Just read 2 posts/threads; Kerry to filibuster (but still

[babylonsister]

nothing in writing). :shrug:

[TayTay]

1. It's not going to come out in writing

That's an inside thing. He will be on the phone talking to other Sens and his staff will be on the phone trying to get more votes.

[babylonsister]

4. This is shades of a couple of nights ago; I think I'll just go

over there today and load up on popcorn, but the suspense is awful!
So, can he do it, Tay? How many votes does he need, and what should
we expect?
I've never paid this much attention before.

[rox63]

2. Then he'd best get back over here to the US

So he can start talking. Shall we send him enough coffee to keep him going for a while? :hangover:

[whometense]

3. hahaha

Since when did being out of the country ever keep JK off his cellphone?

Imagine his bills!!

[TayTay]

5. They don't need to do any of this stuff.

The Senate adopted a dual track approach to legislation a long time ago. A filibuster no longer occupies the time of the Senate the way it did before the rules changes that happened years and years ago. If a piece of business or legislation is blocked with a filibuster, then the Senate can just switch to another track of legislation and go forward on that. It lacks the drama of a movie filibuster, but it accomplishes the same thing.

There was never going to be talk-a-thon on the Senate floor. It's not done that way anymore. Otherwise, we would still be there talking about ANWR and that provision in the Defense Bill from Dec. It was blocked, debate was extended indefinitely (well, in a sort of virtual way) and then dropped because the 'filibuster' was accepted as real. (Which means that it was assumed that the virtual 'talk-a-thon' would be ongoing and they would never actually get to a vote because they would never actually be allowed to stop talking, virtually speaking.) So, under the new rules, if Sen. Kerry wants to filibuster, then he has to wait until Sen. Frist submits a cloture vote and then lobby for no votes on cloture. If he wins, he has 'talked' enough for a 'win,' and Judge Alito can never be confirmed because they will never stop talking about him, virtually speaking in a non-disruptive and very polite, Senate-way of doing things. (Have I ever told you that the Senate is a very weird place?)

Does this make sense?

[jillan]

6. yes - thank you teacher!

Next lesson -
then what happens? Let's say they have 41 people that vote against cloture..what's next?

[whometense]

8. The repukes

try to twist arms until they break off.

Right?? If they can't make any headway they give up and move on to a different piece of legislation. And then B***sh** sticks Alito in over the next break as a recess appointment.

[TayTay]

10. You cannot recess appoint Justices to the SCOTUS

It is not allowed. This must have a vote. That's in the Constitution.

[whometense]

12. Cool.

I did not know that.

That makes me want this even more. Stick those fingers in B***sh**'s eye.

[TayTay]

9. GW Bush has to come up with another nominee

or wait and see if the Rethugs can twist arms and so forth and call for another vote. There is another cloture vote. If enough people say, keep talking (which of course they aren't doing as there aren't any talk-a-thons anymore) then the nomination is blocked. Judge Alito cannot become Justice Alito.

Effectively, if the filibuster was sustained, Bush would be forced to pick another nominee. However, the 'nuclear otion' would be deployed by the Rethugs and then Alito would become a Justice. Sigh! Bad form upsetting Senate Rules. (They are hard enough to follow as is and often times give me a wicked headache.)

[jillan]

16. Alot of people are like me, learning as we go.

Would you be willing to explain this in GD or GDP?
We will get you on the greatest, of course.

William Pitt has everyone so excited over this.
People are running on their emotions right now.
Someone needs to snap everyone out of this, and bring them to reality.
I am afraid this is all going to backfire against Kerry. They love Kerry, and then something happens. Here he is out of the country (with Teresa;) ) and he is in the middle of a
volcano waiting to erupt!

TayTay - please?

[TayTay]

17. Sure. BTW, her eis the explanation from the Senate itself

Filibuster and Cloture
19th Century Filibuster
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

[TayTay]

20. Hey, look what I found.

Question: I've never seen a real all-night filibuster like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Why is this? Have the Senate's rules changed? Wilmington, DE - 5/3/00

The rules have not fundamentally changed, but the way the Senate's leadership responds to filibusters has. Since the 1970's, the trend has been not to retaliate against a filibuster by keeping the Senate in session all night, forcing the opponents to stay on their feet and talk until they drop. You don't see an old-fashioned on-your-feet filibuster very often because of the "dual track" system. Leaders have decided it is more efficient to get unanimous consent to "freeze" the bill that is being filibustered in place and jump to another track and process a different bill on which there is less controversy. The logic behind the practice says that taking the filibustered bill "off-stage," permits the leaders to keep the Senate's legislative agenda moving on the floor while trying to negotiate a breakthrough on the problematic bill behind the scenes. The filibustering Senator continues to get what he/she wants: a delay in the bill's consideration, if not an insurmountable barrier to its adoption. So, both sides benefit from dual-tracking. However, dual-tracking has had a converse effect as well. It has contributed to a greater number of filibusters. Senators are filibustering more frequently partly because they know a full-blown endurance contest won't develop. As time pressures build and the agenda backs-up due to an actual or threatened filibuster, the Senator conducting it hopes the leaders will be inclined to end the logjam through negotiations over the policy content of the bill in question, or decide to pull the bill off the agenda. The filibustering Senator expects to be approached by the leadership after a short time, and get offered a deal to take the controversy into the cloakrooms.

The leverage of the filibuster comes from the fact that the Senate cannot vote on a measure until all Senators refrain from seeking recognition to speak. At that point, the Chair puts the question to a vote automatically. However, as long as any Senator wishes to speak, rules mandate that he/she be recognized. So holding forth on the Senate floor prevents a vote from occurring. A filibustering Senator may not sit down, nor leave the chamber, nor yield the floor and expect to get it back. If he/she does anything to lose the floor, recognition goes to the next Senator seeking it and the agenda on the floor may change. A true filibuster is hard work. If the leadership wished to "wear down" the filibustering Senator, it could simply keep the Senate in session all day and all night until the Senator quits or until sufficient votes are found to end the filibuster through a formal process, known as "cloture." But this strategy not only "wears down" the filibusterer(s), it also wears down everyone else. Not much gets done and people just get more tired and less agreeable all around, making it that much harder to forge a consensus. So modern leaders have sought other approaches.

There have been a few recent "old-fashioned" filibusters. In 1992, Senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) filibustered a tax bill for 15 hours, 14 minutes. In 1981, then Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) filibustered a public debt ceiling limitation bill for 16 hours and 12 minutes. The all-time individual record, however, is still held by Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), who filibustered a civil rights bill in 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly19.asp

So, technically, we could 'filibuster' but effectively, that person would be stoned to death by the rest of the Senate as no one wants to do that anymore. (Seriously, Frist would keep the Senate in session all night, someone would have to talk all night and nothing would change anyway. In this type of filibuster, the fact that there are 55 Rethugs would kill you. Honestly.)

Ahm, have I ever told you that the Senate is a really, really, wicked weird place?

[jillan]

24. Are you watching Byrd?

He could do it.
I believe he could talk all nite - lol!

Are you going to post what a filibuster would really look like?
Post here if you are. I gotta get off this computer. But I will check in, and K & R if you do.

on edit-
I know that we are not suppose to do this, so sue me mods
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x249427
but here's a perfect place to post.

[TayTay]

25. Okay. But no one will listen

They will say, but he should invoke the arcane Rule 22 about unlimited time to speak and stand on the Senate floor and read names into the Congressional record. Sigh! This will accomplish nothing in this modern age.

Frist would keep the Senate open all night. The filibusterer (snark, what a word) would talk and talk and talk and then, eventually, get tired. There is no chance at all, (zero, zip, nada, none) that the purpose of this filibuster, the reconciliation of opposing sides will ever happen. (No cloakroom talks, no talks at the gym, etc are going to change people's minds on this one.) Then, once the filibusterer (really, who comes up with these words and are they in the dictionary) gave up or fell over, the vote happens and we lose. A 'real filibuster' would serve no purpose whatsoever except make one person really tired. So, they need to stir up a modern filibuster, which doesn't involve anywhere near as much effort, but does the same thing. This, JK can do from Europe. It matters not that he is over there, as far as real effect on the results.

Oh, and Sen. Byrd hurt my feelings. Those harings were nasty because Rethugs made them nasty.

[TayTay]

26. Cuz I wuvs you

A very non-partisan and informational post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x250075

[whometense]

7. Does to me.

That's what I thought, but reading some of the posts over in GD has made me wonder if I was crazy...

[rox63]

11. I know it's not done that way anymore

I was just being a smartass. :P

[TayTay]

13. It would be cool, sort of, if it was done that way.

But the country has grown too big and the business of the Senate is now just too heavy to allow real filibusters. This way is less romantic but more realistic.

[babylonsister]

14. Thanks for your explanation! Not much drama, but

it'll work (I hope!)!

[_dynamicdems]

19. He's not a coffee drinker. He's just like he is naturally. But....

Kerry on java might be kinda interesting. Fireworks like the 4th of July, no doubt!

[babylonsister]

15. It's now in writing, not just word of mouth:

More on Kerry Backing Filibuster (Democratic Daily)


More on Kerry Backing Filibuster
January 26th, 2006

As Ron just reported a short time ago, William Pitt has reported at Democratic Underground that John Kerry “is supporting a filibuster.”

I have confirmed through my sources tell me that both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy spoke up yesterday about the importance of stopping Alito. I suspected something was going down yesterday when Kerry’s floor speech got pushed back by an hour or so. There was deep frustration on the floor yesterday amongst Dems, that was clear to anyone watching the proceedings.

Word has it that the two Senators from Massachusetts, shocked those Senators who had declared that the Alito nomination was a done deal, by arguing the merits of a filibuster. They both know they face steep odds on this fight, but Kerry and Kennedy are known to work very closely together… and are not afraid to stand up.

This fight is one I feel, that we will see the sort of passion that a lot of us remember from 1971. It is clearly not over. My sources tell me that Kerry has been unequivocal and has passionately talked to colleagues — trying to get the ball rolling.

I urge everyone to stand up with Senators Kerry and Kennedy on this fight! Let them know we have their backs. Our focus is to lobby our Senators — last night I reported on the NY Times editorial calling for a filibuster… I said then “I personally can not sit back and watch this happening with out making a stand.”


http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1759

[Blaukraut]

18. blm made a good point in GD

The media and other Dems will tear JK apart for doing this. I want him to filibuster so badly, but I'm also afraid of what that will do to him :cry:

[whometense]

21. I'm really not.

I think this is really, really smart.

Far as I know, public opinion is not passionately for Alito. People are more :shrug: about him, so it's not like there's a downside for JK among the people who might support him. And he could gain a lot by sticking his neck out for the people.

I think he solidly knows that the media is not his friend. He can either roll over (not gonna happen) or fight for what he believes in. The media never has been his friend. Ever. He wins in spite of them.

[wisteria]

22. maybe some of the media is hoping for someone to save them

from themselves. As far as other Dem's, well in some cases you have to question there motives. Kerry can take the heat. I really do not think that the voters, other than the Repub base, will use this against us at election time. The people are looking for leaders- not poll watchers.

[kerrygoddess]

23. See my post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x66566