Skip to main content

View Diary: What stands in the way of "forcing" a filibuster? (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  51 votes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Senate needs a supermajority to change its own rules.

    •  Ummmmmm....your respectfully wrong (0+ / 0-)

      "I'm totally familiar with his idea," Reid said of the latest filibuster-reform resolution, from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). "It takes 67 votes, and that, kind of, answers the question."

      Let's stick to the facts...

      •  Not wrong, because it's a point of order (0+ / 0-)

        not a rule.  From the nuclear option Wikipedia entry:

        The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

        You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

        by ZAPatty on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 10:01:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your kidding right... (0+ / 0-)

          So what your telling me is the Majority Leader of the Senate is wrong and your right?

          And if your right why isn't your idea being discussed at all?

          The reason is it can't....

          •  It is being discussed (0+ / 0-)

            And I don't think reading something Harry Reid said --which may have been taken out of context -- takes the place of actual research.  Maybe when you've been around here a little longer you'll be less disrespectful to other people on the site.  It's not about one-upmanship (whether I think I know more than Harry Reid does or whether you are wrong) but about getting to the truth.

            You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

            by ZAPatty on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 07:51:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site