The idea is popular among a lot of Democrats impatient with the Republican minority's ability to block their bills--just as it was popular with Republicans when Democrats were filibustering their judicial nominees. While the idea of a Jimmy Stewart type marathon is appealing,
this article lays out, at more length than I've ever seen, why that the majority can't actually force a minority to do it.
"... a filibustering Senator 'can be forced to sit on the [Senate] 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.'"
That's true, but only because that's the rule.
The Democrats have the votes to change the Senate rule. So, if Harry wanted to force the Senate into a talkathon, he could very well do it.
Fact is, he doesn't. The Democrats aren't trying to force a vote. They're trying to win over Republicans so they have political cover.
If they wanted a vote, they could have a vote.
Actually, they can't.
Yes, in theory the majority party can vote to change the rules. But it doesn't end there. Most of what happens in the Senate is done by unanimous consent. The minority party can effectively shut down the Senate if they are sufficiently provoked.
That's my understanding, at anuy rate.
Cloture is the only motion that can be brought to end any type of a filibuster the minority may be doing. The filibuster can be a silent interlude or a rambo talkathon. No matter.
For cloture to succeed it takes 60 "Yea" votes to pass the motion, then the bill in question goes to a floor vote.
Only this cat could survive an old timey type hollywood mythical filibuster.
"Cloture" is just a Senate rule. And the Senate can change its rules whenever it wants to and eliminate the need for "cloture."
The fact is that Reid doesn't want a vote. First, he'd lose the vote ... but secondly, the Democrats cannot pass a bill on their own. They absolutely crave bipartisianship on this health bill.
They know without it they will be run out of town on a rail. (My belief is that they've doomed themselves in 2010 at any rate.)
I grant that the legitimacy of filibusters is something many people on both sides of the aisle switch sides on depending on which party controls the Senate, but it still amusing to see such blatant hypocrisy coming from the editors of the NY Times:
Last week:
“The Democrats are thus well advised to start preparing to use an arcane parliamentary tactic known as “budget reconciliation” that would let them sidestep a Republican filibuster and approve reform proposals by a simple majority.”
But when the Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress - well, I’ll let the Times speak for itself, with the 2004 editorial Mr. Smith Goes Under The Gavel.
“(The filibuster) is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.”
The editorial notes that “in the 1939 film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart triumphed over crooked politicians with a 23-hour filibuster,” and argues that “rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab, Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.”
Cliff Notes version: Democratic filibusters are a sacred check on the concentration of power. Republican filibusters represent the dictatorship of the minority, thwarting the basic fairness of majority rule.
http://www.pecuniarius.com/blog/?p=160
Does anyone of any substance still read the Times?
I think the best move for the GOP right now is to explicitly say that they will not filibuster the bill - that they will give a straight up or down vote, on the merits. They should ask for some guaranteed debate time in exchange.
I don't think filibustering is a fight they can win and many democrats have been hiding behind the threat. Better to take it off the table.
I agree with you. And I would not be shocked if the 60th vote for cloture came from John McCain.