I like the concept of unlimited debate in the senate and it has many merits, I find the senate has proven they can’t be trusted to be responsible about it. So we can either replace senators as elections allow or convince the ones we have now to do away with these rules. In a perfect world I’d like to see responsible senators, but in our political structure I thinks that’s to much to ask for. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/25 "2010-01-23T03:04:51Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > With 41 Senators in the minority, and only 2 needed on the floor at any one time, the load on any individual Senator would be pretty small. But 50 of the 59 majority Senators would have to be available for quorum calls at all times, and one of them is 92 years old. I’d bet on the majority throwing in the towel well before the minority felt particularly imposed on. I’m going from memory here, but are you sure this is accurate? I thought that in the absence of a quorum, the Sargent at Arms could compel the attendance of any and all absent members, under threat of arrest, in order to establish a quorum. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/26 "2010-01-25T14:39:25Z")
Nice graph here: [White House Signals That It Will Fight Back Against GOP Abuse Of Filibuster](http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/24/axelrod-on-filibuster/) Titled “Cloture Voting, U.S. Senate, 1847 to 2008”, with link to Senate’s own data page: [U.S. Senate: Cloture Motions](http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm) A few Democratic senators appear to be actually making a little noise about the issue, and getting a little press for it. I am _Shocked_! ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/27 "2010-01-25T17:01:25Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I want to be careful here, because criticising other peoples governments never ends well here. > > Is there any good argument this to occur other than “the rules kinda allow it”? It seems farcical to allow a very small number of individuals to derail the democratic process in this way and impede a majority opinion. The initial idea is sort of a noble one: That any senator ALWAYS has the privilege to speak his or her mind about a subject, and that he or she cannot be silenced simply because the majority in the senate don’t want to hear it. Rather civilized, no? Unfortunately, in practice, it can lead to the sort of nonsense you see now. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/28 "2010-01-25T17:45:27Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’m going from memory here, but are you sure this is accurate? I thought that in the absence of a quorum, the Sargent at Arms could compel the attendance of any and all absent members, under threat of arrest, in order to establish a quorum. That only works if the persons needed to make up a quorum are where the Sergeant-at-arms can find them. The fact remains that the Dems would have to keep 50 Senators within that ambit, and the GOP would only have to keep a few Senators at a time within the Sergeant-at-arms’ reach. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/29 "2010-01-25T18:01:12Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The SEIU is allied with the government itself. As are the Teacher’s Unions. At the last Democratic convention, the largest block of people in attendance were Teacher’s Union representatives. > > This is not a small issue. The public employees unions are running California into the ground and looting the treasury for their own ends. They have enormous influence in government and have the power to destroy pretty much any politician who crosses them. Yet I don’t hear much clamoring for rules preventing them from interfering in elections. Please barf in the trashcans, not in the thread. Seriously, this is just a pile of unrelated right-wing glurge that doesn’t have anything to do with anything. This is just flinging poo in the hopes of…I’m not sure what. Every statement in your first paragraph means nothing, isn’t backed by any cites, isn’t connected with the actual issue under discussion, they’re just stuff to throw in, like sand in the gears. You should be ashamed of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/30 "2010-01-25T18:07:42Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nice graph here: > [White House Signals That It Will Fight Back Against GOP Abuse Of Filibuster](http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/24/axelrod-on-filibuster/) > > Titled “Cloture Voting, U.S. Senate, 1847 to 2008”, > with link to Senate’s own data page: [U.S. Senate: Cloture Motions](http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm) > > A few Democratic senators appear to be actually making a little noise about the issue, and getting a little press for it. > I am _Shocked_! I’ve heard (and from sources I tend not to trust) that all these “Republicans fillibuster much more than Democrats” charts/comments do _not_ include Democrat fillibustering over judicial appointments. If so, these charts/stats are useless. If not…then yeah, there’s major change. Can someone point me to a source that would address this? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/31 "2010-01-25T18:11:46Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > The problem is that by allowing all the procedure filibusters, the Democrats have conceded their majority. They can get nothing done and the voters don’t really notice who is stopping them. There has to be something that would make them actually make the Republicans work to stop the system under the cameras of CSPAN instead of just basically giving them veto power. > > Jonathan I agree that there _should_ be some way to either stop the minority from excessive use of procedural filibusters, or at least making them more visible to the public at large. But just because something _should_ work a certain way, doesn’t mean it does. I’ve been thinking about this problem for years, and one by one, my good ideas have been dashed by people who knew or understood the Senate rules better than I used to, until I’ve got nothing left. For instance, “make 'em filibuster!” used to be my battle cry, until I was enlightened about the quorum rule. I agree that if filibusters had to be out in the open where C-SPAN would show the minority talktalktalking to block a vote, it would be a game-changer in all the right ways. But first you’d need a 2/3 majority of the Senate voting to change Rule 22. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/32 "2010-01-25T18:34:01Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > I’ve heard (and from sources I tend not to trust) that all these “Republicans fillibuster much more than Democrats” charts/comments do _not_ include Democrat fillibustering over judicial appointments. If so, these charts/stats are useless. If not…then yeah, there’s major change. > > Can someone point me to a source that would address this? Wikipedia on the [nuclear option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Differing_standards_for_consent) has this to say: > [@](#): > > President Bush has nominated forty-six candidates to federal appeals courts. Thirty-six had been confirmed. 10 were blocked and 7 were renominated in Spring 2005. Democrats point out that 63 of President Clinton’s 248 nominees (40 of which were federal appeals court nominees) were blocked via procedural means at the committee level, denying them a confirmation vote and leaving the positions available for Bush to fill.[75] If I’m reading that correctly, the blocking by filibuster of 10 nominees does not stack up well against the 112 Republican cloture maneuvers in 2007-2008. Perhaps there are more such blocked nominations hidden in other parts of government? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/33 "2010-01-25T18:35:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > You should be ashamed of yourself. This isn’t going to make this debate more productive, so please do not get personal. But I agree it would help if **Sam Stone** would explain how his statement relates to this topic. I think he’s saying that the influence of private groups is more important than filibuster rules, and if so, that’s a separate discussion for a separate thread. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/34 "2010-01-25T18:55:37Z")
It does seem that someone is trying to draw an equivalence between 10 and 112 (+39 so far in the 111th congress). > [@](#): > > The issue to which Klein refers was the Democratic minority’s decision to use the filibuster to block a slate of ten Bush nominees to the federal courts of appeals. That across-the-board blockade was unprecedented in Senate history. It caused some Republicans, then in the majority, to come up with a plan to eliminate what became known as the “judicial filibuster.” > > Read more at the Washington Examiner: [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-an-agenda-is-more-important-than-the-facts-80164842.html#ixzz0deT73p4Z](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-an-agenda-is-more-important-than-the-facts-80164842.html#ixzz0deT73p4Z) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/35 "2010-01-25T19:23:21Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Political calculation: The Repubs put a de facto filibuster on everything in the Senate. Nothing gets done. Then in November, the Republican candidates campaign against “Washington” because “Washington” can’t get anything done. And “Washington” is controlled by the Democrats, hence, it’s the Democrats’ fault nothing is getting done. > > My bet is people are stupid enough to fall for it, and it will work. This is hardly a new strategy for the GOP. _Harper’s_ has published some great articles describing Republican policies to deliberately make Americans hate their government. And of course “saving taxpayer dollars” by underfunding very inexpensive programs like meat inspection or even programs that pay for themselves (e.g. IRS!) is particularly pernicious. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Breaking a filibuster would be difficult… Demos would have to play hardball. Televise Senate sessions with frequent cloture votes, with a voice-over explaining that 41 Senators are happy if uninsured people die. Or the President of the Senate could pound his gavel and declare that under Article I of the Constitution, a motion by the Rules Committee to amend the Senate’s Standing Rules is in order at any time. Or just roll over and play dead, letting Rush Limbaugh run the country, regardless of how American voters vote. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/36 "2010-01-25T20:06:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This isn’t going to make this debate more productive, so please do not get personal. So noted. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/37 "2010-01-25T20:14:11Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Demos would have to play hardball. Televise Senate sessions with frequent cloture votes, with a voice-over explaining that 41 Senators are happy if uninsured people die. Who’s gonna pay for this? C-SPAN already televises Senate sessions, whether they’ve got cloture votes going on or not. But the Democratic Party would have to find the money somewhere for televising sessions with voice-overs, and anyone who got irritated by the voice-overs would change back to C-SPAN. > [@](#): > > Or the President of the Senate could pound his gavel and declare that under Article I of the Constitution, a motion by the Rules Committee to amend the Senate’s Standing Rules is in order at any time. Article I is a pretty big place. Got a specific part that you think Biden should cite? > [@](#): > > Or just roll over and play dead, letting Rush Limbaugh run the country, regardless of how American voters vote. There’s a lot I think the Dems could do in the way of not rolling over, starting with not collectively wetting their pants after one lousy special election went against them, leaving them with _only_ a 59-41 majority in the Senate. But with respect to the filibuster, they really don’t have any immediate options that I can see. First step is simply educating the public to what’s going on, and that will take some time. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/38 "2010-01-26T04:40:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Article I is a pretty big place. Got a specific part that you think Biden should cite? Section 5: “… Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” “Each House may determine [its] Rules…” Do you need a cite why this implies simple majority? The Senate can impose rules on itself, but, short of a Constitutional Amendment, it can’t self-impose a meta-rule that prevents it from “determining [its] Rules.” Now, _how_ the proposed scenario would play out may be an interesting question! Would the Sergeant-at-Arms end up dialing _911_? Would the South Carolina militia start bombarding Fort Sumter again? But _do_ let’s agree that the possibility is not off-limits just because FoxNews says so. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/39 "2010-01-26T08:42:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Section 5: "… Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings … The Senate can impose rules on itself, but, short of a Constitutional Amendment, it can’t self-impose a meta-rule that prevents it from “determining [its] Rules.” I don’t think this interpetation is particularly novel, by the way; it’s essentially the oft-mentioned “Nuclear Option.” The problem is not the _legality_ of such a vote, but rather finding 51 Senators willing to defy Glenn Beck. Republicans had no problem making the “Nuclear” threat in order to pack the federal judiciary with right-wingers, and were doubtless called “brave patriots” for doing so. If Democrats dare to go “Nuclear” to achieve something worthwhile, they’ll be labeled “baby-killing Fascists” or some such gobbledy-gook: will they dare? (Of course this all presupposes that Demos intend something “worthwhile.” Some liberals now believe that the health-care bill has been so compromised that right-wingers are giggling in glee and only pretending to oppose it.) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857/40 "2010-01-26T09:29:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Article I is a pretty big place. Got a specific part that you think Biden should cite? The quorum to conduct business in either House of Congress is [constitutionally defined](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_5.html) to be a majority. The Vice President is given a vote in the Senate in the [event of a tie](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_3_4-5.html). If pretty much every bill has to pass by a three-fifths majority, that’s a pretty pointless stipulation. [Senate convictions in impeachments](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html), [expulsions of members from either house](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_5.html), [veto overrides](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_2-3.html), and [Senate approval of treaties](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_2_2-3.html) all require approval by two thirds (either of the Houses of Congress generally or the Senate specifically; that last one is from the President’s Article, not Article I.) And of course from Article V [Constitutional amendments](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a5.html) require a two-thirds majority, followed by an even larger supermajority of the states. The Framers of the Constitution were perfectly capable of specifying supermajorities where they deemed it necessary, and if they intended for practically all business in the Senate to require a three-fifths vote, presumably they would have said so (and left out the bit about the Vice President having the power to break tie votes). I really wish [Alexander Hamilton had been](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton#Duel_with_Aaron_Burr_and_the_tragic_death) [a better shot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Early_use). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-it-take-for-senate-dems-to-be-willing-to-break-a-filibuster/525857.md?page=3)