Democrats should bust out THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

[AtomicKitten]

Conservatives usher in era of unprecedented obstructionism.

This year, “Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before.” The pattern of obstructionism is demolishing previous records:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

McClatchy provides this shocking statistical analysis:



http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/21/conservatives-usher-in-era-of-unprecedented-obstructionism/

Senate tied in knots by filibusters

WASHINGTON — This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they've fallen short 22 times so far this year. That's largely why they haven't been able to deliver on their campaign promises.

By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.

This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

* snip *

From Reconstruction to 1964, the filibuster was largely a tool used by segregationists to fight civil rights legislation. Even so, filibusters were employed only rarely; there were only three during the 88th Congress, which passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 after two months of filibustering.

Filibusters were infrequent partly because the Senate custom of civility prompted consideration of minority views — and partly because they were so hard to overcome that compromises were struck. In 1917 cloture rules for ending filibusters were put in place, but required a two-thirds vote — so high it was rarely tested.

Post-Watergate, in 1975, the bar was lowered to three-fifths, or 60 votes, and leaders began to try it more often.

* snip *

The current Senate has two other complications: the 51-49 Democratic majority, which includes a pro-war independent and an absent Democrat recuperating from brain surgery, makes it harder to find 60 votes. And the presidency and Congress are controlled by opposing parties, which increases confrontation.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html

[TexasProgresive]

1. Why keep harping on this when it is impossible?

We don't have the same situation in the Sen ante that the pukes did when the threatened the nuclear option. Do you really think that Joe Lyerman is going to vote with the Dems to effect this? How many Dem Senators are there? My count is 48 with Sanders and Lyerman caucusing with the Democrats to give very slight majority.

Just stop it!

[AtomicKitten]

2. it's not only possible but has been used on several occasions

Contrary to your boorish admonition, I say START IT! ... It may be the ONLY viable way to end the war.

Nuclear option

The nuclear option, also called the "constitutional option", is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.

The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Because Senate rules require a 60-vote majority to end debate under most circumstances, a minority of 41 senators can prevent a final vote on most proposals, effectively defeating them. The practice of talking or debating on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place is known as a filibuster. A three-fifths vote, or a 60-vote majority, is required to approve cloture and end such debate. A formal change to the Senate's rules are even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 states that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

The Constitutional Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. (The constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.) A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer's ruling is upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate. The filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

[CK_John]

7. The filibuster is good thing, to keep the crazies at bay. Leave it alone. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

8. I would agree except it may be the best chance to end the war.

n/t

[CK_John]

10. What about the future, when we have only 46 or 47 in the Senate. And how will it end the war. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

11. IMO it will force a vote thereby putting the Republicans ON RECORD

as supporting their president over the troops, a dicey position for them in particular with many up for re-election in 2008. It may be simple self-preservation that will cause them to get on board getting the hell out of Iraq sooner than later.

Again, on all other issues I would agree preserving the filibuster is most certainly a good thing. However, the issue is war and death and destruction, and no amount of inclination to preserve the status quo rises as more important than that.

The Dems are left with very few legislative options that are in the least bit attractive. Their approval rating is in the teens now. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by playing hardball with the Republicans on ending this immoral, illegal, catastrophic war.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. They're ALREADY on record

as supporting the president over the troops.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I suppose it's as much about making a point

by threatening to do it, but I also think it would be advertising the resurgence of a spine if something dramatic went down as a signal that Democrats can git 'er done.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. It won't end the war...

you still need 67 to override a veto.

And, as pointed out above, we don't even have enough votes to do it.

And, as pointed out above, removing the filibuster is NOT a good thing, despite whatever short-term gain you imagine would ensue.

And, the gang of 14 would presumably still be opposed to ending it.

[AtomicKitten]

18. it would be a step in that direction

which beats the hell out of standing still with our pants down

[MonkeyFunk]

20. No

if it does absolutely nothing to end the war, it's not a step in any direction. It would just make Dems look like the power-hungry hypocrites we said the Republicans were when THEY threatened it.

and, we don't have the votes to do it.

[democratsin08]

3. its politics

we did it, they do it. we need to have a filibuster proof majority

[AtomicKitten]

4. hopefully the 2008 election will effect that majority

However, simply running out the clock on Junior's administration as a means to end the war is disgraceful. Americans vis-a-vis all the polling are clearly demanding an end to the war. Congress' approval rating is the crapper because they are perceived as not doing enough. IMO this kind of maneuvering has no down side.

[Heath Hatcher]

12. The filibuster is whats killing the Democrats

There trying there best to get stuff to get legislation done but it's the same old same old, the House passes legislation by mostly strict party line votes only to die in the Senate because bills lack GOP support to reach 60. The most important thing to do in 2008 to minimize the problem is simply elect more elect Democrats to the Senate, that way the GOP's minority clout will de deminished and we can go back to have a working Congress and not a Congress that gets halted in the Senate.

As for Congress low approval ratings well what can I say as a very loyal Democratic voter but yeah it looks bad but if you checked the gallup polls on Congressional approval ratings throughout it shows that Congress rarely breaks 50 precent approval so this is no big news to me, but it can be changed. Besides what everyone else thinks there are two issues that America is pissed at Congress for not dealing properly, Iraq and Immigration. The right is pissed that Congress didn't pass any type of immigration legislation that tightens illegal immigration and reduces any type of amnesty to the 12 millon illegals that are here. And the left is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY EXTREMELY pissed because the the party failed so far to get our troops our of Iraq.

Now as much I hate this stalemate in the Senate due to the GOP filibustering everything decent bill in plain site, I am obligated to respect. Filibustering is the right of the minority and it there last card to deal if they don't want a certain bill to pass, sadly because of our VERY strict and slim majority in the Senate the GOP has tons a clout in blocking bills they don't seem fit, what the DSCC needs to do heavily approach good Democratic candidates to run for the Senate againist Republican incumbents, it's the only way the Senate can get good work done.

Now I can be wrong on this but I don't think so.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Even if the dems

could pass their agenda with only 51 votes instead of 60, you still need 67 votes to override a veto.

It wouldn't change a damned thing.

And we don't even have 51 reliable votes. Sen. Johnson is still out, giving us 49 votes plus Bernie Sanders.

[Heath Hatcher]

I know, Democrats

Are basically a rock in a hard place right now in the Senate. Wait a minute though, I could of sworn when the President vetos a bill and if Congress wants to override it it goes back to the House and not the Senate.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. It saddens me that you think that

[Heath Hatcher]

19. I know, Democrats

Are basically a rock in a hard place right now in the Senate. Wait a minute though, I could of sworn when the President vetos a bill and if Congress wants to override it it goes back to the House and not the Senate.

[AtomicKitten]

16. well that makes sense

I'm pretty much spinning my wheels out of frustration.

[Heath Hatcher]

22. You don't think i'm frustrated too?

I'm sick and tired of everytime the Democrats try to pass legislation it either dies in the Senate or a swipe of the President's veto pen and it's everything from ending the war, to student loan bills, DC vote representation bill even a bill to give the military a raise.

God I can't stand the GOP, nothing but people trying to destroy this country.

[rucky]

5. Look out, Barry Bonds!

they're gonna break the record before you do!

[stillcool]

6. I found this to be nicely written history...

of the 'Nuclear/Constitutional Option". http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Recent articles narrowly focus on the judicial confirmation hearings and the Congress' role in advise and consent. It's a pleasure to read something sans the shrieking heated rhetoric of these times. The shrieking rhetoric of history is not nearly as disturbing.

[AtomicKitten]

9. bookmarked

thanks for this interesting read

[Nutmegger]

23. R&K. [n\t]