Filibuster Wanking

20% would be against it because their party lost power

20% would be for it because their party gained power

10% would form a reasoned judgment based on the merits

50% would go with the crowd, and since we have no real public political discussion in our modern society, would have their opinions formed by the corporate media, who still break 80-20 in favor of the Republican party

"So all you need is Joe Biden (the chair) and 51 Democrats to support him and the filibuster is history."

The VP + 50 votes, not 51.

Also, it given the way things would play out this fall, it almost definitely wouldn't mean the end of the filibuster.

The VP + 50 votes technique is all that is necessary to bring any item of business to a normal majority vote. They wouldn't need to "declare the filibuster unconstitutional" to do so, (though they certainly could).

In 2006, the GOP wanted to bring judicial nominations only to a normal majority vote without declaring the filibuster unconstitutional.

And in 2009, this technique would only be used to determine the scope of what falls within reconciliation rules. The VP + 50 would overrule the parliamentarian on a technicality, but wouldn't "declare the filibuster unconstitutional".

Also, in the mid-1970's, it was this precise technique that led to the adoption Byrd 3/5 rule without the abolition of cloture.

Which leads to:

"At that point, either the Senate chair rams through rule changes that eliminate the various ways individual senators can halt business, or else it becomes a pure public relations battle. So who would win?"

After the Senate passed healthcare reform by using the VP + 50 to declare it within reconciliation rules, the GOP would have a 24 to 48 hour Senate temper tantrum.

But it's really important to understand how the endgame would play out. If the GOP tried to extend their temper tantrum past a reasonable amount of time, then Reid would have no choice but to move to regular order. The GOP knows this, and the GOP most certainly doesn't want regular order. So the GOP would have a 24 to 48 hour temper tantrum to show their constituents that they know how to fight, and then they'd back down to allow the current Senate rules to remain in place.

The GOP knows they have the most to lose in pursuing the tantrum to the point that regular order would permanently replace the current Senate rules.

-----

In short, while the filibuster could certainly be abolished via this technique, it's crucial to understand that the Byrd 3/5 rule can be overcome on a single measure via this technique, while leaving the status quo ante in place after a brief display of messiness.

Abolishing the filibuster would be great, but simply showing folks who don't read Senate history that the Byrd 3/5 rule can be overcome on an ad hoc basis would also have significant value. Not only would we get a genuinely good healthcare bill signed into law, but all the idiots who claim that 60 votes is an ironclad rule in the Senate would disappear back into the woodwork for another thirty years.

Also, did I mention that we would get a genuinely good healthcare bill signed into law?

"Yes, I know this isn't in the cards or anything."

The cards for October have yet to be shown.

The WH would obviously prefer not to go down this road, but if progressives in the House are willing to commit to scuttling a bad bill, they can force the WH's hand into going down this precise road.

This can't be presented to the Senate as a partisan issue, no one would vote to preserve the prerogatives of Senators more than someone like Bob Byrd or Ted Kennedy. If the Obama administration wanted to change the rule - possibly run on a platform promising to abolish the filibuster as part of their 2012 campaign - it would have to be presented in a way to appeal to some Repubs as well.

Who would win?

Kevin, when was the last time in the past 30 years that Democrats managed to get their message even out, let alone become the standard script.

That you could even pose the question means you haven't been reading your Daily Howler.

Warning: You're fighting the ghost of Jimmy Stewart.....

There's nothing democratic (small 'd', please note) about the United States Senate, almost by definition.

It gives less states a disproprotionately large influence on the way this country is governed. Decades ago, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional similar schemes in state governance but because this anachronistic and antidemocratic institution is written into the Constitution, we're stuck with obstructionism and overrepresentation of fringe views.

While it is necessary to protect minorities of all sorts from the tyrrany of a rampant majority, the Senate isn't the way to do it.

"Can't the Senate change any of its rules by simple majority vote? Why can't 51 Senators decide to modify Rule 22?"

The VP + 50 Senators can indeed modify or abolish rule 22. However, there likely aren't 50 Senators at the moment who want to simply do that for reasons that would take multiple paragraphs to explain.

However, there is a practical solution. We could have a situation this October where the VP + 50 will act against rule 22 in a single isolated instance without permanently modifying or repealing it.

This wouldn't destroy rule 22, however, it would fundamentally weaken it. Future Senates would have it made clear to them that rule 22 is made out of balsa wood, not iron. Future Senates would understand that the Byrd 3/5 contraption is not something that can routinely stop legislation with majority support.

Plus, we'd get a genuinely good healthcare bill to boot.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION TO CHANGE
SENATE RULES AND PROCEDURES:
A MAJORITARIAN MEANS TO OVER
COME THE FILIBUSTER

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy v.28 p. 205

This really is something that should at least be thought about, at least discussed.

If we could get, perhaps with full pressure from Obama and the party, 51 Democrats to support this, I think it would probably be for the great good of the country, not just for healthcare, but far into the future.

Here is what I think is an important point:

What is the biggest reason the Democrats don't employ the nuclear option – full bore, and strike down the filibuster as unconstitutional by ruling from the chair, as well as all retaliatory parliamentary obstructing measures?

It may be that the Democrats are worried that in a fair, majority rules Senate, then if sometime in the future the Republicans don't self destruct, and retake over 50 seats, they will be able to turn the tables and steamroll through what they want.

Why is this far less of a worry than it seems, and worth countenancing?

Because the things the Democrats want to push through, like universal health care, much better student aid (How about universal free four-year college. The amount of free public schooling has been stuck at high school for over 100 years, while the amount of education necessary to be highly productive has skyrocketed in that time), etc., are things that once the public actually experiences them, and sees how false the Republican propaganda was, they are wildly popular, and the Republicans would never dare get rid of them – even though they fought them tooth and nail before they were enacted, like Medicare, old age Social Security, unemployment insurance, and the whole New Deal.

By contrast, the things the Republicans would push through in a majoritarian Senate are things that they lie about and say will be great, mythical, but will actually do great harm, and once people experience this first hand, they will not last long. The Republicans will be voted out, and these things will be overturned.

So, over time we will get much more, and much faster, positive change from a fair majority rules Senate (no suffering generations as the only advanced country without universal healthcare), and these positive advances will never be able to be taken away once the public experiences firsthand how much better life is with them. But, by contrast, the negative done by the Republicans won't last very long. It won't because people will quickly see firsthand that the propaganda was false – that this only helped the very rich and hurt everyone else. Then, the Republicans will quickly be voted out of control of the Senate, and the harm will be reversed – and lessons will be learned on top of that, lies and misleading will be exposed.

As you know, Kevin, what you are describing is the "nuclear option," which you and virtually every one of your posters decried bitterly when Bill Frist threatened to do it in relation to Bush judicial nominees. But now that Democrats are in charge, it's OK, I guess. It really is "my team is always right" regardless. Exactly like the Bush apologists. How embarassing.

watcehs

a.Lange & sohne watches

Audemars Piguet watches

Bell & Ross watches

Breguet watches

Breitling watches

Burberry watches

Bvlgari watches

Cartier watches

chopard watches

Concord watches

croum watches

DeWitt watches

ebel watches

Ferrari watches

Franck Muller watches

Glashutte watches

Graham watches

Hermes watches

Hublot watches

IWC watches

Jaquet droz watches

Lady Watch watches

Longines watches

Louis Vuitton watches

Maurice Lacroix watches

Montblanc watches

movado watches