Paging Mr. Smith! How The Senate May Return To The Old-School Filibuster

[babylonsister]

Paging Mr. Smith! How The Senate May Return To The Old-School Filibuster
Brian Beutler | December 30, 2010, 8:30AM


On January 5, 2011 -- the first day of the 112th Congress -- Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) will touch off a long debate, which he hopes will result in a majority-rules vote on a package of meaningful changes to the Senate rules. After a series of private conversations with Democratic members, he and his allies have settled upon a framework including three distinct reforms designed to unclog the Senate and scale back the minority's power.

The consensus package will aim to put an end to "secret holds" (anonymous filibuster threats) and disallow the minority from blocking debate on an issue altogether. Those two reforms are fairly straightforward. The third is a bit more complex. Udall, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), say there's broad agreement on the idea to force old-school filibusters. If members want to keep debating a bill, they'll have to actually talk. No more lazy filibusters.

But how would that actually work? In an interview Wednesday, Udall explained the ins and outs of that particular proposal.

"What we seem to have the most consensus on, is what I would call... a talking filibuster," Udall told me. "Rather than a filibuster which is about obstruction."

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/paging-mr-smith-how-the-senate-could-return-to-the-old-school-filibuster.php

[frazzled]

1. What most people don't realize ...

is that there was never any mechanism that would force the minority to give those Jimmy Stewart-type speeches when a filibuster was invoked. Despite those here who have always shouted "The Democrats should MAKE them talk. Bring in the cots!" No could do.

As Harry Reid explained (via Udall, in an interview on Ezra Klein's blog last week), the minority only has to speak if they WANT to (as with the Southern anti-segregationists did during the Civil Rights debate--they WANTED to talk), and there is no rule to force them to. All they have to do is file procedural motions. This new bill would in fact force them to talk.

I hope this bill passes. It's sensible. It retains the filibuster, but makes it have more consequences than pure obstructionism.

[Jester Messiah]

2. Is it a bill at all?

I thought it was just a rules motion, which makes it need only a simple majority to pass, no filibuster available.

[unblock]

4. well i wouldn't say "never". the rules changed in 1975

since then, correct, it's just a procedural thing.

and broadly, a filibuster is not any one specific action, there's no rule with "filibuster" written on it. a filibuster is any action or set of actions taken to stall or obstruct some item of senate business or all senate business. invoking normal rules to require the proposed bill be read aloud or votes to be counted and confirmed one-by-one is a form of filibuster.

prior to 1975, one way was to engage in unlimited debate on the floor of the senate, to refuse to yield the floor, or to yield only to partners in the filibuster who would do the same. it ground all senate business to a halt because it tied up the floor.

the rule change in 1975 basically provided an easy way to block one bill without tying up the entire senate, and that has become the technique of choice.



so, those who wanted to filibuster were never "forced" to stand up all night, but that was the most effective stall/block technique available. they don't do it now because there's an easier way. take away the easy way and they'll be "forced" to use the old way. again, no one's really "forced" to do anything here, but if you want to filibuster and today's easy paperwork method is taken away, then we'll see more of the old-fashioned variety.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Get ready, Bernie!

They might just regret this move.