He Was For It Before He Was Against It

[Tahoma 2,292]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2009, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The "nuclear option" was an attempted power-grab that was cooked up by Senate Republicans in 2005 when they were trying to force confirmation of their conservative judges. It wasn't used at the time, and it is doubtful if it ever will be used in the future, not because it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, but because of more practical considerations...such as both parties knowing that they won't be in power forever (and, therefore, the nuclear option could be used against them).

The filibuster is still alive and well in the Senate. Or, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster is still alive and well. During the recent past, it seems that the minority party only needs to threaten a filibuster in order to stop a bill, rather than have to actually carry out a filibuster. This effectively kills a bill.

The upshot of this is that the Democrats do not have a free ride to pass any bill they desire.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change.

--from the precious cite.

Harry Reid is not as amiable as Trent Lott, and has already used proceedures, like "Filling the Tree" to avoid Senate Rules. This has been brewing for a while, and chances are, this proceedure will be invoked again, as it has been, several times in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

Please note: The Supreme Court "implied"...and Senator Walsh "contended...". Nothing binding there.

I am not aware of any instances where "filling the tree" has been used to prevent a filibuster. However, its use to prevent amendments to proposed legislation is not something I support because, like the nuclear option, it is designed to take away what limited voice the minority possesses.

It will be interesting to see if the nuclear option ever passes Constitutional muster.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

John who?

I thought he was never a real Republican. After all, wasn't he was the Democrat's model for bipartisanship?

You can only flog a dead horse for so long.

Riiiight. As if McCain carries no political clout as a senior Senator of the Republican Party.

But let us not get lost as to what this is all about - the Party of Do Nothings will go against anything the Democrats support, even if it was something like Cap and Trade that many prominent Republicans have supported before. Partisan politics at its finest...tsk, tsk.

Why do you need Republicans to pass your agenda? You have control of the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. Like I said, why are you continuing to beat a dead animal? You have twelve months or so left, before the next election cycle begins, and the current government gets lost in the backwash. It only takes a majority to pass in the House, and if the Majority wants to change the Senate rules, it only takes a majority to do that as well.

So, gitter done!

Senate rules can not be changed by a majority of the Senators. It is my understanding that it takes a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate to change a Senate rule. The filibuster is one such rule.

The minority party needs only 40 Senators to support a filibuster and stop legislation. Therefore, Republican support on bills can be necessary in the Senate.

The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2009, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]

A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The "nuclear option" was an attempted power-grab that was cooked up by Senate Republicans in 2005 when they were trying to force confirmation of their conservative judges. It wasn't used at the time, and it is doubtful if it ever will be used in the future, not because it would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, but because of more practical considerations...such as both parties knowing that they won't be in power forever (and, therefore, the nuclear option could be used against them).

The filibuster is still alive and well in the Senate. Or, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster is still alive and well. During the recent past, it seems that the minority party only needs to threaten a filibuster in order to stop a bill, rather than have to actually carry out a filibuster. This effectively kills a bill.

The upshot of this is that the Democrats do not have a free ride to pass any bill they desire.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change.

--from the precious cite.

Harry Reid is not as amiable as Trent Lott, and has already used proceedures, like "Filling the Tree" to avoid Senate Rules. This has been brewing for a while, and chances are, this proceedure will be invoked again, as it has been, several times in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

Please note: The Supreme Court "implied"...and Senator Walsh "contended...". Nothing binding there.

I am not aware of any instances where "filling the tree" has been used to prevent a filibuster. However, its use to prevent amendments to proposed legislation is not something I support because, like the nuclear option, it is designed to take away what limited voice the minority possesses.

It will be interesting to see if the nuclear option ever passes Constitutional muster.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) invoked the Nuclear Option four times when he was majority leader: 1977 (to ban post-cloture filibustering), 1979 (to adopt a rule to limit amendments to an appropriations bill), 1980 (to allow a senator to make a non-debatable motion to bring a nomination to the floor), and 1987 (to ban filibustering during a roll call vote).[3]

It has already been used.