Filibuster Math: Dems Should Not Seat Gregg's Replacement (Until Franken is Seated First)

[BradBlog]

Filibuster Math: Dems Should Not Seat Gregg's Replacement (Until Franken is Seated First)
With only 98 Senators seated, the number needed to hold off GOP obstructionism drops to 59...

Presuming President Obama's nomination of NH's Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary will be confirmed by his fellow Senators, and presuming the Democratic Governor of NH keeps his backroom "deal" and appoints a Republican to fill Gregg's vacated seat, then Democrats in the Senate ought to take advantage of some filibuster math, and hold up the seating of that replacement until MN's Senate seat is properly filled.

As things stand now, while former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman is taking his sweet time in throwing everything he can think of against the wall to see what might stick, in hopes of winning his MN election contest against presumptive Senator-elect Al Franken, the Dems need two cross-over Republican votes, for a total of 60, to stymie any attempted GOP filibuster. (That math presumes that independent Senators Sanders and Lieberman both vote with the 56 currently-seated Dems, as they do on most matters.)

However, the Senate rule requiring a supermajority (three-fifths of the Senate) to shut down attempted fillibusters with a cloture vote, is based on the number of "Senators duly chosen and sworn" --- in other words, currently seated Senators.

With two seats vacant then, from MN and NH, after Gregg's departure, that would put the number of "duly chosen and sworn" Senators needed to stop a filibuster at just 59 (or, 58.8, to be precise, but since we're not allowed to count Lieberman as .8 of a human, the number needed for cloture would be 59)...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6880

[ThomWV]

1. Absolutly! No fucking Republican should be seated until Al Franken is sworn in

[Oregone]

2. The Dems should do a number of things

First of which involves building a time machine and bringing back the New Deal Democrats to kick their ass every night.

[Pryderi]

3. K&FUCKIN' R!

[Bucky]

4. A cozying thought, but really a bad idea

Franken will get seated soon enough. But what's holding him up is not the Senate Republicans. It's Minnesota's legal process for certifying an election. If Gregg's replacement is inauguration ready, she shouldn't have to wait. Tit for tat politics is the "childish ways" Obama talked about last month. It's time to govern, not pout.

[BradBlog]

5. I'll disagree. Here's why...

You are wrong in that it's not MN's legal process that's holding things up. If you haven't taken a look at what Coleman and the GOP have been pulling there of late, I'd urge you to read the links in the full article.

Yes, it may be "tit for tat politics", but what's going on in MN right now is appalling and, as I note in the full article, the Repubs wouldn't blink for a second before pulling of a similar maneuver. Evidence: the current court case in MN.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. I disagree and here's why ...

... I think Bucky's point about tit for tat politics (in post #4), but for more important other reason: we won we don't have to bargain with the losers. We've made them offers which they have shot down; if Gregg is qualified and gets confirmed fine.

But, the Franken thing is separate and will resolve itself in due time, we don't have to act like the GOP has more control over the situation than the voters of Minnesota.

[BradBlog]

7. Points well taken, however...

Your points are well taken (as are Bucky's), however, in regard to: "we don't have to act like the GOP has more control over the situation than the voters of Minnesota."

The fact is the GOP *does* have "more control over the situation than the voters of Minnesota", and they are abusing that control, as far as I'm concerned. As mentioned, read a coupla of the links posted within the original story. It's outrageous what they are doing, and it's clear, they plan on going as far as they can, and to be as abusive as they can, for as long as they can get away with it. Holding up seating of their own state's Senator in the process. And without shame.

Remember, I have been a *big* defender of Coleman's right to bring this lawsuit (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6791), and was highly critical of Reid when he was recently talking about "provisionally" seating Franken (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6835), so this isn't just an ill-considered, knee-jerk position I've taken on this matter.

Nonetheless, as mentioned, I appreciate where both you and Bucky are coming from.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. Minnesota is a different thing from the Commerce thing.

No need to connect them.

This works to divide the GOP in the eyes of the public.

They are a broken party grasping at any and every straw for attention and a desperate bid for any available seat.

We don't have to help them destroy themselves; they're doing fine all on their own.

[annabanana]

9. Makes sense to me.. . . . . . .n/t

[nichomachus]

10. It would just be easier not to confirm Gregg

That would send a clear message to Barry that the Congress is a separate entity and not his butt-boys.

[SalviaBlue]

11. k&r

[Jim Lane]

12. I disagree for two reasons -- one of principle, one practicality

First, as a matter of principle, it's just wrong to refuse to seat a fully qualified Senator because of an unrelated dispute over which that Senator has no control. Furthermore, it's no answer to say that the Republicans would do it, or that Norm Coleman is making weak and hypocritical arguments in Minnesota. Why should we base our conduct on what Norm Coleman does? When I pick my role models, I like to set my sights a little higher. Like, say, Gandhi.

Second, as a matter of practice, a failure to reach cloture doesn't kill the bill. It means the debate can go on. And on. And on. In the normal situation, of course, the bill is effectively dead, or will have to be significantly amended so as to induce someone to change his or her vote. This situation isn't normal, though. The Dems can be confident that, sooner or later, Franken will come riding over the hill to give them another vote.

Suppose that precisely one Republican votes in favor. (That's the situation you're implicitly addressing. In a 99-member Senate, cloture fails, but it would succeed if Gregg's successor weren't seated, and it would also succeed with both Gregg's successor and Franken seated.) In that case, one of the Dems, probably Reid, switches his vote to "No" so as to maintain the right to move for reconsideration of cloture. Then they sit back and let the debate go on. They expose the Republican obstructionism for all the world to see. Eventually, Franken shows up and the bill passes. That's better for us politically than passing it in a way that opens us up to charges of playing politics.

[xchrom]

13. why help the republick party repair the damage to itself? nt