Senate Dems can easily halt Republican "procedural filibusters" Just stop the "dual-track" practice!

[Better Believe It]

Republican "procedural filibusters" can be halted by Senate Dems ending their "dual-track" practice.
They don't need to change Senate rules! BBI



Op-Ed Contributors
A One-Track Senate
By BARRY FRIEDMAN and ANDREW D. MARTIN
Barry Friedman is a vice dean at New York University School of Law. Andrew D. Martin is the chairman of the political science department and a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.

March 9, 2010

During the 1960s, the Senate was frozen by lengthy filibusters over civil rights legislation. When, in the mid-’70s, that tactic once again threatened to bring the Senate to a standstill, Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who was the majority whip, invented a dual-track system. This change in practice allowed the majority leader — with the unanimous consent of the Senate or the approval of the minority leader — to set aside whatever was being debated on the Senate floor and move immediately to another item on the agenda.

The result of tracking? No more marathon debate sessions that shut down the Senate. While one bill is being “filibustered,” business can continue on others.

Because dual-tracking is a Senate practice, not a formal rule, the majority leader, Harry Reid, could end tracking at any time. By doing so, the Democrats would transform the filibuster and recover their opportunity to govern effectively.

The new-school filibuster would preserve minority rights in the Senate, while imposing significant costs on obstructionist members, changing the calculus that causes today’s logjam. Stuck on the Senate floor, filibustering senators couldn’t meet with lobbyists or attend campaign fund-raising events; they couldn’t do much of anything, really, until their filibuster ended.

After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10martin.html?_r=1


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

Filibuster in the United States Senate
From Wikipedia

"After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Byrd, who was at that time serving as Senate Majority Whip. Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader — with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader — to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the "two-track system", the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each matter or measure will be considered."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate


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

A Critique of the Senate Filibuster
By Roy Ulrich
Roy Ulrich is a researcher at Demos, a New York-based policy and advocacy organization
May 5, 2009

The extended speechifying made famous by Strom Thurmond and Huey Long before him has been replaced by what legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have dubbed the "stealth" filibuster. Its genesis was the early 1970s, when it became apparent to then majority leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) that delaying tactics such as objections to unanimous consent motions; forcing the previous day's journal to be read aloud in its entirety; suggesting the absence of a quorum; and -- of course -- extended periods of time holding the floor were causing the Senate to fall behind in doing the people's business. (Contrary to popular legend, the workload of the modern-day Senate is substantial. Most members could make a convincing argument for the proposition that they really don't have time to wait out a filibuster.) In response, Mansfield devised a "two-track" system where the mornings were devoted to filibustering and the afternoons to pressing business. With liberal Democrats taking the floor to argue against further funding of the Vietnam War and in favor of stripping right-to-work provisions out of federal labor laws, there was bipartisan support for his efforts. While this dual system may have solved Mansfield's problems over the short term, over the long term it has proved to be disastrous. An explanation for this statement is in order.

Rather than dividing mornings and afternoons between filibustered bills and other matters, over time the Senate has come to a point in time where it seldom takes up legislation unless the majority leadership has counted sixty votes. In other words, a credible threat that 41 senators won't vote for cloture is enough to keep a bill off the floor on most occasions. Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: "Mansfield's measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless."

One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a "hold" on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds "are routinely employed -- often anonymously -- against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself."

If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-ulrich/a-critique-of-the-senate_b_193221.html

[Richardo]

1. Put me down as 'I'm for that'.

:patriot:

[xchrom]

2. Sounds like a thing to call the senators about. Nt

[Better Believe It]

3. Yes. I hope DU'ers can find out how their Senators respond to this simple and doable proposal

[T Wolf]

4. I am totally in support of this change, or rather, a return to the TRADITIONAL method.

How can the rethugs go against TRADITION? It's unAmerican, I tell you.

[unblock]

5. technically, this is a counter-filibuster

where the majority party refuses to consider anything other than the item the minority is filibustering.

some of the filibustering techniques, however, don't requre attendance. eliminating THAT is what would impose a political risk to filibustering. and i don't thank that can happen without a change to senate rule xxii.

[Better Believe It]

6. Feel free to give it any name you want, however, this simple procedure would end phantom Republican

filibusters and obstructionism.

And that's the bottom line.

So I don't give a flying fruck what anyone wishes to call it.

Call it mumbling and rumbling. I don't care!

That'll work and Republicans would have to take the floor, hold it and stop any other legislation from advancing.

If Republicans prefer a "silent" filibuster, all the better!

I'd love seeing them on C-Span acting like dummies, without flapping their jaws, before the cameras and microphone.

I'd pay to see that!

:)

[Recursion]

12. How?

How would this put any pressure on the Republicans to allow legislation to come to the floor for a vote?

[Better Believe It]

13. Because they can't hold the Senate floor with a real filibuster for very long.

Do you know what the record is for the longest Senate filibuster?

The last real Senate filibuster the Republicans were forced to conduct was last March. It was broken in less than 24 hours!

[Recursion]

16. This wouldn't make them hold the floor

Where do you get the idea that this idea would make them hold the floor?

The last real Senate filibuster the Republicans were forced to conduct was last March.

Nope.

The DREAM act was filibustered this weekend. Pretending filibusters are something they aren't doesn't help anything.

[Better Believe It]

20. "senate rule xxii, .... includes the very provision that permits "easy" filibusters." Wrong again.

There is absolutely nothing in Senate Rule 22 regarding "procedural filibusters".

Nothing at all.

Do you know why?

Because the "dual track" procedure is a procedural privilege, not a Senate rule, allowed by the Senate Majority Leader. It is not a Senate rule.

That fact had been made absolutely clear and documented in the articles quoted and linked in the lead post.

Do you now understand that a "procedural filibuster" has absolutely nothing to do with Senate rules?

And you might want to read the posted articles before commenting on them.

[Recursion]

17. This wouldn't make them hold the floor

Where do you get the idea that this idea would make them hold the floor?

The last real Senate filibuster the Republicans were forced to conduct was last March.

Nope.

The DREAM act was filibustered this weekend. Pretending filibusters are something they aren't doesn't help anything.

[Better Believe It]

19. "The DREAM act was filibustered this weekend." Who filibustered and how long did it last?

As I recall only one cloture vote was taken and when Democrats failed to get 60 votes on just one try they withdrew the bill!

[unblock]

18. i'm not just calling it a different name.

if the republicans want no senate business, they can do so quite easily and do not need to physically hold the floor.

all this would do would be to prevent the senate from conducting any OTHER business until the filibuster is resolved. but if the republicans don't WANT any other business to be conducted, this is not a problem for them.

actually eliminating all stall techniques other than physically holding the floor would clearly require a rewrite of senate rule xxii, because it includes the very provision that permits "easy" filibusters.

[Recursion]

7. The problem is, in that scenario literally nothing gets done

And, by the way, Republican Senators are fine with that, so that's not a "threat" to them.

[Better Believe It]

9. Republicans are fine with the "no pain" obstructionism privilege they are permitted to conduct now.

Republicans were able to obstruct and force concession after legislative concession from Senate Democrats, the withdrawl and defeat of a few hundred bills passed by the House and delay after delay in Presidential appointments without having to filibuster one time!

They would not have been able to accomplish that if Democrats would have fought them by taking away their "procedural filibuster" privilege.

[Recursion]

11. How would this enforce pain?

It wouldn't force anybody to talk. It wouldn't even force anybody to stay in the Senate chamber. Or in DC for that matter. It just means the Democrats would stop bringing up any other business. That's a win-win for the GOP.

[Better Believe It]

14. So do you support Republican procedural filibusters and don't want to end that privilege?

Is that what's going on here?

First, let me point out that Republicans can only leave the Senate chamber or Washington, D.C. during a filibuster if it's a phantom "procedural" filibuster, the kind that Democrats permit Republicans to engage in. That's the problem with this procedure and you want to preserve it?

Perhaps you just don't understand the difference between a procedural filibuster and a real filibuster.

Or perhaps you're just against ending any kind of Republican filibusters because you think Republicans will permit Democrats to filibuster when they become a minority in the Senate and you don't want Democrats to lose that privilege under a Republican Senate majority.

Is that it?

Fear? Fear of Republicans?

Let's get to the bottom of your possible support for Republican procedural filibusters.

Out with it!

I'm listening.

[Recursion]

15. Jesus Christ why do DUers always answer with non-sequitors

WTF?

I said "this plan won't work and here's why:"

You said "so I guess that means you support the Republicans"

No, no, no, no no. I just don't think this idea would do anything besides frustrate all of the other business in the Senate.

[Better Believe It]

21. Jesus Christ, why do some posters make up total b.s. quotes like you just did?

I did not write "so I guess that means you support the Republicans".

You put that alleged statement in direct quotes so it must be accurate.

Well, not really.

In fact, the only word that appears in your quote of me is "the"!

I actually wrote: "Let's get to the bottom of your possible support for Republican procedural filibusters."

Well, I don't appreciate people making up total bull shit about what I write.

So, I have to put you on my ignore list.

Bye.

[Q3JR4]

8. This would never work.

How else could the majority party propose legislation they don't actually want to pass while assuring the American public they have our best interests at heart if only the other side would stop obstructing *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*?

[Better Believe It]

10. That would also end lame excuses for inaction and surrender to Republicans.

All the more reason to try it!

:)

[BzaDem]

22. This wouldn't even do what you claim it would do, let alone end the filibuster.

Republicans would just start quorum calls until Reid pulled the bill off the floor in the single track and moved onto another bill.

[Better Believe It]

23. Make the Republicans accountable for their obstruction.

Axe: GOP made bipartisanship impossible
by Jed Lewison
April 12, 2010


Politically, Democrats need to highlight the GOP's "just say no" intransigence in the mid-term elections, but they also need to examine the rules and customs that give Republicans (especially Mitch McConnell) the power to obstruct.

In that effort, the most important place to start is the Senate's filibuster rule, and there's one easy change that Senate Democrats could implement today: eliminate the dual-track system that allows Senators to filibuster legislation without actually bringing the Senate to a stand-still. If you eliminated the painless filibuster, senators would have the exact same right to filibuster that they have today, but when they did filibuster, they'd actually have to take to the floor and hold up progress, making them accountable for their obstruction.

Ironically, that simple change in Senate procedure would almost certainly lead to increased bipartisanship, because the best way to get political opponents to work with you is to let them know that you're willing -- and able -- to go it alone.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/12/856490/-Axe:-GOP-made-bipartisanship-impossible

[Better Believe It]

24. Kick