Senator Merkley challenges filibuster rules

[stevedeshazer]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=challenging_the_filibuster_old_guard

Challenging the Filibuster Old Guard






Sen. Jeff Merkley (AP Photo/Chris Ryan)


"By a vote of 53 to 36, the Senate defeated a proposal to extend tax cuts first on those earning up to $250,000 in income," Capitol Hill's Roll Call explained over the weekend. It was a typical Senate defeat, where a majority supported the losing measure and a minority achieved a filibustered veto.

It's been well observed in Washington that it doesn't cost much to filibuster: Senators don't have to speak or stay on the floor of the Senate. They only need to say a few words to their leaders, and the whole institution grinds to a halt. The public, of course, doesn't see that level of detail, which makes things difficult for those interested in reform -- but that could change.

"The public believes the filibuster is an opportunity to enhance debate by allowing people to take a stand before the American people and personally invest time and energy in slowing down the Senate to make their point heard," Sen. Jeff Merkley says. "We should make it so."

Merkley has floated a proposal to reform the filibuster by forcing senators to actually take to the floor to obstruct Senate debate and by limiting the number of times the maneuver can be used to stop a piece of legislation. He and several allies hope it will win the support of 51 senators when the new Congress comes into session in January, the easiest time to amend the Senate's rules.

more @ link

[hughee99]

1. Don't Senators have to take the floor now for a filibuster,

the reason they don't actually do it is because if one side knows the issues is going to be filibustered, they don't bring it to the floor for debate in the first place. Even now, if the issue IS actually brought to the floor (despite the threat), the opposition HAS to take the floor to obstruct.

[stevedeshazer]

2. That's not my understanding. A single Senator can do it.

That Senator does not have to take the floor.

[hughee99]

3. As I understood it,

A single senator can threaten a filibuster. The opposition can either bring the issue to the floor and force that senator to stand up and physically obstruct (and make them prove they have the votes), or more commonly, accept that the threat has the votes to back it up and not even bring the issue to the floor in the first place. Once the issue actually comes to the floor though, the senator has to either "put up or shut up".

[elocs]

4. "The Myth Of The Filibuster: Dems Can't Make Republicans Talk All Night":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html


----------snip----------

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."

----------snip----------

DUers, dispel yourselves of the notion that the filibuster is the quaint action taken by Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". It isn't.

[Tx4obama]

5. MORE info on the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4622280

[Toucano]

6. Super. But now we'll have nothing from the House.

This is a fine proposal, but a day late and a dollar short.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Doesn't matter. House Republicans make Senate Republicans look like Senate Democrats.

No sense changing the rules until we have the House back. Of course, by that time we probably won't have the Senate any longer...