Can someone knowledgeable about Filibuster/Cloture blahblah answer a question?

[Bonobo]

Please?
Is this what happened today: The Dems fail to get enough votes, as they say, to get a cloture vote (60, right?) and then they just give up and say that the repubs 'filibustered'... Is that what happened?

I mean... is my understanding correct here that when they fail to get 60 votes on a divisive issue or fail to get votes for cloture, then they sort of just "assume" that a filibuster would take place and they would be blocked on passing the bill. Is that a correct understanding?

More questions to follow, but I don't want to complicate the main question.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Yes. The Democrats aren't forcing Republicans to talk...

...and talk to block the bill. They're just accepting the filibuster-call and moving on.

[Bonobo]

3. Okay, that is what I thought. Next question if you please:

I believe it is also true that the majority party is the one to decide what bills to bring before the senate. Correct?

If so, wouldn't the correct course of strategy be to, when we have a politically-winning bill like the Webb Amendment which is clearly Pro-Troop, wouldn't the best thing be to keep bringing that bill and that bill alone to the floor?

In doing so, wouldn't we make it clear to everyong that it is THEY that are the obstructionists? As things stand now, the NYT gets away with dumb headlines like "Dems fail to get enough votes", but the fact is it is, was, and always has been 50 VOTES that get the law passed and we need to start driving this fucking boat!

Am I wrong?

Make the old bastards talk all night long if they don't want our troops to get some time with their families!

[Eric J in MN]

7. Harry Reid forced the Republicans to stay up one night in July.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/16/reid-filibuster/

[Bonobo]

8. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Republicans forced the Dems

to stay up all night.

That is sort of my point too.

The press stated it the wrong way around. It was the Pukes being FORCED to do an actual real filibuster, yes, but it was just that, a filibuster -and so it was the Pukes that forced everyone to stay up all night because they were obstructing the passing of a bill that the majority wanted.

Isn't this correct? Someone please tell me if I am wrong. I want to know.

[rodeodance]

2. If not get 60 votes a bill can NOT be brought to the floor for a straight up

or down vote.


There is no option at that point.

Oh, Reid could try to get 60 votes on the same bill tomorrow-should he try? Maybe.

[Bonobo]

5. I think we need to force our reps to do this or threaten to abandon them.

[jobycom]

4. Pretty much.

It used to be procedure to make someone carry on the filibuster, but that was just a formality. The basics are that the floor is given to someone to speak, and that speaker refuses to yield the floor, so the item can't be brought to a vote. In the House, there are time limits on how long someone can speak, so there can't be a filibuster.

Even though the speaker has the floor, and thus the original vote can't be called until he or she yields it, procedural objections can be raised and introduced to a vote, which is why a Cloture Vote can be introduced. But Parliamentary Rule creates a pyramid, in which the last vote called for has to be held first, so a cloture vote has to be held before any previous business can be addressed. If the cloture vote fails, then the floor is returned to the original speaker, who still does not have to yield, so the previous vote can't be held.

To make matters easier, sometimes the Chair just tables or withdraws (I forget all the proper terminology) the original bill once a cloture has failed, since there is no point in just listening to someone babble. However, if the Chair believes that a cloture vote will succeed given more time, he or she may let the filibuster continue until they can get the votes. Also, sometimes it's just good theater for one side or the other. The filibusterers want to show their fans they are fighting the tough battle, and the majority wants to show that the other side is being unreasonable. So in that case they would also allow the filibuster to go on for a while.

[Bonobo]

6. Wow, I will need to read that like 10 times more to understand it all.

You should write a FAQ for all of us!

Parliamentary Rules for Dummies or something.

Please?

[jobycom]

9. I'm not that good at it anymore.

I served briefly as a parliamentarian for a small but officious group, so I learned a bit. But it's not the type of thing I've worried my pretty little brain over since then.

I just did a bit more research, though, and found something interesting. In the fifties, Lyndon Johnson defeated a filibuster by not allowing any other legislation to follow the Civil Rights Bill. Strom Thurmond announced he would filibuster the bill, and LBJ announced he would not allow any further legislation until the bill was voted on. Because of this, there was no other legislation to consider, eventually the opponents talked themselves out, and the bill was voted on and passed.

I don't think that's possible with an amendment, since the bill it is amending would already be introduced. Also, if the bill would be passed even without the amendment, continuing the filibuster also holds up the original bill. This may not be desirable.

The Chair can require that the filibuster be actually held, rather than just allowing the bill to be withdrawn. It's just not done as often anymore. But Reid could, for instance, refuse to allow any other bills to be introduced, and require that the other party actually hold the filibuster. Eventually--maybe weeks later--each opponent speaks himself or herself out (once each has spoken, they don't get to start over), and that would end the filibuster, and a vote would be called. That's what LBJ did for the CRA.

Now, keep in mind how useless and potentially damaging that could be in the wrong situation. First, the bill has to pass the House, and then be signed by the president, before it's law, and if the majority can't win a cloture vote (needing 60 votes), they aren't likely to get the 67 to override the veto. Meanwhile, no legislation can be passed. That may sound nice, but there are necessary bills of a routine nature that would also be halted, so there's no telling what all would wind up shutting down. That may be a worthwhile price to pay if the bill is going to pass, but if it's just a symbolic gesture in the Senate for a bill that wouldn't pass the House or would be vetoed by the president, it may not be worth it.

Reid does a hell of a lot more than people realize. :)

[Bonobo]

10. Thank you very much.

You confirmed much of what I thought with your post. I want to address this part of your post, if I may, because that is exactly what I think Reid should do, with some vital bill, perhaps one which demanded withdrawal. Why not go for it all?:

"Now, keep in mind how useless and potentially damaging that could be in the wrong situation. First, the bill has to pass the House, and then be signed by the president, before it's law, and if the majority can't win a cloture vote (needing 60 votes), they aren't likely to get the 67 to override the veto. Meanwhile, no legislation can be passed. That may sound nice, but there are necessary bills of a routine nature that would also be halted, so there's no telling what all would wind up shutting down. That may be a worthwhile price to pay if the bill is going to pass, but if it's just a symbolic gesture in the Senate for a bill that wouldn't pass the House or would be vetoed by the president, it may not be worth it."

I think that this "gentlemen's agreement" to not ACTUALLY force anyone to do the hard work of a filibuster is one of the problems. Another one is this mentality of "we might as well not push because we don't have the votes to overturn a veto". This kind of giving up before the actual end of the race leads to inaction on our part. We wind up losing and looking weak ALL the time. I think we NEED to force Bush to veto a bill like that. Put his ass on the line, in front of the people. What about a bill to raise the troops pay? Let Bush veto them babies!

I guess I am saying I really think we need to take them hard to the mat. Hard. To the mat. We've got to squessze every bit of juice out of the slim majority we have. The people of this country are on our side too! Fuck!



;( :puke: :rant: