Afraid Of A Filibuster?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:15:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A very silly line of argument has developed today in the Left blogs. This post by MJ Rosenberg is an example:

I agree with reader JE who wrote: "the Democrats should make them filibuster, and use the term "filibuster" whenever they describe what the Republicans have done, not idiotic characterizations like "we don't have the votes." . . . Make them filibuster. Make it a true filibuster, which stops all other business until a cloture vote occurs. . . ." . . . Why not force the GOP to stay up all night reading the Bible and The Collected Works of Ann Coulter. Let the electorate see them blocking the will off the people. Why would Dems be afraid of that.

Um, how exactly would the Senate Leader be able to do that? The point of a cloture vote is to end debate. The lack of cloture does not mean that debate will occur on the Senate floor.

More.

The pertinent Senate rule is Rule 22, which reads, in part:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. . . .

Classic phone book reading filibusters start AFTER cloture, not before. Prior to a vote of cloture or unanimous consent, a measure can not be voted upon.

The Republicans can't be forced to read the phone book. People calling for the Democratic leadership of the Senate to force the Republicans to do that simply do not know what they are talking about.

I think what they really want is for the Democratic Senate leadership to continually schedule debate on Iraq measures around the clock. This can be done but it is hardly "forcing" a Republican filibuster. The Democratic leadership can schedule any agenda item it chooses to. And it would be choosing to schedule Iraq legislation around the clock.

What this line of argument also misses is the basic point that failure to pass a bill is NOT failure on Iraq. Indeed, the Democrats will only fail IF they pass a Iraq funding bill without a date certain to end said funding. In other words, a bill without timelines.

Instead of urging silly arguments on forcing Republicans to filibuster, we should be urging that Democrats ONLY vote for Iraq funding bills that have a date certain for ending the Iraq Debacle.

NOT funding after a date certain is the answer.

< Phony Reed-Levin Iraq Bill Defeated In Senate | Judicial Elves >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Afraid Of A Filibuster? | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by dakine01 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:58:10 PM EST

Now I may be an idiot but the way I've seen that Rule 22 interpreted, the Senate majority Leader is the one who can force the issue each day, making the opposition talk for thirty hours then vote. It loses, it goes right back onto the calendar for another thirty hours of talking.

Big Tent Democrat, you may know better, but given that nothing is being resolved currently due to McConnell's obstruction, why shouldn't Reid pick a number of these bills and just keep calling for the 30 hours of discussion, with continuous quorum calls and all.

: You are essentially correct (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:12:29 PM EST

and make my point.
One correction, the 30 hour debate limit kicks in after a successful cloture vote.

How do I not Understand? (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jarober on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:30:37 PM EST

I think maybe you don't get the point. Cutting off funding would be political suicide for the Democrats. Period, end of story. Unlike the late 60's and early 70's, the media isn't the only outlet, and the chaotic scenes from Baghdad post-withdrawal would get out - and Democrats - fairly or otherwise - would get blamed.

You can argue that's unfair all you want, but as dumb as Harry Reid clearly is, even he gets it.

: You mean the American media... (none / 0) (#16)
by Dadler on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:39:54 PM EST

...would actually cover the war, too? They'd have to, because nobody pays attention to the gruesome sh*t all over the internet now. Why would it change because of a short-term uptick in violence after we leave? Except, and I could see this, as the sick outcome of our media's cooption: they would see the chaos in our absense more worthy of actually reporting on that the chaos in our presence -- the chaos we willfully brought there. Chaos is what we have NOW, my friend. Just because you don't choose to face makes it no less the reality. Are you going to dispute that Baghdad hasn't already been essentially ethnically cleansed?
The wrong war, fought in the wrong way, in the wrong country, for the wrong "reasons"...ain't nothin' good coming of that. When you f*ck up as badly and immorally as we have there, you lose all ability to fix it. And we lost it long ago.
Denial doesn't change it.

There's lots of confusion about (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:33:44 PM EST

how the Senate works. Now, what we should really be asking for is that our Senators running for president demand a cloture vote on the next blank check (and there obviously will be one).

If they're really feeling gutsy, they can start acting like Jesse Helms and object to all of the routine UC requests.

It's possible for one or two Senators to seriously gum up the works for a while.

You are obviously right that this "make them filibuster" line doesn't make any sense.

Where's Kagro when you need him? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:50:34 PM EST

He does know the rules very well.

He should take the opportunity to do a public service on this.


Dealing with talex (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:52:40 PM EST

(who finally got himself autobanned last night, I think).


: Heavens forfend! (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:13:30 PM EST

: snicker (none / 0) (#8)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:52:47 PM EST

Kagro X is too diffuse for me. But (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:09:08 PM EST

here's a question from a different thread that I'd like to see answered:

question


Kagro responded (none / 0) (#15)
by Demi Moaned on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:48:56 PM EST

I raised this issue on a diary over at DailyKos and Kagro did respond.

Don't call for cloture, though, and the minority has no idea how long they'll have to keep the act up. And in order to prevent a member of the majority from taking the floor and moving that the Senate proceed to a vote, they have to do things like... read the phone book.

It seems to me the gist of this vindicates Rosenberg.


: I am sorry (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 10:30:28 AM EST

It does not.
Kagro proposes the complete breakdown of scheduling in the Senate with Reid NOT announcing the agenda for the day.
What he says is silly.
Let him tell you about the RULES, not his own silly strategems.
Reid has to schedule a vote, for cloture, before a measure is brought up for final vite UNLESS there is unananimous consent.
ONE GOP Senator could always object to the vote. And that would be that.
My gawd, Kagro has tobe kidding me with that nonsense.

The facts are biased! (none / 0) (#2)
by jerry on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:46:22 PM EST

Damn you, because apart from "the facts" that you are so quick to trot out whenever they help your case, "make them filibuster" is an argument that makes me feel good and makes it easy to loathe our Democratic Senators.

I am afraid what I know of filibusters comes not from Jimmy Stewart but from this: Enormous Egg - Louis Darling,Oliver

A story of a 12 year old whose chicken hatches a triceratops, Uncle Beazley. Pretty silly science 35 years ago, but since we now know that velociraptors had feathers and were only the size of large turkey, perhaps it wasn't that far off.

We actually ought to arrange ... (none / 0) (#5)
by chemoelectric on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:48:51 PM EST

... for the 'Republicans' to repeat endlessly that General Petraeus is not a Betrayer, same as Nixon was not a Crook.

Keep them doing that around the clock. And never back down on a thing like that; that's a test they are putting you to. If they complain, redouble your efforts. If they howl, redouble again. Just stick to facts; do not be a Swiftboat Liar.

Keep them talking. Make sure as many people as possible think 'Betray Us' when they hear 'Petraeus'--and more stuff like that.

: That would not be forcing (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:13:25 PM EST

a filibuster.

Good luck with that (none / 0) (#6)
by jarober on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:09 PM EST

"NOT funding after a date certain is the answer."

That's a vote that neither Reid nor Pelosi will push for, because they know:

They don't have the votes to get it past cloture
If it passed cloture, they can't override a veto

What they would manage to do is hand the Republicans a meat cleaver with which to beat them for trying to cut the troops off.

: Not surprising (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:12:58 PM EST

that you still do not understand the point.