As far as a Senate Majority goes; we're not out of the woods yet. Here's why:

[cali]

The organizing vote is scheduled to be held on January 4th. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that Senator Johnson will not be present. No problem, right? We've still got 50 votes to their 49.

Not so fast.

Republicans could filibuster the organizing resolution. If they do so, although Reid would be Senate Majority Leader, it would be in name only. Republicans would continue holding the committee chairmanships until the whole mess was resolved.

Would they do such a thing? You can come to your own conclusion.

[LSparkle]

1. Maybe that's why Reid is visiting him in the hospital

To make sure that Johnson would vote for Reid (and get witnesses to this if he's conscious). Someone posted that Strom Thurmond's aides routinely voted for him -- someone could do the same on Johnson's behalf presumably?

[Jack from Charlotte]

26. A few years ago the senator from California, Pete someone, was carried into the senate..

on a stretcher for a close vote. Was about 10 years ago.

I'd expect that would occur if needed with Johnson.

[Bumblebee]

They won't. They cannot afford to diminish their standing with the populace any lower

and this would be a very unpopular move with very little to gain.

[dysfunctional press]

2. i doubt that even they would do that...

it would DEFINITELY be seen as subverting the will of the voters- and they know that it would/could/should lead to even greater voter payback in the next election.

and it wouldn't gain them anything, as it is inevitable that the Dems will be in control shortly.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. I'm not sure

organizing votes can be filibustered. In fact, if that were the case, why wouldn't the minority party ALWAYS filibuster the organizing vote?

edit: typo

[MonkeyFunk]

4. it appears

that an organizing vote can NOT be filibustered.

http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html


"The filibuster is a U. S. Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely."

[cali]

8. Unfortunately an organizing resolution can indeed

be filibustered.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/se.04.html

[cali]

12. More:

"Senator Daschle warns that it would be "very inappropriate" for the GOP to filibuster an organizing resolution. But that's not what he said a few months ago. Back on November 14, Mr. Daschle was already warning that unless Democrats got the power-sharing their new numbers warranted "we will have total legislative chaos." Other Democrats also openly talked about filibustering for a share of power."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000552

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Sorry Cali

in the first article you reference, the word "filibuster" was used by the questioner, not Sen. Daschle. And it was in the context of various maneuvers:

"And, if the Republicans choose to oppose or block it with some maneuver, whether it's a filibuster or not..."

The second article you link to doesn't quote Daschle himself using the word. The only words he uses are "very inappropriate". I'd need to see the entire quote from Daschle - it could well be that the reporter was unaware of the Senate rules.

[cali]

18. OK, Here's more documentation that a

resolution can be filibustered. First from the NYT:

That resolution is subject to filibuster, and if Republicans refused to adopt it on grounds that Johnson is incapacitated and incompetent to fulfill his duties, the chamber would be at a standstill. At the same time, only Johnson himself — or his family, acting under a power of attorney — could resign his seat, creating a vacancy that South Dakota’s Republican governor would fill. A Republican successor would create a 50-50 tie, giving the GOP operational control as a result of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/12/14/cq_2040.html


From Bob Geiger:

The membership in Senate committees is decided at the start of every Congress with a haggled-out thing called an "organizing resolution." The entire Senate votes on it and it usually passes by unanimous consent. Organizing resolutions can also happen when party shake-ups occur in the middle of a Congress, like when Vermont's Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP in 2001.

To give Joe his well-deserved comeuppance by taking him off committees and effectively making him the most junior member of the Senate, Reid would have to formally propose an amendment to the current organizing resolution, manage to get it to a vote and then get every Democrat and a handful of Republicans to vote for a new committee organization sans Lieberman. If Majority Leader Bill Frist decided to filibuster Reid's action, 60 votes would be

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/08/reporting-accurately-on-reids-options.html

Sorry, but an organizing resolution can absolutely be filibustered.

[cali]

5. Because they don't stand a chance of prevailing

in most situations. They do in this one, if Sen. Johnson's recovery looks iffy.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. No

it has to do with the Senate rules.

Only bills and nominations can be filibustered. The organizing vote is neither.

[cali]

10. Not according

to Senator Daschle and many other sources.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Well

I'd need to see something more reliable than the sources you provided above.

Neither of them quote Daschle using the word "filibuster".

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Well

Cali, there certainly doesn't seem to be a simple answer. I'm looking all over, and can't find a simple, declarative answer one way or the other.

But if it WERE available, why wouldn't Republicans have done when Jefford's switched parties and a new organizing resolution needed to be negotiated? I never heard even the threat of a filibuster.

But the Senate Rules are so arcane, I suspect only Senator Byrd knows the answer to this off the top of his head.

It's a fun discussion, but sort of esoteric: it's not going to happen.

[cali]

22. MonkeyFunk,

Please see me post #21, in which I post a story from Time that refers to the Jeffords situation back in 2001. It is sort of an esoteric discussion but it's clear that the resolution can be filibustered.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Again, Cali

that only shows a reporter speculating about a filibuster, not any Senators.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not convinced it's possible. I can't find one instance of any republican threatening a filibuster in 2001, nor can I find an instance of a democrat fearing one. All your links refer to reporters speculating about it, and in fact, the reporter in your post #21 got such basic facts wrong, that I'm sure he's not familiar with the more arcane rules of the Senate.

[napi21]

7. Can a Senator cast a vote remotely?

As I understand,Johnson is awake andaware right now. January 4th is3 weeks away, and lots of healing & improvement canhappen between now and then. Does he actually HAvR to be present in the Senate Chamber to cast his vote?

[MonkeyFunk]

9. No

no remote votes.

A senator must be in the chamber. That's why they carried Strom Thurmond in on a hospital gurney once.

[LSparkle]

11. Thanks for clarifying that -- get that gurney ready for Johnson!

[napi21]

20. HAHA! You beat me to it! I was going to say the same thing!

Find a safe way to get Johnson into that Chamber!

[sharp_stick]

15. Maybe catkiller Frist was onto something

I'm starting to see the need for the nuclear option. ;-)

[earthlover]

17. not logical!

Let's take the grand assumption that the Repukes could indeed filibuster this. I kinda doubt it, but for the sake of arguement let's make this assumption.

Then what difference would 51 or 50 Democratic votes mean? It still takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. Do the math. Dems would not have the votes to stop a filibuster either way!

Come on. The Repukes would, if they tried such a manuever--makes no difference whether Johnson votes--they would evoke massive public scorn.

I would say, if the Repukes indeed did this, they would humiliate themselves worse than when they tried to shut down the government in the 90s.

Another point...before we spend a lot of energy debating the what ifs, would it not be more prudent to actually find out if a filibuster could be invoked in the first place?

[cali]

21. I've posted plent of documentation on this thread

that a filibuster can be invoked on an organizing resolution, and here's a link to a story from Time/CNN'

<snip>

Even if Johnson ultimately recovers from the congenital blood disorder known as arteriovenous malformation, which required emergency surgery Wednesday night, it now looks highly unlikely that he will healthy by Jan. 4. With Johnson unable to vote, Democrats still have enough to prevail, with 50 votes (including the two independent Senators, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) to 49 for the Republicans. But Democrats now fear the real possibility that Republicans will filibuster that resolution. They could insist — just as the Democrats did after the 2000 election that left the chamber evenly split, with Vice President Dick Cheney as the tie-breaker — on an "out clause" that stipulates that control of the chamber goes to them if they somehow manage to achieve a majority during the course of the session. As both sides remember, that clause came in handy for the Democrats a few months later, when Vermont's Jim Jeffords abruptly declared himself an independent and gave the Democrats a one-vote majority.

The same thing could happen again, in a Senate currently split 51-49 in favor of the Democrats, if Johnson or any other Democrat were to be replaced by a Republican. In Johnson's case, that would appear likely, because his replacement would be named by a Republican governor. State law requires that Gov. Michael Rounds make a "temporary appointment, until a special election is held" — though it is unclear whether that election would occur before Johnson's term expires in 2008.

If the Republicans filibuster the organizing resolution and the question drags on into January or even beyond, it presents another truly extraordinary possibility: a chamber with a new Democratic leader, but the existing set of Republican committee chairmen. That is because, until an organizing resolution is passed, incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid would have no control over the committees.

The question of who runs the committees could have major policy implications. If Republicans took over, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, would most likely be Arizona Republican John McCain, who advocates more troops in Iraq. If the Democrats retain control, it would be Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, who is arguing for a plan that would reduce the number there.

<snip>

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569727,00.html

[MonkeyFunk]

23. well

that's a reporter talking, not anybody "in the know".

The same reporter also says "... it is unclear whether that election would occur before Johnson's term expires in 2008."

Well, first off, of course any election would be held before the term expires. Second, the term expires in 2009, not 2008. And when the election is held is NOT unclear - it's very clear it occurs in November, 2008.

So if he got three simple things wrong in one clause, I don't have faith in his knowledge of the more arcane rules of Senate procedure.

And, as has been pointed out above, 50 votes vs. 51 vote would have no effect on the ability to filibuster.

[tritsofme]

19. There was talk in the pundit class that Democrats may do this in 2003

At the commencement of the 108th Congress.

GOP talking heads ran around decrying a Democratic "coup d’état" and discussion of it ceased.

Was there ever really plan for this to happen? I doubt it.

This would be the ultimate nuclear option, and I just don't see it happening.

[Mass]

25. A filibuster can be organized whether Johnson is there or not.

(and could be won at any time. Short of having 60+ Democrats in the Senate, it is a risk).

However, if they were doing that, the Republicans would look like obstructionists that prevent the country business. My bet is that they will not. Senators with presidential ambitions will push people to move on and vote the organization of the Senate.