Time for the Nookyular Option

The mass psychosis that has gripped the Republican Party continues unabated.  Not content with having turned supreme leadership over to Rush Limbaugh, the Politico reports that all 41 Republican Senators have signed on to a letter demanding that Obama nominate rejected Bush judicial appointees to the federal bench as a signal of changing the tone in Washington (!) and consult in advance (and obtain approval it would seem) with Republicans about nominees from their respective states or they will filibuster his judicial appointees.  (For someone reason I am unable to link.)

I say bring it on.  Then Harry Reid and company can begin the process of killing the filibuster once and for all and the Republicans can be reduced to the utter irrelevance that they so richly deserve.   

Note: here's the link.  Still trying to figure out what happened. -Stephen

Comments

[oddjob]

Can you imagine the shrieking that would have ensued had the Senate Democrats done that regarding the Clinton judicial nominations that were stuffed?

[Sir Charles]

Unimaginable.

[MR Bill]

I'm trying to see a downside of "no filibuster" or at least, making the Minority party actually show up and do the hard work of gumming up the wheels of Congress. As opposed to saying "Kings X! You can't bring this to a vote" or whatever idiocy happens that allows for the Filibuster Lite...
Is Robert Byrd too far gone to make some procedural suggestions for stopping the Limbaugh Party?
We need to get a RICO prosecution of the Federalist Society as far as I am concerned. For Prostitution, if nothing else.

[kathy a.]

well. bless their little hearts.

[ari]

Hey, Charles, can you post the url to the politico story down here in the comments. I can't seem to find it at their site, and I'd like to write something about it.

kthxbai.

[Sir Charles]

ari,

Thers has the link (and a post) over at Whiskeyfire -- conveniently located just on the left there among our Blogroll links. I am sorry about the lack of the link -- I just couldn't get Typepad to accept it for reasons beyond my limited knowledge of the technology.

Go get 'em.

[Sir Charles]

It's under the heading "Muchos Huevos" which really doesn't need translating.

[Stephen]

I don't think we're actually discussing the filibuster. We're talking instead about this thing called a "filibuster" which is a new rule, to wit: Democrats need 60 votes to pass all legislation in the Senate. Repubicans need 51 (or 50 + the VP).

The filibuster, on the other hand, is when the minority party decides that something the majority wants to do is so egregiously wrong that they will bring the Senate to a complete standstill, allowing no work to be done at all while members of the minority engage in marathon speaking sessions, even peeing their pants if necessary. The filibuster is a great way to draw attention to what's happening in the Senate that's usually given little attention by the nation at large. Of course, the filibuster can backfire on the minority party if they've misread the national mood and are blocking popular legislation.

But that's all beside the point, because the filibuster has not been employed for quite some time now. This is because Harry Reid doesn't give a shit about your or me or anyone else who isn't a millionaire, has "Sen." before his name, or both.

[Toast]

Harry Reid is about a ball and a half short (or ovary and a half, if you prefer) of what it would take to invoke the nuclear option.

[ari]

Thanks, guys. I'm in the midst of a long history-of-the-filibuster post. And while it's likely that it's too crappy to see the light of day, it's possible that I might be able to salvage it.

[nimh]

I was thinking all the things you guys are saying too. But according to this post we are misunderstanding how easy it would be for the Republicans to maintain a "proper" filibuster even when forced, and how much larger a burden it would place on the Democratic caucus in the Senate:

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time." [..]

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

And cloture requires 60 votes. Democrats, short of Minnesota's Al Franken, have 58. [..]

Since Thurmond, says Dove, the only time the majority tried to jam a bill through the Senate without having 60 votes ahead of time ended in failure.

Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, was majority leader in 1988, when Democrats controlled 54 seats and wanted to push through campaign finance reform.

But Republican minority leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming was easily able to block it by sitting on the Senate floor and occasionally noting the absence of a quorum, thwarting a vote.

"Alan Simpson basically guarded the floor and the other Republicans simply went home," says Dove.

[Sir Charles]

nimh is correct.

There is no way under the existing rule to require the Republicans to talk to filibuster. It is not a reflection of Harry Reid's lack of balls, it is the way that the rules work.

Because of the grotesque abuse of the filibuster described by Stephen I think it is more essential than ever that the Senate consider modifying the cloture rule to require only 55 votes.

[ari]

I think it is more essential than ever that the Senate consider modifying the cloture rule to require only 55 votes.

If you don't mind my asking (not baiting, mind you, but asking, as in, for the sake of discussion) what did you think of this option two and three years ago?

[MR Bill]

I think one of Krugman's commenters ("Jonnan")nailed it yesterday:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/regime-change/#comment-138795

"This whole filibuster mess would be easier if the Demorats had had the chutzpah to stand tehir ground on Judicial nominees four years ago and either

A) Forced the GOP to use their ‘nuclear option’ and kill the filibuster, with all that entails, or

B) *Successfully* stood their ground and filibustered the Judicial throwbacks Bush installed.

As it is, they ‘protected’ a filibuster they were scared to use themselves, don’t force the GOP to filibuster good legislation and be held accountable, and so have successfully made the media standard50 votes for passing conservative legislation , but 60 votes for passing progressive legislation."

[Sir Charles]

ari,

I was in favor of it, because historically the filibuster has been used time and again to thwart progressive legislation. I was willing to take my chances on its elimination in the hope that we would get a crack at governing sooner rather than later. For whatever reason, people on the left are far less comfortable using the filibuster to obstruct than those on the right. So it didn't strike me as a huge loss or risk.

[big bad wolf]

on the subject of it requiring only a single senator to tie things up, does the senate still honor blue slip hold placed by a single senator?

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

I believe it does. I think Menendez is doing this right now on a couple of appointees to preemptively protest any relaxation on the Cuba boycott.

[big bad wolf]

SC, i saw that story after i posted the comment. i was thinking about aschcroft and ronnie white and phil gramm and a couple of texas possiblities. if they honor holds, then the filibuster, however considerable its demerits, is not the sole problem. at least a filibuster is supposed to be public and thus senators could be held accountable; holds rarely are public and administrators and judges are rarely of sufficient public interest to be an election issue, though the aggregate effect of preventing
Democratic appointees from taking office can be critical.

[oddjob]

Isn't the blue slip about appointees from your own state? I think the confirmations Menendez is holding up aren't from New Jersey. I think what he's doing has to do with a committee he chairs?

I know I read Menendez is holding up Jane Lubchenco's confirmation to head NOAA, and I believe she's still living in Oregon (where she's been a marine biologist for decades).

[Sir Charles]

Oddjob,

You're right. I wasn't thinking clearly about the "blue slip" aspect of the hold.

Here is a link about the blue slip holds and their possible impact in the Fourth Circuit, where Obama has the opportunity to substantially change what has historically been the most conservative appellate court in America (although one that I am 2 for 2 in as a lawyer).

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/02/uncertain-blue-slip-policy-could-affect-4th-circuit.html