Can The Senate Filibuster The Proposed Rules Change?

[Itsthetruth]

I haven't seen a clear answer to this question yet. Perhaps I missed it.

[merwin]

1. No, it only takes a majority to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

[Itsthetruth]

3. Still Need A Clear Answer

I understand that simple majority vote can pass the proposed rules change, but that's not what I'm asking about. Perhaps I need to rephase it.

Can Senators engaged in a filibuster to stop or hold-up an up and down vote on the proposed rules change?

[bowens43]

4. The answer is 'No'.

As the other poster stated, it only requires 51 votes to change the rules.

[forgethell]

5. I don't think so.

I think the presiding officer makes a ruling that the filibuster can't be used to stop judicial nominees. Then a vote must be held to overrule him. If it isn't, his ruling stands.

[ibid]

9. A "point of order" that is to be ruled on by the chair can not be

fillibustered.

The subsequent vote to over rule the chair likewise is fillibuster proof.

[Strawman]

2. No

They're bypassing the traditional "rules change" procedure (67 votes needed) which (I think) they could filibuster. The nuclear option is just a parliamentary procedure whereby the presiding officer (Cheney) makes a ruling that the filibuster on judicial nominations is "unconstitutional." It can't be filibustered and only a simple majority is needed to uphold the ruling. Frist will just ask for a ruling from the Presiding Officer on the constitutionality of the filibuster on judicial nominees. They're just asking for a ruling from the chair.

[Skink]

6. It's important to remember that they are not breaking the rules..

just changeing them so they can proceed with business. Just heard that on CSPAN from some thug from Wyoming. Delay couldn't have said it better.:wtf:

[Itsthetruth]

8. Still Need More Help On This

Can Senators begin a filibuster on some other issue at any time before Frist asks for a ruling thereby preventing Frist from making his request?

And, since the Senate under the Constitution clearly makes its own rules, how could Cheney rule any kind of filibusters are unconstitutional? The courts decide that, not Cheney.

I'm also wondering if some kinds of parliamentary "tricks" might be employed here such as a Senator invoking the usual "rules changes" to propose a Senate confirmation rules change which could not be passed.

[merwin]

10. The senate can declare it unconstitutional. The supreme court could

override that, however.

You could start a filibuster on another issue, but it would be pointless, as it would simply be delaying the inevitable, since they could just say "OK, you win this one" and then immediately hold the vote to declare the filibuster unconstitutional.

The majority party decides the direction the senate goes in. The democrats have very little say in this, and really can't introduce any legislation of their own without an OK from the republicans.

The only hope that the democrats would have if they do this is to stop the senate by making them vote on EVERYTHING (the 'unanimous consent' votes that they have 50 times a minute), as well as the reading of all proposed legislation, etc.

[Skink]

11. Actually reading the legislation up for consideration....

They could start by reviewing the Patriot act.

[Strawman]

12. Re: Still Need More Help On This

>>Can Senators begin a filibuster on some other issue at any time before Frist asks for a ruling thereby preventing Frist from making his request?

No. The chair must rule on the procedural issue.

>>And, since the Senate under the Constitution clearly makes its own rules, how could Cheney rule any kind of filibusters are unconstitutional? The courts decide that, not Cheney.

The courts could overturn it later on perhaps, but that is doubtful. They would probably consider it a political question best left to the Senate.

>>I'm also wondering if some kinds of parliamentary "tricks" might be employed here such as a Senator invoking the usual "rules changes" to propose a Senate confirmation rules change which could not be passed.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there are any easy tricks to prevent the vote from happening. What they can do is retaliate by tying the Senate in knots by refusing to give unanimous consent on mundane issues after the nuclear option is invoked.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. No. It will be a point of order, and those are not debatable