Filibuster, Extended Debate, Cloture - what does this mean?
Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:33:36 PM PDT
There is a lot of discussion on this site about the possibilities of the Dems mounting a filibuster agains Alito's confirmation to be a justice of the Supereme Court. Unfortunately much of it misunderstands "Parliamentary Proceedure" or what is called here in the US "Roberts' Rules Of Order," which are based on the rules used in the US House of Representatives and US Senate. The houses of Congress do have a number of special rules that are difficult to follow unless you are a true scholar of Parliamentary Proceedure, which I don't feel that I am. However some of the terms people are tossing around need to be defined:
Filibuster: this is actually an
EXTENDED DEBATE during which a small number of Senators (it can be as few as one) keep discussing the issue on the floor of the Senate to prevent the Senate from taking a vote. The Senate permits debate to continue until no one wishes to debate any more or a motion to close debate (Cloture) is voted with a 2/3rds majority. So an extended debate by the Democrats would actually be a "Filibuster" until "Cloture" is called and voted on. One of the interesting things that the Democrats can use is asking for a "Quarum Call," because the Senate has a rule that debate must be suspended if there are less than 51 Senators on the floor. Usually, the Senate assumes that there are 51 Senators on the floor unless a member asks for the number of Senators on the floor be counted. Then debate is suspended until 51 Senators are present and answering "Iye" when their name is called. This could force the Rethugs to sleep in the cloakrooms, hearing rooms, etc. to avoid giving the Dems time to rest. Since there is no way to force a member who is present to answer the roll call this would mean that the Rethug Senators would have to be on the Hill all the time to be sure they could arrive in time to meet the Quarum Call.
The move to avoid the need for a cloture vote through a ruling by the chair that a cloture vote would not be needed for a resolution to confirm Alito would set a precident that any Rethug who considers that they could some time end up in the minority should view with horror. It was only through the use of such tactics as the filibuster that kept the Democrats from passing stricter civil rights laws (which the "Red Necks" who support the southern wing of the Rethugicans could never accept), a national health insurance, true election reform, etc. If they weaken the power of the filibuster, they could well find that they are on the recieving end of the same tactics after a few elections (hopefully after the 2006 election) given the current number of Rethugs tainted by the corruption exposed through the Abramoff scandal. Remember the Religious Right gets what they wanted if Alito is confirmed (enough judges on the USSC to overturn "Roe") and they will no longer be as motivated to vote for one issue cadidates, especially if those candidates are tainted by this corruption scandal (which Democrats must constantly remind the voters of while claiming the truly moral stand based on true American values). The Rethug electoral majority is far too thin to stand up even in many of the "Red States" if these self appointed gardians of America's morals don't come out to vote.
Finally, executive sessions (What Reid used to shut the Senate down in the past) are only effective if they are rarely used. They are not something you use to cut off a vote or to avoid the chair ruling on a "point of order" (which is how the nuclear option would be started). A Rethug member would rise to ask "a point of order," meaning a question concerning the rules of the Senate or how the chair was controlling debate. The question would then be asked about how many members voting in the affirmative to end the debate on the concent motion for the appointment of Alito to the USSC are required. Cheney would then reply "51 Votes", the Democrats would then challenge the ruling of the chair, the Senate would then vote and even if it were a tied vote, Cheney voting only on ties, the majority of the senators present and voting would decide if Cheney was correct. The Rethugs have the votes if they all vote the Party Line.
I hope our leaders in the Senate take on the Rethugs on this and, even if they loose, keep using all the rules to slowdown and frustrate the Rethug steamroller that GWB has to have to force through the key parts of his agenda to return the country to the "Gilded Age" of Laissez-Faire capitalism.
If you don't know what I am talking about read your American history of the period between the Civil War and the Teddy Roosevelt Administration.
Permalink | 5 comments