Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  We should have a debate if we want it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Benintn, princesspat, Eric Nelson

    But the question at the heart of this was presumed to be how we could end debate.

    Harry Reid did in fact stage an event at some point during which Democrats did engage Republicans in extended debate. It might have made good television, but it didn't advance the ball any in terms of how you could end debate when you wanted to.

    •  How do we end the Debate then? If not (0+ / 0-)

      with a mid-session change of Rule XXII?
      From all I've read by you here and past, there seems to be a catch 22 with every procedure proposed.

      But the question at the heart of this was presumed to be how we could end debate.

       Forcing the played out filibuster would cost much more than it is worth, is what I take from here.

       The only direct route I've heard that is virtually immune to some machinations somewhere is a simple NO from the VP chair declaring the parliamentarian wrong, and the debate over.

       Is that why  the cloture rule was numbered Rule XXII? Just bad luck I guess.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site