I AM FREAKED!!! NO FILABUSTERS????

[OKthatsIT]

I just now heard on the Ed Shultz show that when the Senate convenes in January the first thing they intend to do is to VOTE OUT/END FILABUSTERS!

To simply wipe it out of the Constitution.

NOW...Im female and this means a DEATH SENTENCE FOR WOMEN.

NOW KERRY MUST STEP FORWARD, TAKE CONTROL...IF NOT, HE CAN GO F**K HIMSELF

FOR GOOD.

[mattclearing]

1. Filibusters aren't guaranteed by the Constitution, are they?

eom

[tx_dem41]

2. No...they are not in the Constitution....

I don't like this either...but the current rules are just based on Senate rules only.

[YNGW]

4. No, they aren't.

Talk is they may change the Senate rules to where a simple majority is needed in order to pass bills, confirm judges, etc...

[Walt Starr]

9. Changing the Senate rules requires 60 votes

so there is little chance of this happening.

[depakid]

12. Thank you

They won't get the 60, but I'm wondering what other parliamentary shenanigans they'l use to get around potential filibusters. Unlike Dems- these folks will do anything to have their way. Rules and traditions be damned.

[Sub Zero]

24. Wrong walt - please understand the senate rules

Here is what they are planning


1. They start to debate judges.

2. Democratic filibuster starts.

3. Republican gets up and tells cheney that filibusters are unconstitutional.

4. Cheney rules they are indeed unconstitutional.

5. Democrats challenge it and it comes to a vote

6. It takes MORE votes than the democrats have to overrule cheney.

7. Filibusters are then ended in the senate.

There's not a damn thing that can be done about this with out a majority, unfortunately.

[Walt Starr]

26. That's not changing the rules, that's the much vaunted "nuclear option"

and forever alters how teh Senate works, which most Republicans are leary of moving on because when the Democrats regain a majority, it will bite them hard!

I understand the Senate rules because I have read them.

[Sub Zero]

27. Are you saying the repubs aren't going to do it?

If they get any SCOTUS and lower court appointment they want there won't BE a democratic majority for them to worry about.

Once the SCOTUS is in their pocket all bets are off.

on edit: I would also wish people stop using FAUX terminology. It's not the "nuclear option" - it's a crooked exploitation of the rules and it should be called as such.

[OKthatsIT]

30. OMG....just when Im feeling calmer..so its TRUE!

....now im back in my anxiety

[high density]

3. They need a two-thirds majority to change the filibuster rule

I don't think that's going to happen. I guess the "nuclear" option is possible where Cheney says the rule sucks, and if a simple majority agree with him, say bye bye to the filibuster.

[tx_dem41]

5. Please cite a source for this n/t

[OKthatsIT]

11. I heard it said on Ed Shuktz

Ed had read it as well....but it was a discussion with a caller who had also read/heard it somewhere.

[high density]

18. here you go

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6645591/

"(Frist) has suggested several options. For example, reducing over time, from 60 to 51, the votes needed to cut off debate, or declaring that filibusters should not apply to judicial nominations. But it takes a two-thirds majority to change Senate rules, and Democrats are unlikely to go along."

"More drastic would be the “nuclear option” of having the chair — with Vice President Dick Cheney presiding — declare that filibusters violate the constitutional duty of the Senate to give advise and consent on nominations. A ruling of the chair can be upheld with a simple majority vote."

[oc2002]

7. whats the nuclear option?nt.

nt

[Walt Starr]

13. A challenge about the rules is made by a Senator and the chair rules

on the challenge. To make the ruling stand requires only a majority vote.

It's been suggested that a challenge about the rule requiring a 60 vote majority to make a motion to end debate be made with Cheney presiding. Basically, the challenge will state that the rule is unconstitutional where judicial nominations are concerned and Cheney will uphold the challenge. It will only require 51 votes to uphold this ruling.

[Billy Ruffian]

14. Any idea if the Senate procedure rules are online anywhere?

I don't have the time today to go look, and I'd really like to see what they actually are.

For at least this current session of Congress (the one that just ended) the 'filibuster' rules were a joke, at least as I understand them (which is why I'd like to see what they actually are)

Subject to correction, of course ...

If debate on a bill, or topic, was scheduled for one hour, and Senator Foodibar, (Whacko party, State of Confusion) could speak for that hour, he was 'filibustering'. At the end of the hour, debate on that subject stopped, and Foodibar still had the floor the next time debate on that subject came up. New topics could be debated, adjournment could happen, senators could go eat, sleep, go to their states and back, etc., and Foodibar still owned that debate. It's no longer the endurance contest that filibustering once was. All a Senator has to do is want to keep a topic from getting a vote, and he could stop it (subject to the 60 vote cloture, or vote forcing, rule)

While the merits of this rule vs. the old style are certainly worthy of discussion, you can't, IMO, call the current rule 'filibustering'.

Also, I'd really like to see if it takes a 2/3 vote to change the current Senate rules (or to set the rules for a session of Congress)

This could get interesting. In order for the Senate to set the rules for the upcoming session, there have to be rules for setting rules. What's the process for changing THOSE rules? :-)

[blondeatlast]

6. Even moderate Republicans won't bite on this one, 'cause it will bite them

back--in the ass in '06.

It certainly bears watching, but until I hear the Democrats come out officialy in favor of ending the filibuster provision,* I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it.

*which they won't ever do

[oc2002]

10. ..actualy it may not be a bad idea.

it cuts both ways, to kill the rule would also leave the repugs vulnerable when they lose big and are replaced in the near future.

[mmonk]

22. bad idea

as justices are appointed for life.

[blondeatlast]

28. Precisely. nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. Bingo. n/t

[M_Demo_M]

32. Moderate Republicans?

You mean all two of them?

[OKthatsIT]

33. Then what's this?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6645591

[blondeatlast]

40. This:

(snip)
Frist wants to change Senate rules to make it harder or impossible to filibuster judicial nominations. It now takes 60 votes to end debate and bring a nominee to a vote. Even with their new majority of 55, it is unclear whether Republicans can reach 60 votes on the most contentious nominees.

(snip)
Even that is not a certainty because of the importance Republicans, as well as Democrats, put on minority rights. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said he would be more disposed to the rules change “if I believed Republicans would be in the majority forever.”
9more)

Smart Repubs know better. John McCain may be many unpleasant things, but he's a damn smart politician. He's my Senator, and I don't like his politics, but he's sure as hell no dummy.

[forgethell]

8. Filibusters

aren't in the Constitution. They're part of the Senate rules. They have been changed before. For instance, it used to take 2/3 of the Senate to stop a filibuster. Now it only takes 60% of the Senators.

[OKthatsIT]

15. Then WOMEN are safe for 2 more years?

Then when they get another 5 Senators placed in Office...becuase they'll simply STEAL VOTES...ITS OVER

OMG...im sorry if I freaked out prematurely..but this is the scariest of all things to come.

[theboss]

38. I'm not sure why exactly this is freaking you out

It's not like the Dems are going to be able to force Bush to appoint a Pro-Choice judge to the Supreme Court if and when a justice resigns. At some point, they are going to have to approve someone.

[msgadget]

16. What can Kerry do?

He's not in a leadership position . The most Kerry can do is raise hell about it in front of the cameras and bug his colleagues on the left to do the same while also testing the waters with amenable members on the right.

[OKthatsIT]

19. He can become more visible over the FRAUD issue

we have too much to lose...and he has nothing to lose

[msgadget]

21. That won't save filibustering.

Besides which, he's moved on and is looking forward to the new session.

Edit: spelling

[donheld]

17. It's not just Kerry's reponsibility

It's the entire democratic party that better get off their asses.

[0rganism]

39. Sen. Kerry is the nominal leader of the Democratic party, so yes it is

Of course he's not the "True" leader of the Democrats, which would be a position akin to the proverbial cat herder. But the media and the American people perceive him as the opposition leader. Ever day he holds back strengthens the legitimacy of a republican "mandate". His silence is taken as tacit approval.

We go into each congressional session with the politicians we have, not the ones we might want. If Kerry thinks someone else is going to step up to do this for him, maybe he shouldn't have run for the presidency at all.

[msgadget]

42. I see your point

but you're assuming all Democrats view him as a nominal leader of the party. He does have a hardcore following but it doesn't appear to comprise the majority.

[mmonk]

20. No, filibusters

are not part of the constitution, but it will be the last chance to preserve the constitution as is.

[Sub Zero]

23. You know

"To simply wipe it out of the Constitution"

I really and truly wish people would actually bother to READ the constitution for once in their lives. In only takes 30 minutes, and you'll actually know what it says.

It's because 90% of america has never read it that we are in the position we are in today.

I remember when the talk of suspending the election came up everyone was running around screaming "The constitution says the election is on nov 2nd!". It truly was alarming to really see how many people had never read the constitution.

[donhakman]

25. I understand your frustration, but there are kids here who need to learn

The House and Senate can make just about any rule they want as long as they do not contradict criminal statutes.

There have already been new rules put into effect that make killing filibusters look like child's play.

sorry no time to ennumerate right now

[OKthatsIT]

29. You really are wasting your time, arent you

so why bother writing such a lengthy reply?

[Sub Zero]

31. I'm wasting my time?

Asking people to read the constitution?

[OKthatsIT]

35. Read this smarty pants

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6645591

[Sub Zero]

36. sigh...

You've made the claim they are going to wipe filibusters "out of the constitution". Now, would you please direct me to the article and section of the constitution regarding filibusters?

And if MSRNC told you that then take it as a lesson not to trust the repub owned media.

[blondeatlast]

41. I might politely request that you do the same. I've pointed out 2

paragraphs from the very same article that contradict your idea that the Repubs are chomping at the bit to do this.

[theboss]

34. It's not in the Constitution.

It's just a rule of the Senate.

[YNGW]

37. Bush/R's to get their way.

Let's get to the nitty-gritty.

The R's have the WH, Senate and the House. There are a handful of R's from blue states but more Dem Senators from red states. Bush nominated several judges last term who would have been confirmed had their been a Senate vote. Reid's not going to stop them from going to the floor for a vote and he's gonna shut down any filibusters. The judges are going through. The R's control the situation, and the sooner we face up to that, the sooner we can move forward.

I've read several posts here since the election and over the last few days, and I can say that I'm personally beyond where most here seem to be. I'm under no impressions that there's going to be any fraud discovered in Ohio, I'm under no impressionss that the DNC is going to go to anyone other than a Washington insider and that things will basically remain as status quo, I'm under no impressions that the DLC is going to diminish as a major influence on the direction of the party, I'm under no impressions that my Dem party is going to put up much of a fight about anything over the next few years, I'm under no impressions that continuing to say that the election was stolen for another 4 years is going to attract anyone to the party. I guess I'm just waiting for everyone else to realize these things, too. I don't know how long it'll take, but I look forward to discussions which will actually become productive towards '06 & '08.

[0007]

43. Its been said that junior is turning water into wine these days,

so I'm more than sure junior can turn the constitution into elephant shit.

We're so fucked!

[vetwife]

44. Where is Mr. Smith when you need him.....?

[0007]

46. I think all the Mr. Smith's are dead or off loping their mule.