The Myth Of The Filibuster

[Numba6]

******************************************************************************************
IMHO, doesn't this speak to the stupidity of Reid & Dems under Bush, if it's so damn easy to filibuster?
******************************************************************************************



As reported @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html?view=print

Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night
Ryan Grim

Hoping for a C-SPAN spectacle of GOP obstruction, some impatient Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to call Republicans on their filibuster bluff.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a plea typical of the genre, recently telling Politico that Reid should force Republicans into a filibustering talk-a-thon, "so that the American people can see who's undermining action."

By threatening a filibuster, the shrunken bloc of 41 GOP senators has just enough members to prevent a vote, requiring Democrats to make concessions to pick off a few moderate Republicans.

Reid has heard the calls. But his answer will surely disappoint: Sorry. It can't happen.

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."

Bob Dove, who worked as a Senate parliamentarian from 1966 until 2001, knows Senate rules as well as anyone on the planet. The Reid analysis, he says, is "exactly correct."

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."
Story continues below

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

And cloture requires 60 votes. Democrats, short of Minnesota's Al Franken, have 58.

But what about Strom Thurmond?

The legendary opponent of Civil Rights famously talked through the night in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act. It's the example routinely raised by proponents of the make-them-talk strategy because it's such a delicious political image for progressives: the embodiment of racism, literally standing in the way of the march of morality. It draws a line and forces the public to choose a side. Democrats, who feel the political winds at their backs, want a repeat.

But if Thurmond's speech wasn't necessary to stall Senate business, why'd he talk all night?

"He just wanted to make a point," says Dove. "He chose to keep talking."

It may have made Thurmond a demon in the eyes of history, but in the South, his filibuster vaulted him to the legendary status he retains today. He eventually ran out of gas and Civil Rights proponents carried the vote.

Yet they succeeded, says Dove, not because Thurmond eventually stopped talking, but because they already had the votes.

When the majority doesn't have the votes, it doesn't go well. Since Thurmond, says Dove, the only time the majority tried to jam a bill through the Senate without having 60 votes ahead of time ended in failure.

Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, was majority leader in 1988, when Democrats controlled 54 seats and wanted to push through campaign finance reform.

But Republican minority leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming was easily able to block it by sitting on the Senate floor and occasionally noting the absence of a quorum, thwarting a vote.

"Alan Simpson basically guarded the floor and the other Republicans simply went home," says Dove.

Byrd, fed up and deprived of the spectacle of non-stop-speechifying, ordered the sergeant-at-arms to arrest Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) and physically carry him to the Senate floor so he could be counted in a quorum call. Such a move is within the legal right of a majority leader, but it backfired when the sergeant-at-arms accidentally injured the 6'6", 235-pound Packwood.

Byrd and Senate Democrats eventually gave up. "I don't like to do things on a win-lose basis. I would rather say that we apparently have prevailed," Simpson boasted at the time.

Dove concurs with Simpson's political scorekeeping. "It was almost a farce," says Dove. "The bottom line is the bill never passed."

UPDATE: Several readers have asked to see the memo itself. I'm pasting it below. Also, some readers have raised interesting points about the details of the parliamentary procedures involved. I'll follow up soon with answers to those questions.

The memo:

How Cloture Rule Allows Minority To Block Legislation Without "Actual Filibustering"

Under the 1917 rules change the very nature of the filibuster changed. Whereas before any Senator could block any bill by simply talking, this was no longer true. A cloture motion could stop a Senator from talking. At the same time the addition of this procedure added the ability of the minority to block bills without filibustering merely by voting against cloture.

Since the 1950's true filibusters (i.e. Standing on the floor and talking for ever), have been used, more often than not to delay the inevitable, or to block last minute action that the minority party does not like. For example the when Strom Thurmond filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours 18 minutes, the bill was eventually passed.

The last modern filibuster occurred in 2003 over some Judicial nominations. Harry Reid held the floor for nine hours where he read Searchlight (his first book) and I am not kidding, discussed the relative virtues of wooden matches.

Very technically if a single Senator wanted to employ every delay tactic possible, he could stall a single piece of legislation for a week and hold the Senate hostage, not allowing them to conduct any other business. This is basically the threat of the hold. Then the Senate needs to determine first will the Senator carry out the threat, can they be bought off, or is the bill worth a week of the Senates times. Hence a lot of important but minor bills get killed this way.

The byproduct of the cloture rule changes in 1917 and 1974 is you need to invoke cloture to proceed to a bill. Senators don't have to speak to vote against cloture. If you can't get 60, you can't move it to the floor. On the motion to proceed, if a Republican chose to get up they can speak about any topic they want, or they can sit down and begin an endless series of quorum calls. Or they can begin motions to proceed on their own set of bills.

Basically there is no way to force a Senator to speak or vote on any particular bill and if you can't get 60 you can't proceed to final passage.

The "PR Value" Of Making The Minority "Filibuster" For An Indefinite Period Of Time

It's true that if the Majority Leader doesn't file a cloture motion to cut off debate on the floor, the opponents of the bill which the Senate is on can continue to debate on it indefinitely. However, as mentioned in my previous email it will still not force them to do any kind of actual filibustering by forcing them to talk for unlimited hours (like we have seen in the movies).

Again, if someone wants to obstruct a specific piece of legislation, he/she can be forced to sit on the floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time.

As explained above a Senator doesn't need to talk for an indefinite period of time to sustain a "filibuster" under existing rules. All he or she has to do is suggest the absence of a quorum when no one has any more to say on the specific legislation he or she is trying to delay. If someone comes in and wants to speak to give that Senator a hand, he lets them call off the quorum and speak and then he puts another quorum call in. It only takes one member to keep that going, he/she can have colleagues spell them and work in shifts just making sure that if no one is speaking then the chair doesn't put the question, i.e. begin the vote on the amendment, by putting in a quorum call.

So, if anyone was expecting a Republican Senator could have been forced to stay up and speak for hours if not days obstructing the auto legislations or any other bill would most likely have been disappointed since it was a good bet that the Republican conference would have coordinated and keep the quorum calls going. As a result, the public would not see the Republicans out there filibustering they'd see a quorum call or, since after the first three hours of each day debate no longer has to be germane to the pending business, they may see a Republican senator speaking about anything they want.

So not sure how much of a PR value is there not filing cloture to cut off debate. If anyone thinks there would be a show for the networks for hours/days they would have been disappointed because after couple of hours the only thing for network and news media for cover would be some quorum calls.

[endarkenment]

1. The article conveniently ignores the 'nuclear option'.

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. The term was coined by Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) in 2005.<1>


The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstance.

...

The nuclear option was officially moved by Senator Clinton P. Anderson (D-NM) (1963), Senator George McGovern (D-SD) (1967), and Senator Frank Church (D-ID) (1969), but was each time defeated or tabled by the Senate. The option was adopted by the Senate three times in 1975 during a debate concerning the cloture requirement. A compromise was reached to reduce the cloture requirement from two-thirds (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes) and also to approve a point of order revoking the earlier three votes in which the Constitutional Option had been invoked. (This was an effort to reverse the precedent that had been set for cloture by majority vote).

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) invoked the Nuclear Option four times when he was majority leader: 1977 (to ban post-cloture filibustering), 1979 (to adopt a rule to limit amendments to an appropriations bill), 1980 (to allow a senator to make a non-debatable motion to bring a nomination to the floor), and 1987 (to ban filibustering during a roll call vote).<3>

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

[tritsofme]

5. So what do you want Reid to do? Take away the filibuster from the minority

outside of the normal rules change process?

Remember, some day the GOP will be in the majority again, and I doubt they would be too keen on letting us have the filibuster back.

Not to mention, they call it the nuclear option for a reason. The minority could engage in procedural warfare and shut down basically all Senate business.

So what exactly is your solution?

[endarkenment]

6. While they are deliberately obstructing in the face of economic disaster

hoping that doing so will make the disaster worse?

Yes. Nuke them.

[tritsofme]

8. Well then I guess there is a good reason you're not Senate Majority Leader.

You literally would not be able to accomplish anything if Republicans decided they would no longer agree to unanimous consent motions, or a host of other procedural tricks that could grind the Senate to a halt.

Not to mention Democrats would look like incredible hypocrites after railing against the nuclear option just a few years ago.

[endarkenment]

9. So once again - when they are in power we give in to their demands

and when we are in power we give in to their demands. And that is great leadership and political wisdom.

[tritsofme]

10. Reid would have shut down the Senate in 2005 if they went nuclear.

The "gang of 14" meant no one had to be called on their bluffs however.

I know it is hard to be honest and ethical when facing an opposition that is anything but, however that is our duty.

[onenote]

21. the claim that Byrd invoked the nuclear option was a rw talking point

and its not accurate.

In 1977 Byrd used a parliamentary maneuver to break a post-cloture filibuster but what he did was not the same as the nuclear option. A standard filibuster occurs when senators exercise their full rights under Senate Standing Rule XXII, which requires a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture, or cut off debate, on any matter pending before the Senate. But then-Senate Majority Leader Byrd's action in 1977 was a successful attempt to break a post-cloture filibuster; 60 senators had already voted for cloture, but two senators continued to extend debate by offering a series of amendments meant to manipulate a loophole in then-standing Senate rules. In order to end the post-cloture filibuster, Byrd invoked a provision of Rule XXII forbidding dilatory amendments. The precedent Byrd set was novel only because he interpreted Rule XXII to allow the chair of the Senate to rule the dilatory amendments out of order without first requiring a point of order from a senator on the floor

[endarkenment]

31. Perhaps, but the compromise that moved the bar from 67 to 60

was a result of what is now called 'the nuclear option'. And I am fine with Republics agreeing that this parliamentary maneuver has precedent. The Senate is an awful undemocratic elitist institution that has been used by conservatives to block progressive legislation for a very long time. I'd be fine with getting rid of it entirely. Abolish the filibuster.

[onenote]

40. it also has been used by progressives to block reactionary legislation

Like the estate tax bill, ANWR drilling, same sex marriage amendment, a bad immigration bill, to name a few. Also, several judicial nominations were blocked (yes, the deal cut by the gang of 14 allowed some of those nominees to be confirmed, but some, like Estrada and Pickering, never were confirmed). And in other instances, bills were temporarily blocked by a cloture vote and then were passed only after some compromises were made. Now, some of those compromises didn't go as far as I'd like, but it would've been worse without the filibuster option.

[tritsofme]

2. I have been saying this for years.

But people would rather have a boogeyman in Harry Reid to blame for their problems.

[Numba6]

3. Well, I added an edit after u posted -- doesn't this speak to the stupidity of Reid & Dems under

Bush, if it's so damn easy to filibuster?

[onenote]

12. the democrats did filibuster quite a bit during bush's presidency

There were more than a dozen cloture votes defeated in 2002 and, in 2003, the Democrats blocked cloture 21 out of 22 times. The numbers dropped back to around a dozen blocked cloture votes in 2004 and less than that in 2005 before goting back up to around a dozen in 2006. After the Democrats regained a majority in the Senate in 2007 and 2008, the repubs were more active in seeking cloture -- succeeding 21 times in 2007 (same as the Democrats in 2003) and around 15 times in 2008. Notably -- and something people seem to overlook -- is that even after the Democrats were in the majority they used the filibuster/cloture strategy to block repub initiatives: four times in 2007 and a couple of times in 2008.

[Numba6]

29. if so, then My faulty memory, -- warn't the 1st time I misremembered things

[Numba6]

30. tho i'd have to look at specific instances, how the hell did Dems lose all but 40 votes on those

cloture votes?

[onenote]

39. because most of the ones that they "lost" were just procedural motions

For example, in 2006, cloture was successfully invoked to cut off debate 20 times. Does that mean the Democrats lost 20 times? Not really, in many instances, the vote was merely procedural on something that had widespread support. Indeed, 18 of the 20 votes invoking cloture picked up more than 70 votes (the other two got 67 and 29). Three of the votes were unanimous and six had less than 10 votes in opposition.

[indepat]

4. Geez, just think of all junior's initiatives Dems could have stopped, but they instead either

capitulated, enabled, or aided and abetted. 'pukes are demonstrating their thanks for this bipartisanship by obstructing virtually every majority initiative. Only spineless, gutless wimps forever play the losers' role! :P

[tekisui]

16. Seriously.

[LiberalFighter]

7. I call bullshit. The fillibuster response would not be the same as it was in the past.

We didn't have C-Span, PAC's, media, internet and other tools that we do now.

Much more pressure can be forced on those that refuse to allow a vote.

Do Republicans want to risk further bad publicity than what they have now? Coupled with the economy and Republicans refusing to allow legislation to be passed that would begin the healing of America would cripple the Republican Party further.

[onenote]

13. Really? Has having CSpan, PAC' media etc made that much of a difference?

Here's how I think it would have played out if the Reid had forced a old time stand up and talk filibuster on the stimulus package:

In order to keep the Senate in session, 50 of the Democrats would have to be sitting in the Senate at all times. No committee hearings would be held, no other activity would be taking place. You think the repubs dominated the airwaives before? How would it be if there were only 8 senators available to talk to the press, but 40 repubs?

And the repubs wouldn't be reading the phone book -- they'd be reading from the bill and they'd pick out of context bits to mischaracterize the bill and either the Democrats would have to take the floor to respond (thus undermining the claim that it was a filibuster) or they'd sit silently, 50 of them, and not respond. And the message from the repubs would be that they want to debate, discuss and compromise and its the Democrats that are refusing to budge.

That's how it would have played out imo. Show me how I'm wrong.

[LiberalFighter]

28. What I am saying that for a filibuster to be implemented against a bill

that a majority of the people would support would backfire on them. Why? Because there are more tools to mobilize and spread the news.

[backscatter712]

11. Now we have a campaign ad.

Show the Senate, dead silent. Throw in the sound of chirping crickets. The entire ad shows that CSPAN image of an empty Senate floor with a single Republican Senator quietly saying there's no quorum.

Narrator: America is in crisis. 50 million people are without health insurance. The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would reform health care and ensure every American would receive good health care. The votes are there in the Senate to pass it. But the Senate has been ground to a halt by Republicans answering the call from insurance lobbyists. And they have stationed one man to block this bill from passing.

If you want health care reform, call your Senator and tell him to stop the obstructionism and bring this bill to a vote.

Reid only has to get the Republicans to blockade the bill on the Senate floor for exactly thirty seconds - long enough to get footage for this ad.

Then a few million dollars of ad money to get it on the air in vulnerable Rethug states, and we'll see how long it takes before they start talking cloture...

Of course, that would require a spine, and Reid doesn't have it. We need a Majority Leader who can actually do his job. And part of the job of the Majority Leader is twisting arms, cutting deals (without giving away the store) and publicly shaming the obstructionists into relenting.

[onenote]

14. and here's the counter ad

The repubs run an ad asking "where are the leaders?" pointing out that they were present and ready to debate the issue and the Democrats refused to show up.

I've been pointing out what the article suggests for some time -- filibusters are harder on the side opposing them and they work -- and that's why they aren't forced.

[backscatter712]

15. No, not quite right.

In the filibuster scenario, the Democrats are in the chambers, ready to go, but all the Republicans except one don't show up, and without sixty senators in the chamber, the Rethug blockading says "We don't have a quorum."

Revise my ad script to reflect that.

[onenote]

17. you have a quorum if you have 51 senators

So in your ad you'd have 50 Democrats and one repub and the repub is standing there talking about the bill. The repub ad counter ad would focus on the repub talking about the bill. It would show the 50 Democrats talking to each other, not paying attention. It would still claim that the repubs want to debate the issue and the Democrats are refusing to participate.

Frankly, I think the public's reactions to both ads would be to say fuck you to both sides.

[sniffa]

18. What about Strom? What about Harry Reid?

Anyone remember him filibustering, reading the book he wrote about his hometown? Him being passed a note from a constituent asking him to read slower?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Did you not read the OP?

[sniffa]

41. No, of course not.

[Exilednight]

19. I would pull a fast one.........

I would get the Senate in chambers and then post guards on the doors to keep anyone from leaving. A quorum is now in effect and would remain until the vote. I'd put several bottles of water on each Republicans desk and put the bill up.

A few hours of water and no bathroom break will them want to vote pretty quick.

[backscatter712]

20. If there's a quorum call, aren't the Senators required to show up?

As in if they refuse to show up, they get arrested and brought to the chamber?

[tritsofme]

22. It is incumbent upon the majority to get 60 votes.

To invoke cloture.

In this war of attrition you propose, the minority is in a better position to win.

[Exilednight]

23. Senators are not required to show up. A quorum is nothing more than the minimum .......

number of Senators required to conduct business which is nothing more than simple majority.

The other option is to open the Senate for business just before a seasonal break and not close it. Keep 51 Senators in town and call a hold a vote. If Republicans are not there to block the vote, then the vote passes with a simple 51% majority.

[backscatter712]

24. IIRC, Senate Dems sidestepped a filibuster by holding a vote on Sunday.

Several Republicans didn't show up, possibly because they thought it was a sin to work on the Sabbath, thus we were able to get cloture.

I say we test the Republican's faith. Let's see exactly how far they'll go to uphold the Sabbath...

[onenote]

27. you must be recalling incorrectly

Cloture requires 60 votes. Period. Its not 3/5 of those who show up.

[Mr. Sparkle]

25. I think this is a very special time for the Democrats, having power in all 3 branch's. They should ....

invoke the nuclear option and pass as much reforms as they can. This kind of situation does not come around very often and they should take advantage of it right now as it may only last 2 more years.

[onenote]

26. exactly why they shouldn't

the Democrats have used the filibuster to block odious repub legislation in the past. It would be the height of foolishness to change the process. Indeed, even after taking the majority, Democrats have on occasion been able to block repub initiatives by defeating cloture motions.

[Mr. Sparkle]

34. I vehemently disagree. Today, Reid wont put legislation out to vote unless he has 60 votes.

This is unprecedented. In the past, the only time the filibuster was used, was in extreme or unusual circumstances. It was such a rarity. That was, until the last Senate who filibustered just about everything that the republicans didn't write. These republicans are scum and they plan to act the same way with this Senate too.

The Democrats have 2 choices, with their 59 senators(hopefully) they have to bribe 1 Republican every time with some kind of hand out or reduced legislation; or invoke the nuclear option and push through a democratic wish list for the next 2 years. The damage done to the country since Regan is insurmountable
and this could be the only time in some while, that Democrats can get their Full agenda through.

I say go for it.

[onenote]

38. not so

While more cloture votes have been forced in the past two years than previously, cloture was not limited to "extreme or unusual circumstances in past years. In 2002, there were over 35 cloture votes (15 successfully blocked); in 2003 there were 22, 21 successfully blocked; there were 21 in 2004 (12 successfully blocked) and 17 in 2005 (seven successfully blocked). In 2006, the last year the repubs controlled the Senate, the number shot up to 33 (13 succssfully blocked). In 2007 and 2008, the first two years of the new Democratic majority in the Senate, there were 42 and 66 cloture votes, with 25 successfully blocks in 2007 and 27 in 2008. In all of these years, there were instances in which cloture was successfully defeated by the majority party. For example, in 2007, the Democrats blocked repub initiatives by defeating cloture four times. While the number of clotures votes has increased, it also should be noted that a considerable number of the votes are procedural in nature and do not reflect a serious threat of blocking the legislation. Where cloture passed in 2007 and 2008, it did so with 75 or more votes over 60 percent of the time.

In first month of the new Congress, there have been five cloture votes and all have been successful in cutting off debate (average number of votes for: 66, average number of votes against: 28). Three major pieces of legislation have been passed: The Fair Pay Act, SCHIP, and the Economic stimulus. Compare that to the first month of chimpy's first term in 2001: there were no cloture votes, but there also was no significant/controversial legislation considered. Three bills passed, and not a single no vote was cast on any of them. In the first month of chimpy's second term, there were no cloture votes, but only two bills passed, one unanimously and the other with more than 70 yea votes.

[Mr. Sparkle]

43. You have slightly strayed off topic as we both know that the Filibuster will be used to block ..

important reform legislation to the Democrats and the country.

This, to me, is a given as we only need to look back at the passing of the stimulus bill. We wont always have those 3 Republicans with us. Can you imagine trying to pass through Health care reform, we wont have one stinking Republican vote. It would be suicidal for them to vote for it given the state of their party. If the republicans were not a bunch of religious/corporate extremists, then I would agree with you on keeping the status quo .

But the matter of fact is, they would prefer to embarrass the President, shut down an Democratic Administration rather then run the country in this time of need.

I don't know if you heard the Thom Hartmann show today, where in the second hour he discussed the Filibuster. He was in agreement with my point that the democrats should invoke the nuclear option.

[onenote]

45. i haven't strayed off topic at all

The point is that the Democrats have used the filibuster (and continue to use it even when in the majority) to block the repubs and it would be foolish to give up that weapon, particularly since one can bet one's life that at some point the pendulum will swing back and the repubs will recapture the Senate.

[Mr. Sparkle]

46. The republicans did ram through just about everything when they had both houses.

The democrats acted like road kill. The difference between the Democrats and the republicans is that republicans know how to grand stand to ram through their legislation why the democrats have no idea.

The hardest part always for the republicans is taking away or reforming programs that are popular with the people. Should the situation ever be reversed and the republicans hold the 2 hours again, which when you look at history is an anomaly, they will have a very hard time reversing popular programs.

Republicans pass legislation for the minority, while Democrats pass legislation for the Majority. The more I look at this, it is a win win situation for the Democrats.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. No, they absolutely shouldn't.

We will not hold the majority forever.

[Mr. Sparkle]

35. imho, Thats exactly why we should act now!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. Only to have Republicans reverse everything in the blink of an eye?

No thanks.

[Mr. Sparkle]

44. It is very unusual for one party to have all 3 branches of government ...

what the republicans had after 911 and what the Democrats have now is very Atypical. This is the democrats first chance to reverse the damage Regan did to the country back in the 80's .. 30 years later, and look at the disaster it took for this chance to come about.

But .. should the GOP ever gain power over the country like we have now , good luck to them on trying to take things away that are important to the people, like national health-care, Green energy and so on.

The people will kick those bums out of office.

There is a reason why the Gop cannot reform social security, because even though they are against it, every time they go near it the Democrats bring their A game to the table and create an uproar until they back down.

As Pat Buchanan said the other day, The Republican graveyard is filled with republicans who tried to tamper with social security.

[Eric_323]

37. After asking for a quorum the senator losses the floor

When Senators suggest the absence of a quorum, however, they lose the floor.
Also, “t is not in order for a Senator to demand a quorum call if no business has
intervened since the last call; business must intervene before a second quorum call
or between calls if the question is raised or a point of order made.”7 These restrictions
limit the extent to which quorum calls may be used as means of conducting
filibusters.

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf#page=2

Not sure how Alan Simpson was able to get around this and the 2 speech rule.

[JJ]

42. Perfect example of a Strawman argument

Reid is not doing an effective job a Majority Leader, he lets the Republicans run the show and obstruct all they want without having to pay the price for it politically.

What's the response? "I can't force the Republicans to stand up and talk all night."

Nice answer, too bad that was never the question.

Reid could make it so they would have to demonstrate openly for everyone to see that the Republican Senators are solely interested in political grandstanding and obstructionism, yet he chooses not to.

Reid can't make the Republicans do the chicken dance on the Mall either. That's just as valid a response as the one given.