Reviving the Dems: Is the Rep method of ending the filibuster illegal?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.alternet.org/story/31442/

<edit>

Obviously a vote to end a filibuster could itself be filibustered. But the Republicans insisted they had found a way around this obstacle. They would change the rules via a simple parliamentary maneuver. It was unclear whether such a maneuver was feasible. But here's how the Republicans envisioned it working.

Republicans would assert that further debate on a specific judicial nominee is not in order. Under Senate rules, such points of order are not usually debatable. The presiding officer of the Senate, either Dick Cheney or Sen. Ted Stevens would rule in favor of the Republicans. The Democrats would appeal the ruling. The Republicans would move to table that appeal. That motion also would be nondebatable and subject to a simple majority vote. When passed, any further debate on that nominee would be cut off.

Some legal observers wondered whether the parliamentary strategy was legal. As Jeffrey Toobin noted in The New Yorker, a parliamentary vote to call the question and end debate requires a two-thirds majority under "Robert's Rules of Order." Thus resorting to a parliamentary maneuver might result in an actual increase in the number of votes needed to cut off debate.

<edit>

Indeed, engaging in a filibuster is an absolute minimum requirement for political viability among Senate Democrats. Filibusters can be broken. It's time to threaten, as Sen. Reid did before the Democrats' Day of Infamy, to use other parliamentary maneuvers to close down the Senate if the Republicans force a vote on Alito.

But the day after senators Kennedy and Kerry announced their intention to filibuster, Sen. Reid meekly (dare I say cowardly) insisted, "We've debated this long enough."

more...

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. The Dems will probably win decisively in the 2006 elections.

Nobody likes a bully, and if the Republicans do what you suggest, two things will happen: It will convince the public that the balance of power is too out of kilter. But, once the Dems are in office, the public will probably look the other way as the Democrats resort to the same bully tactics to do such things as put liberal judges on the bench using the same nuclear options that the Republicans are threatening the Dems with today.

I know that the Republican voter is prepared for a Democratic backlash and they welcome it. They want a natural end to this imbalance of power. I, personally, didn't want to hear what they had to say, because they implied that these imbalances are good for a short run, but now they don't want it to last because there's been too much negative byproducts coming out of the Bush Administration. Like outsourcing or open immigration borders. It's not what they expected. They thought it would be all cream, but the benefits haven't trickled down far enough.

[no_more_rhyming]

2. The Republicans will be very quick

to point out that the nulear option is absolutely necessary to stop the childish DEM obstruction of a perfectly qualified justice. They won't be viewed as the bully and the MSM will see to it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. The NYT and the Washington Post look like they're being honest

about the polls and the polls say the public is overwhelmingly in favor of a filibuster.

The Republicans and the MSM have, in the past, miscalculated the public's opinions. They did with the Schiavio case, and if I recall, there was a badly calculated risk that occurred during the Newt Gingrich era. Someone closed Congress down, and the Democrats were supported, whatever it was they did.

[Lasher]

5. The government shutdowns occurred a decade ago

The first shutdown lasted only from November 14 (1995) to 19, ending with Republicans accepting a meaningless commitment from Clinton to balance the budget so long as all of his "priorities," like Medicare, were protected. When that agreement fell apart, the Republicans shut down the government again from December 17 to January 6 (1996). The second shutdown ended shortly after Bob Dole, realizing that the Republicans couldn’t win and eager to get out on the campaign trail, took to the Senate floor to call for the government to be reopened.

And that was that.

For better or worse, it was the end of the Gingrich Revolution. From that point on, the Republicans would play timid, fighting weakly or not at all for their ideals, and Clinton would play bold, co-opting the GOP’s most popular issues while dodging bullets like Neo in The Matrix. Less than three weeks after the shutdown ended, Clinton announced in his State of the Union Address that “the era of big government is over.” By August, he had ended welfare as we knew it.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120705D

Clinton won, repukes lost.

[Lasher]

4. Welcome to DU, Rhyming!

I think you and Cometh are both right - some would see it as you say, and others would resent the repukes if they exercise their nuclear option. I believe the net result would be unfavorable for them, however. For this reason, I hope we filibuster and I hope repukes thwart it with their little scheme.

Nothing is as important as regaining control of Congress this year.