Could the Dems filler-buster both Houses?

[stop the bleeding]

Meaning why can't they filler-buster the Palmate issue until the GOP wants this investigated.

Or better put bring both Houses to a screeching halt until this issue is the top issue.

Am I dreaming?

Sorry if I spelled Filler-buster wrong.


OK, OK we know now that the House of REP. is a No, but the Senate is a yes,

Would it be a viable option to use this tactic in the Senate so that the Plame/Iraq issue gets to the front and yes the GOP would call it a stunt - but I believe that the DEMS need to play any card possible right now

[Bill McBlueState]

1. no

there's no fillibuster in the House.

[stop the bleeding]

3. Would it be worth it for the Senate? n/t

[ananda]

2. I don't c y-knot.

nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Other than the fact that there is no such thing as a House filibuster...

[unblock]

4. there's no filibuster in the house per se

but there are a few delaying and obstructionist tactics, like submitting hundreds of bills for consideration.

however, the majority in the house can easily change the rules and/or refer everything to committee, etc., so there's not much effectiveness to it other than perhaps a one-day headline.

[meganmonkey]

5. I'd help writing the hundreds of bills

I already thought of one:

F*ck you, corrupt liars!!!

(does that count as a bill? :P )

[stop the bleeding]

7. What about the Senate? n/t

[Walt Starr]

6. Filibuster is a part of the Senate rules, not the House rules

The House could create a filibuster rule, but it would be sort of stupid.

The House is changed every two years. It becomes an entirely new body every other January 3rd, so new rules are adopted by every Congress' house of Representatives. This is why a filibuster rule in the House would be stupid. The filibuster rule empowers the minority and the majority in the House always sets the rules. So basically, if the majority creates a filibuster rule in the House, they will give power to the minority and that minority will simply do away with the filibuster rule the moment they gain teh majority.

It works differently in the Senate. The Senate is a continuing body. This means that the rules always stand from one Senate to the next as approximately two-thirds minimum of all Senators always return after elections. Thus, a supermajority is required to change Senate rules. Because parlimentary procedure can become long a tedious if all parties do not agree to dispense with many procedures, the minority of the Senate was empowered with the filibuster.

[Burning Water]

11. Correct me if I'm wrong, Walt.

It doesn't require a super majority to change the Senate rules. 51 votes would do it. They could do away with the filibuster for judges and leave it for bills.

Isn't this the essence of the Gang of 14 compromise and what gives the gang of 14 their power? You Dems vote for cloture on the filibuster these judges, and we Repukes won't have to change the rules on you?? Except for extraordinary circumstances which everybody gets to define for themselves??

[papau]

12. It does require a super majority to change rules in Senate, unless

chair rules that it does not.

The chair can be upheld by a simple majority.

This is the NUKE option re Suppreme Court Justices.

The Fillibuster will remain post nuke but will just not apply to nominations for a judgeship - because that is how the chair (the President pro-tem , also known as the VP) will rule

[Burning Water]

16. So basically

it does not require a super majority because the chair is NOT going to rule that it does? OK. A question of semantics. The Repukes can do whatever they want to and there's not a damn thing the Dems can do about it.

Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?

[Walt Starr]

15. You are wrong, it requires two-thirds of the Senate to change the rules

Under Rule XXII Precedence of Motions, 2/3rds of the Senate are required to change the rules:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.

<snip>

What the Republcians are proposing with the nuclear option is really against the rules. They are basically going to use Rule XX to try and get around it:

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate; and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.

2. The Presiding Officer may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate.

What will happen is a point of order will be raised under Rule XX that requiring the close of debate under Rule XXII where court appointments are concerned is unconsitutional. At that point, Dick Cheney will rule that the requirements to close debate under Rule XXII of the Senate Rules is unconstitutional. The quesiton will be raised by the Democrats, but all that is required to uphold this bogus (and potentially illegal) ruling is 51 votes in the Senate.

The precedent is chilling for a continuing body because the precise same methodology can be used by a slim majority at any time to change any rule, even though the Senate rules require a cloture vote of 67 Senators to change a rule.

[Burning Water]

17. Thanks for the info.

Now when you say "illegal", do you mean something like the theft of the 2000 election, where, although clearly rules were broken, the SC upheld it, stopped the vote, and installed *, who now commands the Armed Forces and appoints more SC justices?

Or do you something that somebody could go to jail for? It makes a tremendous difference in what subsequent steps should be taken to remove this illegitimate and evil regime.

[Walt Starr]

18. By that I mean, it does not follow the constitution

Under Article I, Section 5., Clause 2. of the consitution, each House sets its own rules.

In effect, the point of order will be changing a rule and rule XXII requires a two thirds majority for cloture of debate on the issue of changing rules. There is no specification within the Senate rules regarding the closing of debate regarding judicial nominees and legislation, ergo, the ruling from teh chair is blatantly false on its face.

so in effect, to change the rules the Republcians will be breaking the rules. This could result in a civil case against Cheney for the ruling because the parlimentarian, a non-partisan arbitor, has already stated you cannot get around Rule XXII with a point of order.

[Burning Water]

19. And yet,

according to the Constitution, each house sets its own rules. So the courts have no authority over what takes place in the houses, civil or criminal. Isn't that the way you read it?

[Walt Starr]

20. Actually, the quesiton of what happens if a house of Congress

does not follow its own rules has never been brought up to a court.

My suspicion is, should the nuclear option ever be invoked, it will go to court in a civil case.

[Burning Water]

21. You're prabably right.

But I would bet the court will decline to assume jurisdiction. Can't mess with Congress too much, they might not give judges a pay raise.

[Bill McBlueState]

22. good point

If the Bush administration has taught us anything about moral values, it's that there's two kinds of illegal. The kind you get in trouble for and the kind your wealthy associates can weasel you out of.

[Xenotime]

9. They should fill buster

the f'ed up rad right is just going to bitch. They think they know it all.

[stop the bleeding]

10. know one wants to handle my Senate question??????? n/t

[papau]

13. Answered above, I hope :-)

:-)

[underpants]

14. Not really needed the Plame case will be going on for months

Libby didn't want a speedy trial and they are now bogged down in security clearances for Libby's attorneys. This is going to stay in the news for a long time. At least until next summer.