Quick question about the filibuster...

[kaplan3602]

If I understand right, the threat is that if we filibuster, the Repugs will vote to take away the right to filibuster judicial nominees. Such a rule change only requires a simple majority and will easily pass if all the Repugs vote for it.

However, I'm wondering why we can't simply filibuster the rule change vote as well? This way, they have to have 60 votes to change the rule. Surely we can maintain 40 votes against changing the filibuster rule, no?

[Shrek]

1. It's a gimmick

Washington Post

Republicans hold 55 of the seats in the chamber, and until now they have needed 60 votes to end debate and force a vote. But Republicans believe they have figured out how to use the chamber's rules so that only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- is required to force an up-or-down vote.

To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations. And by doing so, they say, they are returning to a more traditional concept of majority rule.

[unblock]

2. the 'nuclear option' involves lying and upholding a lie.

the way it works is that they 'interpret' the rules to block the filibuster.
of course the rules permit a filibuster, but the rules also permit them to interrupt a filibuster hear a motion on interpreting the rules.
the basically 'interpret' the rules to bring the filibuster to a halt. incorrectly and illegally.

but how do they resolve this sort of thing?
well, it turns out that the rules say the president of the senate (cheney) steps in a makes a decision as to the correct interpretation of the rules. he'll interpret up to mean down and claim that the rules permit them to end the filibuster.

the then have a SIMPLE MAJORITY vote on whether or not to abide by cheney's interpretation. of course the side with cheney, and the filibuster is ended.

total, 100% lying sack of shit fraud. their idea of government is "we control the senate so FUCK YOU".

via this mechanism, the controlling majority can do ANYTHING at ANYTIME.

[jfalchion]

4. Just wait

"the controlling majority can do ANYTHING at ANYTIME."

:kick:

Just wait til we get the majority back.

[unblock]

5. yeah, RIGHT

even if we DID try 1/10th the kind of crap the banana republicans try, they'd impeach every last one of us, or send us to gitmo.

whatever institutions they control will suddenly become the founder's vision of the correct ruling entity.

[mom cat]

9. We don't have to wait. We can do meticulous adherence to the rules if they

pull that shit and scream "foul" to the American people. We can shut it all down.

[rfkrfk]

3. Cheney is presiding officer of the Senate

Cheney could say, "Hey, the filibuster don't apply to judges'.
if Dems object to his ruling,
a majority vote could uphold Cheney's ruling.

[unblock]

6. thanks, said much more succinctly than i did

although i can't resist adding that the whole thing involves lying and upholding a lie.

they just make up the bu**sh** "rule" that filibusters don't apply to judges and vote to uphold that bu**sh** 'interpretation'.

[rfkrfk]

7. Cheney could make a different ruling

something like...

'it is not proper for a past 'congress number' to pass
rules in perpetutity, "since this 108th Senate has not
passed rules, the rules are vacant'

then that ruling is upheld,or not, by majority vote

[unblock]

8. for that matter, they could evict all democrats

or make a rule that, by majority vote, they vest all senate powers in the president of the senate (cheney).

[mom cat]

10. Or that only white men can serve.

[unblock]

11. they pretty much already have a "rule" for that

[mom cat]

13. Oops, How could I forget.

Must have been a senior moment.

[4nic8em]

12. How binding would such a vote be

on subsequent sessions of the senate when the senate is under a different party majority? Could such a decision now be reversed later or would it be "cast in concrete" as a standing senate rule? I'm speculating (and hoping) that if this nuclear option is invoked by the repukes, could this decision ultimately haunt them when they no longer hold senate majority? I graciously seek enlightenment from the wise ones on this forum.