Has anyone seen any Republican "filibusters" on the C-Span Senate channel?

[Better Believe It]

I've been looking for the "pretend we are filibustering" filibusters, threats to engage in a fake procedural filibusters, threats to organize real Senate floor filibusters, a phantom filibusters, real filibusters on the Senate floor, a written notices of intent to filibuster, a non-filibuster filibuster.

So far I haven't seen any.

So what filibusters have I missed on C-Span?

-------------------------------------

Call Their Bluff: The Case for Letting Republicans Filibuster
By Jay Michaelson
Columnist, activist and recent professor at Boston University law school
February 22, 2010

Nearly one year ago, political scientist David RePass argued, in the New York Times, that the Democrats should call the Republican Senators' bluff and let them filibuster, live on C-SPAN, against health care reform and the other initiatives that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. RePass argued convincingly that allowing Republicans to merely threaten a filibuster creates what he called a "phantom filibuster," effectively requiring a supermajority for any legislation to be passed, subverting the democratic process.

Why not, then, revisit RePass's proposal to let the Republicans filibuster, for all Americans to see? Bring the bills to the floor, and let the Senatorial BS-ing begin.

The first and most obvious consequence of this tactic would be to expose the Republican minority for what they are: obstructionists. Of course, there are principled differences on issues such as health care reform. But it's obvious now that the Republicans are filibustering for the sake of filibustering. As their intellectual (sic) leader, Rush Limbaugh, has articulated, their interest is in seeing the President fail. Tying up Congress is a great way to do it.

So far, the tactic is working. Increasing majorities of Americans believe that government is broken, or Congress is ineffective. This view is missing some important verbs. Government is being broken by a minority of Senators, and Congress is being rendered ineffective by their tactics. Showcasing the filibuster for all to see would be a great way to make that plain.

Second, filibusters are not actually that easy to maintain. All the filibustering Senators must be present at all times. Speakers cannot stop speaking. Even bathroom breaks must be carefully coordinated. This is why most filibusters eventually get broken. If the Senate health care bill were brought to the floor right now, it would most likely pass, eventually. Yes, it would take a considerable amount of time and political courage, but it would probably happen. At the very least, it would create a sense of urgency behind the bipartisan healthcare "summit" scheduled for this week.

Third, allowing the Republicans to filibuster in this way is an excellent opportunity to recall previous filibusters, such as the three-week delay (by a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Anyone who thinks that the filibuster is a proud defense against tyranny (like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) could be treated to a quick history lesson in how it was used to maintain segregation.

The anti-democracy of the filibuster is even more acute when one remembers that, as described by Richard Rosenfeld back in 2004, "senators from the 26 smallest states, representing a mere 18 percent of the nation's population, hold a majority in the United States Senate." This anti-democracy is, of course, a principle of federalism, but it is a principle gone awry. When the Senate was created as part of the "Great Compromise," the largest state (Virginia) had 12 times the population of the smallest (Delaware). Today, the ratio (between California and Wyoming) is 70 to 1.

Now, as Mike Lux reminded us here in the HuffPo, "the ten largest states are home to over half the country's population but represent only 20% of the Senate; the 21 smallest states together have less total population than California does." These wild disproportions are not at all what the Founders intended, and a gross distortion of the federalism they created. Changing the Constitution may be close to impossible, but showing the effects of minority abuse of the rules is not.

Allowing the filibuster to proceed would bring these statistics out of the wonky closet and into the network-news light. Ordinary Americans would see that a handful of millionaires, representing a tiny minority of the US population, are holding up nearly every major initiative of the overwhelming majority. If government is broken, these are the people breaking it. Let the American people see them.

Read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-michaelson/call-their-bluff-the-case_b_471721.html

[Bitwit1234]

1. AND have you heard about any of the filbusters in the MSM

NO NO NO....but when Brown and the other republicans voted to allow the jobs to get to the floor of the senate the media went over board about THE REPUBLICANS VILIFYING them. If they were doing what they should do, they would show, at least a clip, of the filbusters, so the American public would see what they buttholes are doing. I wish there was some law that could require at least 8 hours of honest truthful news from any cable or network that had a license to broadcast.

[Better Believe It]

2. It's impossible to show a clip of filibusters on the Senate floor when none are taking place.

The problem is most Senate Democrats seem to favor current Senate procedures that permit a Republican to leave the Senate chamber and on the way out tell Senator Reid that they are filibustering while they head off to some fancy 5 star hotel room with a corporate paid for hooker! These are called "procedural filibusters".

"Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken."

"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses."

These are the "phantom" Republican filibusters we've read about but can never see on C-Span. So let's stop calling them filibusters!

Senate Democrats can at anytime end the "two track" procedure in Senate debates.

"Tracking allows the majority leader - with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader - to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. With a two-track system, the Senate simply puts aside the filibustered measure and moves on to other legislation."

And Senate Democrats can at anytime use the "Constitutional Option" to stop any bogus "filibusters" dead in its tracks.

Quotes are taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[notadmblnd]

3. I watched Racheal Maddow last night

she said that there are over 200 bills being hed up in the Senate. Not by the repukes using the filibuster, but by simply threatening to use it. I don't know why Dems won't get some nads and call the asses on their bluff?