Senate Democrats: You can repeal DADT with just 51 votes so do it! No more excuses for inaction.

[Better Believe It]

Or only 50 votes with the tie-breaker being cast by Vice-President Biden.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

[Renew Deal]

1. Please explain how that is possible

[spanone]

2. after the pentagon report, there is no excuse. period.

[Better Believe It]

3. No problem. This was done when Democrats forced a real Republican filibuster last March

All real filibusters end. That one against an extension of unemployment benefits ended after less than 24 hours.

After a filibuster ends you proceed to an up and down majority vote under Senate rules.

Here's the facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9665634

[karynnj]

4. The "real" filibuster was different -

ONE Senator put a hold on the bill - and that ended.

On this, the DADT rule is in the defense budget and it needs 60 votes to proceed. I assume that Biden and Levin know Senate rules WAY better than you do.

[Better Believe It]

5. The Senate has the right to change their rules at anytime under the Constitution.

Biden and Levin are also aware of that.

[alfredo]

7. Only at the beginning of a new congress. What if the

Reps gain control in a few years, do you want to do without the filibuster?

[Better Believe It]

8. That's not correct. The Senate has the right to change their rules at anytime,

including the rule indicating they can change rules only at the beginning of a new session.



Government running to stand still
By Clive Crook
February 14, 2010

Barack Obama’s ambitions to pass ground-breaking laws on healthcare and climate change have so far come to nothing. A second economic stimulus had seemed to be moving forward, but also now looks in trouble. Democrats occupy the White House and have big majorities in Congress, yet cannot get anything done. Why the paralysis?

Partly because the country views all these initiatives with suspicion. But one key factor is an anomalous institutional constraint: the Senate’s filibuster rule, which turns the Democrats’ 59-41 majority in the upper house into a de facto minority. Liberal commentators view this rule with splenetic fury, and one can see why. It makes America ungovernable, they say. We should get rid of it.

The interesting thing is that they could. Contrary to the belief of many Americans, the filibuster rule – which requires 60 senators to support “cloture”, thus bringing a measure under consideration to a vote – is not in the constitution. Getting rid of it does not require a constitutional amendment, which is a demanding process. The Senate could do this at its own initiative. Not only that, it could do it by simple majority vote.

Like most things on Capitol Hill, the process would be somewhat convoluted. A different Senate rule says that a supermajority in the chamber is needed to change Senate rules. Democrats would first have to revoke that rule, before moving on to the filibuster rule. The question is whether the change to the rule about changing rules would itself be constitutional, if it were passed only by a simple majority. The answer is that it would be.

Under the constitution, this is a matter of internal procedure, for the Senate to decide. If it chooses, it can impose on itself restrictions like the filibuster rule or the rule-making rule. But it can also subsequently remove them: otherwise, any one Senate might bind its successors in perpetuity. There is nothing in the constitution to say that changes to the rule-making rule need a supermajority.

Read the full article at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5261ee22-199b-11df-af3e-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F5261ee22-199b-11df-af3e-00144feab49a.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D389x7714662#axzz16tOWyjET

- I don't agree with some of the political views of the author expressed in the article, however, he does explain how Senate Democrats can change Senate rules and end fake Republican procedural "filibusters" with a simple majority vote.
BBI

[Ozymanithrax]

12. It is not according to the Constitution, but it is in the Senate rules...

and they have the constitutional power to set the rules as they see fit (Article I | LII). That is in the Constitution and everything.

At the beginning of new congress, they only need a simple majority to change Senate rules. Once accepted, it requires a super majority to change senate rules. So, once the 112th Congress begins, without a super majority, Senate rules won't change.

Yes, they could use the nuclear option, and take that rule to the SCOTUS and ask the SCOTUS to determine if the rule is constitutional. This threat was made once in the 70's, when they last changed rule 22. The Republican's raised the specter of the Nuclear Option again in 2002, and the Democrats agreed to be less confrontational with filibusters rather than lose the filibuster all together.

It is a misnomer to say they can change the rules any time they want. It just doesn't work that way.

[Better Believe It]

14. And what do you think is preventing the Senate from changing its rules at anytime they want?

A previous rule?

Well, that can be easily changed with a simple majority vote and a favorable ruling from the President of the Senate

And Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can also rule that only 51 Senate votes are required to end filibusters.

If Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above options whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing these options. By BBI.


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

During the filibuster, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as President of the Senate, ruled that the debate over a rule change could be ended with a simple majority. Mansfield opposed Rockefeller's ruling and introduced a motion that was quickly tabled, 51-42, thus endorsing the majoritarian decision of Rockefeller. Conservatives were outraged and Mansfield, Byrd, and Minority Leader Robert Griffin attempted to overturn the precedent. Ultimately a proposal by Sen. Russell Long to change the cloture limit to 3/5 for two years and then revert back to the original 2/3 limit led to a compromise between the two factions to overcome Rockefeller's ruling.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Filibuster


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



The Case for Busting the Filibuster
By Thomas Geoghegan
This article appeared in the August 31, 2009 edition of The Nation.

In 1975 Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, in his role as president of the Senate, ruled that just fifty-one senators could vote to get rid of the filibuster entirely. A simple majority of liberals could now force change on a frightened old guard. But instead of dumping the filibuster once and for all, the liberals, unsure of their support, agreed to a "reformed" Rule 22. It was this reform that, by accident, turned the once-in-a-blue-moon filibuster into something that happens all the time. The idea was to reduce the votes needed to cut off debate from sixty-seven, which on the Hill is a big hill to climb, to just sixty. Liberals like Walter Mondale wanted to make it easier to push through civil rights and other progressive legislation. What's the harm in that?

The only problem is that, because the filibuster had rendered the chamber so laughable, with renegade members pulling all-nighters and blocking all the Senate's business, the "reformers" came up with a new procedural filibuster--the polite filibuster, the Bob Dole filibuster--to replace the cruder old-fashioned filibuster of Senate pirates like Strom Thurmond ("filibuster" comes from the Dutch word for freebooter, or pirate). The liberals of 1975 thought they could banish the dark Furies of American history, but they wound up spawning more demons than we'd ever seen before. Because the senators did not want to be laughed at by stand-up comedians, they ended their own stand-up acts with a rule that says, essentially:

"We aren't going to let the Senate pirates hold up business anymore. From now on, if those people want to filibuster, they can do it offstage. They can just file a motion that they want debate to continue on this measure indefinitely. We will then put the measure aside, and go back to it only if we get the sixty votes to cut off this not-really-happening debate."

In other words, the opposing senators don't have the stomach to stand up and read the chicken soup recipes. We call it the "procedural" filibuster, but what we really mean is the "pretend" filibuster.

http://www.thenation.com/article/case-busting-filibuster

[alfredo]

16. Can the Reps filibuster that or put a hold on it?

[Better Believe It]

18. No. Not if the President of the Senate rules against them.

Republicans can appeal Vice-President Biden's rulings, unless Biden's declares that to be out of order, but would need 51 votes with Biden's approval.

It's called playing hardball.

It's what Republicans do.

Republicans could also appeal to the Senate Parliamentarian but the parliamentarian can only advise the Senate and can't rule on Senate procedures.

[alfredo]

22. We need to make it a rule that the minority leader needs to

be present during the filibuster.

[Better Believe It]

9. The Republicans will stop Democratic "procedural" filibusters if they win a Senate majority in 2012

They won't need an excuse. They'll just change the Senate rules. It's not hard to do that at all. In 2005 Senate Republicans merely threatened to use the Constitutional (nuclear) Option to prevent a filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court appointments. In response to that threat, Democratic Senate leaders surrendered the right to filibuster against Bush's nominees. Have we forgotten that?

The Republicans will stop any Democratic "procedural" filibusters that threatends to stop their reactionary legislative agenda should they win control of the Senate in 2012. They play hardball. They are not afraid to use their power. They won't bluff.

If necessary, the Republicans will get a ruling from their Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal or appointment and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

They were not afraid to do that in 2005 when they had a small majority in the Senate and they are even less likely in the future to hesitate in using their Senate power to end real or threatened Democratic procedural filibusters.

Meanwhile, it seems that far too many Democrats would once again rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate than use their majority power to run the Senate.

And voters will remember that in 2012.

[karynnj]

13. Other than before a Congress - ie soon, you need 67 votes to change rules

mid session.

[Renew Deal]

11. I guess something more needed to be said.

:shrug:

[Unvanguard]

24. Jim Bunning was ONE SENATOR who refused to accede to unanimous consent.

So, when the Democrats tried to get unanimous consent to get unemployment benefits passed, he had to actually be there to object.

The same is not true for a Republican-wide filibuster of motions to proceed. All they need is one Senator to repeatedly object, and cloture votes--which need sixty, however many "No" votes there are--to repeatedly fail. The rest of the Republican Senators can go off somewhere else if they like; it's the Democrats who would have to stay there forever. Don't forget that as far as the Republicans are concerned, the Senate could do nothing the rest of this lame-duck session; they will begin the next Congress in an even stronger position.

[alfredo]

6. McConnell has just threatened to stop all votes unless they

get their way.

[Better Believe It]

10. Really! Well break out the cots, don't break for Christmas and make the rats filibuster!

Democrats!

Don't continue acting like wimps!

Voters don't like whiny, sniveling, weak politicians.

[alfredo]

15. I think they ought to change the filibuster rules so that

if you want to filibuster you have to do it old school.

[BzaDem]

17. At least you acknowledge that the rules have to be changed to force them to do it old school.

The OP still posts and posts and posts saying that the rules as currently written allow Democrats to force Republicans to endlessly talk. But it doesn't become any less false on the 100th time than it did on the 1st.

[Better Believe It]

19. That's not correct. Senate rules were not changed to force a real Republican filibuster in March

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9665634

[BzaDem]

20. That was not a filibuster.

That was one Senator denying unanimous consent requests every so often and otherwise saying nothing. A filibuster is when people have to talk.

Nice try though :)

[Better Believe It]

25. Senate Democrats say they forced a Republican filibuster. But they are wrong and you are right?

Here's the articles. If you are still confused by the articles words or believe that you know more about what happened on the Senate floor than Democratic Senators on that day let us all know.

I'll try to help you.

Democrats May Force All-Night Session
By John Stanton
March 2, 2010

Democrats are hoping to turn the procedural tables on Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and use Senate rules to break his blockade against an extension of unemployment insurance, including possibly forcing a round-the-clock session.

Although no final decisions have been made, Democrats confirmed it is increasingly likely that Democrats will force Bunning into an actual filibuster of unemployment insurance extension Tuesday night by repeatedly offering up unanimous consent agreements to bring the bill to a vote.

Although Members often threaten actual filibusters, they rarely materialize. Instead, lawmakers tend to rely on “Cadillac filibusters,” essentially stalling procedures that can be used to block legislation without having to actually stay put on the Senate floor.

Democrats on Tuesday signaled they have the resolve to remain in session throughout the night to force Bunning to abandon his cause. The American people “want an end to these games. And I hope that today we’ll see the end. If we don’t, we’re going to have to have a long, long night ahead of us to make the point that it’s wrong for one Senator to stop our people, our American people, from getting the help they deserve,” Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Tuesday.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43730-1.html

Dems likely to force Bunning to stay on floor to filibuster
by Jed Lewiso
DailyKos.com
March 2, 2010

If Jim Bunning wants to continue his filibuster against the extension of emergency unemployment benefits, Senate Democrats increasingly likely to force him to stay on the floor -- all night, if necessary -- to carry it out.

According to Roll Call, Republicans are demanding Democrats hold three separate votes on so-called "pay-fors" in order to win Bunning's agreement on the unemployment benefits extension. Each "pay-for" take money from other programs to pay for the extension. Last week, Democrats agreed to one such vote, but today Majority Leader Reid rejected the Republican ransom, saying Democrats would honor their original deal, but that it was unacceptable to shift the goal posts just to score political points on the backs of unemployed American workers.

A side note: a few hours earlier today, Fox claimed that Bunning's filibuster had been resolved. Maybe that report was Fair & Balanced, but it wasn't right. But now that Democrats are making it clear that Bunning is going to have to actually stay on the floor round-the-clock to conduct his filibuster, hopefully we'll see some actual progress.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/2/842314/-Dems-likely-to-force-Bunning-to-stay-on-floor-to-filibuster

Dick Durbin: Let GOP filibuster
By MANU RAJU
March 4, 2010

Senate Democrats may be ready to actually make Republicans carry out filibusters.

Basking in their political victory over Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky.) blockade of an extension of unemployment insurance, Democrats say that they may force Republicans to talk endlessly on the floor in the months leading up to November’s elections.

For months, House Democrats — and liberal activists — have implored Senate Democrats to let filibusters unfold over hours on the Senate floor, rather than try disposing of Senate business with cloture votes and unanimous consent requests.

Asked Thursday why Senate Democrats don’t force Republicans to carry out filibusters, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “We may.”

“When we think the Republicans are being unreasonable — we’re going to consider our options under the rules of the Senate, I think there is a feeling after what we went through with Sen. Bunning’s blockage and unemployment benefits that we need to stand up more and make it clear what this obstruction costs,” Durbin said.

In the past, Democrats have hesitated to employ the tactic, fearing that it would serve only to bottle up the agenda further and create even worse perceptions of the Democratic-led Congress. Instead, when Republicans have threatened to filibuster, Democrats pull the legislation from the floor if they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33920.html

[BzaDem]

26. They can force one senator to deny unanimous consent requests. If you want to call that a filibuster

then fine.

My question to you is: do you still falsely maintain that there is any way under the Senate rules to force a single Republican to TALK for an indefinite period of time (or any period of time)? I don't mean saying "I sense the absence of a quorum," or "I object to the unanimous consent request" every hour. I mean actually talk.

[alfredo]

21. Now a threat of a filibuster seems enough. Call them on it.

[Unvanguard]

23. No, they can't. You really should stop pushing this nonsense. n/t

[BzaDem]

27. +1

[Better Believe It]

28. I suggest you present some credible arguments and facts proving your point.

A mere assertion isn't sufficient.

I'm listening.

[Unvanguard]

30. It's actually quite simple.

The Senate functions on a system of unanimous consent. To get things done--to bring a bill to the floor and to bring a bill to a vote, among other things--you need unanimous consent. If a Senator objects, that procedural action gets blocked unless sixty Senators vote for cloture.

All the Republicans have to do is object. They need only one Senator to actually be present for that. It's the Democrats who have to produce the sixty votes for cloture. Where do you think they will come from?

[Better Believe It]

31. All the Democrats have to do is change the rules. And Democrats can force

actual filibusters without even changing Senate rules as they have done before and has also been fully documented on Democratic Underground many, many times.

Do you have any evidence to refute those documented facts and Senate history?

If so, please post them.

I'm listening.

[Unvanguard]

32. It takes 67 votes to change the rules.

As for the rest, you are simply repeating yourself. I have already said why this alleged capacity to "force actual filibusters" is a fantasy. The problem is that you need unanimous consent in the Senate to do essentially anything.

[Better Believe It]

35. That point has already been refuted numerous times with hard, documented facts.

But keep repeating it if that makes you happy.

If you do that often enough more people might accept it .... or maybe not.

[LostInAnomie]

29. How?

[Better Believe It]

33. Read posts 3, 5, 8, 14, 18 and 19 and you shall know the answer.

I don't want to repeat the same valid and documented points over and over and over again in this string.

So please read the above posts and if you have new questions I'd be happy to answer them.

[BzaDem]

34. Indeed. Read each of those posts and take the opposite conclusion, and you'll be on the right track.

[donco6]

36. Hey! BzaDem! Glad I ran into you. I made this for you:

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. LOL! n/t

[Better Believe It]

38. Senate Democrats have several options to pass the repeal of DADT in this session of Congress

Here's just a few:

1. Democrats can and should begin the debate continue it in the Senate. Don't withdraw the bill and keep the Senate in session until 60 votes are obtained to end the debate. In fact, Senator Reid has the power to use Senate Rule 22 to force Republicans to engage in a real filibuster on the Senate floor if he so chooses until 60 votes are obtained for cloture.

2. Senator Reid has the power to end his "two-track" procedure in which the Senate can take up other Senate business while a bogus pretend Republican filibuster is taking place in opposition to repeal of DADT. Don't take up any other business until DADT repeal is passed. Let the Republicans tie up the Senate until hell freezes over. Don't let them go home for Christman! Bring out the cots. Let's test their resolve.

3. Senator Reid has the power to keep the Senate in session around the clock and can call upon Democratic Senators to take and hold the Senate floor in support of repealing DADT until such time as Republicans decide they want to end the "debate" so they can move on to other Senate business before they go home.

4. Senator Reid can use the "Constitutional Option" with the support of Vice-President Biden to prevent any kind of Republican filibuster and have an up and down vote to pass the DADT repeal measure.

5. And of course Senate Democrats can also apply these options to extending unemployment benefits, passing a $250 Social Security payment, ratifying the SALT treaty, etc.,

The Republicans are challenging the Democratic leadership in Congress and President Obama.

Will they once again surrender to Republican demands and obstructionism or actually fight them this time around?

If they capitulate, Democrats will really be letting Republicans set the political agenda and are setting themselves up for a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012.

[Better Believe It]

39. In view of their legislative screw-ups with the Food Safety and Health Insurance bills perhaps

the Democratic leaders really don't know how to run the Senate and end Republican obstructionism.

Senate Dems' Unconstitutional Mishap Could Kill Food Safety Bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9668425

An Error By Dems May Allow The Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform To Succeed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9669088